The Narrow Path Ministries

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010 ... calvinism/

I enjoyed this one. James and Micheal were really respectful and did a good job.

Yes, I listened to it. It was excellent. Take notes while listening, because Michael Brown covers lots of scriptures in a short time.

I will have to listen to this. I love to listen to Mike Brown preach; I didn't even know he had any interest in debating calvinism. I have heard many many of his sermons and I dont think i have ever heard him mention it.

TK

Have you listened to James White's post-debate commentary?

lee wrote:Have you listened to James White's post-debate commentary?

I had a response, but the Spirit showed me an escape just before I submitted it and so I deleted it.

darinhouston wrote:

lee wrote:Have you listened to James White's post-debate commentary?

I had a response, but the Spirit showed me an escape just before I submitted it and so I deleted it.

lee wrote:Have you listened to James White's post-debate commentary?

Where might this be found?

I've listened to the discussion on John 6. I was trying to pay close attention to it, as I felt after Steve Gregg's debate that White is a master at winning debates - though for the wrong reasons. Here are my observations:

White likes to use up and waste the questioner's question time. He stated the same answer at least twice in one segment, and I think left the questioner feeling frustrated, since he took up the whole time answering what should have been pretty straight forward, and I'm not sure he even answered the question.

The crux of his argument is that we should only use the immediate context. I thought this was very revealing. He justified this by referring to it as 'exegesis', but I think it's dangerous to take passages in isolation from others (indeed, Calvinists often accuse others of not seeing the wider context of Scripture when one shows them 'the verse' which contradicts an element of their teaching). Brown rightly wanted to put expressions in their context, but White insisted that the usage of the same words in the same book by the same author could not be used to illuminate the passage.

In short, White shows how his view is consistent with the passage, but he doesn't show that it is the necessary interpretation of it, nor that Brown's is necessarily inconsