Really good audio debate..

[brody196]

Is it just my skewed perception, or does Dr. White sound nervous whenever he debates on Calvinism? I am trying to figure out what it is about his presentations that I find unpleasant. It certainly isn't his subject matter, since I do not find all Calvinists irritating—for example, when I debated guys like Doug Wilson and Matt Slick, I thought they seemed very human (a good thing) and they seemed interested in understanding my arguments and responding as responsibly as they knew how. I enjoyed those debates—in fact, I was the one who sounded nervous, to my own ears, in the first debate with Wilson (perhaps because 575 of the 600 present were his own congregation). If Dr. White is just nervous, then I don't suppose that can be helped. I would be nervous, too, if I were assigned to defend from scripture the Calvinist points—especially if I was known to be one who loudly insists that good exegesis needs to be done.

You're dead on it Steve. I have listened to many of James Whites debates and have the same perception you do.

[steve7150]

I thought a couple of times at least, Brown seemed on the verge of stumbling and in an instant he whips out scripture and reason and context and explanations in rapid fire. White claimed he could do the same thing if he chose to but he never really chose to, so perhaps he knew better than to go toe to toe.

[darinhouston]

Is it just my skewed perception, or does Dr. White sound nervous whenever he debates on Calvinism? I am trying to figure out what it is about his presentations that I find unpleasant. It certainly isn't his subject matter, since I do not find all Calvinists irritating—for example, when I debated guys like Doug Wilson and Matt Slick, I thought they seemed very human (a good thing) and they seemed interested in understanding my arguments and responding as responsibly as they knew how. I enjoyed those debates—in fact, I was the one who sounded nervous, to my own ears, in the first debate with Wilson (perhaps because 575 of the 600 present were his own congregation). If Dr. White is just nervous, then I don't suppose that can be helped. I would be nervous, too, if I were assigned to defend from scripture the Calvinist points—especially if I was known to be one who loudly insists that good exegesis needs to be done.

I think he is very good at a particular format he's developed, and when it doesn't work so well he's just a bit out of his league. It is particularly obvious when he's debating someone "normal," but when he has someone (like Brown) who is an expert in ancient languages, his appeal to authority as a "scholar" and his ability to rattle off arcane grammar and constructions that many are unfamiliar with don't really work.

The other problem I see is that he has (in my opinion) a flawed approach to debate -- he is very skillful in the art and sport of debate, but I get the impression he is more interested in "winning" the debate than in using it to understand and clarify and refine and highlight weaknesses in one's own argument. Debate to me is not about "convincing" or "winning" but in testing and proving for one's self (which can also be edifying to those who observe if done rightly).

He is particularly adept at timing and structure -- as pointed out elsewhere, with Brown he would go on and on avoiding the key issue in Brown's question and when Brown gets him back to it he says "oops, oh well -- time up." That must make one nervous.

[lee]

I think all of your comments are pretty accurate. I don't think, however, that White's aim is to "win" a debate, look good, or some other superficial goal. After having listened to him for quite some time, he really is both a thoughtful and aggressive debater/apologist. If he just cared about winning or looking good for his reformed friends, he wouldn't spend hundreds of hours preparing for his debates. On the other hand, I do feel similar about how he deals with 1) reformed debates, and 2) being backed into a corner or proven inadequate or wrong in some area. In regards to his 1) reformed debates, he sounds much more hostile, aggressive, and defensive than he does in his other debates. In regards to his 2) being proven wrong, he always tries to flip it back on the person/questioner like he/she is somehow wrong. If you listen to his debates, you'll hear at crucial yes/no moments, he turns to several sentences of explanation and doesn't give the yes or no. It's like a broken helicopter spinning round and round before it crashes.

[darinhouston]

Another thing I've picked up from his post-debate criticisms is he clearly seems to value the form of the debate over the dialectic value -- he is quite irritated and sarcastic when someone doesn't want to play the point debate system and prefers to have structured dialogue -- the timer is definitely his friend.

I do prefer his Catholic debates, but (by way of confession) perhaps that is because I agree with his positions and like to see him "win" to drop the confidence of the Catholic apologist a notch. He's pretty good at embarassing those who are clearly wrong, which I have to confess I enjoy sometimes.

[Apollos]

I think all of your comments are pretty accurate. I don't think, however, that White's aim is to "win" a debate, look good, or some other superficial goal. After having listened to him for quite some time, he really is both a thoughtful and aggressive debater/apologist. If he just cared about winning or looking good for his reformed friends, he wouldn't spend hundreds of hours preparing for his debates. On the other hand, I do feel similar about how he deals with 1) reformed debates, and 2) being backed into a corner or proven inadequate or wrong in some area. In regards to his 1) reformed debates, he sounds much more hostile, aggressive, and defensive than he does in his other debates. In regards to his 2) being proven wrong, he always tries to flip it back on the person/questioner like he/she is somehow wrong. If you listen to his debates, you'll hear at crucial yes/no moments, he turns to several sentences of explanation and doesn't give the yes or no. It's like a broken helicopter spinning round and round before it crashes.

Thanks for your comments. Until now, I've only heard him debate Gregg, and quite frankly it left such a sour taste in my mouth I've had little interest in listening to any more. He clearly doesn't have the same standards of what constitutes Christian behavior as I have, and so I leave him to it. I found his mannerisms loud, boastful, sarcastic, and generally lacking in grace. In light of your comments, perhaps I will listen to some of his other material. I note, however, even in the Brown debate, that he doesn't concede points that I think need to be conceded - such as that Brown's interpretation of Jn 6 is perfectly consistent with the passage. I find him quite irresponsible in his use of 'the Greek' also, and it doesn't help bolster my impression of him that he goes by 'Dr' White, when in fact he doesn't have a PhD from a reputable university, or one that even has a campus. I hesitate in sharing this as I've done, but I'm not sure sweeping these issues under the rug is helpful either. I'll delete or edit this if people feel I've crossed the line.

[steve]

I have not looked at Dr White's credentials, but I have heard that his degree is from Columbia Evangelical Seminary. This institution was originally Faraston Theological Seminary, founded by Ric (Josh) Walston. It is a mentor-based (rather than classroom-based) institution.

Back in the 90s, Dr. Walston looked me up and visited me in my home in Oregon, inviting me to become involved as a mentor for the seminary. Since I have no degree, he suggested that, based upon my years of work at The Great Commission School, I could get a graduate degree from Faraston with a minimum of additional course work (about one year), and then I could be one of their mentors. I did not choose to go that route, since I have no interest in degrees and titles. Even if I had a graduate degree, it would seem embarrassing to add letters after my name, as if that conferred some kind of authority.

A description of this seminary and a discussion of Dr. White's degrees can be seen at this (apparently pro-Mormon) site: http://www.shields-research.org/Novak/james.htm

Of course, whether James White has a respectable degree or not is irrelevant to the validity of his arguments. A debate should not be judged on the basis of the participants educational credentials, but on the validity of the arguments they present. It just seems that Dr. White would more likely be judged by the merits of his case (if he wished for this to be the case), were he to drop the controversial emphasis on his doctorate.

[steve7150]

I just listened to Brown debate Bart Ehrman and it was outstanding even amazing as both guys were as good as they could be for their side.
You can find it by googling it, well worth listening to.

[brody196]

I have not looked at Dr White's credentials, but I have heard that his degree is from Columbia Evangelical Seminary. This institution was originally Faraston Theological Seminary, founded by Ric (Josh) Walston. It is a mentor-based (rather than classroom-based) institution.

Back in the 90s, Dr. Walston looked me up and visited me in my home in Oregon, inviting me to become involved as a mentor for the seminary. Since I have no degree, he suggested that, based upon my years of work at The Great Commission School, I could get a graduate degree from Faraston with a minimum of additional course work (about one year), and then I could be one of their mentors. I did not choose to go that route, since I have no interest in degrees and titles. Even if I had a graduate degree, it would seem embarrassing to add letters after my name, as if that conferred some kind of authority.

A description of this seminary and a discussion of Dr. White's degrees can be seen at this (apparently pro-Mormon) site: http://www.shields-research.org/Novak/james.htm

Of course, whether James White has a respectable degree or not is irrelevant to the validity of his arguments. A debate should not be judged on the basis of the participants educational credentials, but on the validity of the arguments they present. It just seems that Dr. White would more likely be judged by the merits of his case (if he wished for this to be the case), were he to drop the controversial emphasis on his doctorate.

That's another huge issue for me(Mail order "Dr." degree's)...

I have not brought it up here for fear that someone would consider that I was just being mean or hateful towards James. When I found out about his credentials(few years back), red flags were immediately thrown up in my mind. I have always wondered why James would do the "mail order" degree thing and think that anybody would take his "Doctorate" seriously. He had to have known that folks would look into it and find out the truth.

I agree with you Steve when you say that a degree is not relevant to the validity of someones argument, but in the case of Christian apologists, I think we should have the highest degree of integrity possible. Getting a degree through the mail in order to add the title "Dr." to your name seems highly suspect to me and is certainly not going to help your apologetics.

[lee]

I think it would be only fair to post the relevant material James himself has produced in regards to his degree:

http://vintage.aomin.org/CrEd.html
http://vintage.aomin.org/CrEd2.html

I surely don't understand why a doctoral degree would be pursued at all if it isn't necessary for the field of practice (medicine, university teaching) and it wouldn't be accepted by any institution anyway. It's like throwing your money down the toilet, especially when all of the same research and study can be done at the library or online. I think it would really damage his career at this point to drop the Dr. And why would a Christian insist upon the use of such a title when Jesus forbids that type of language amongst brothers?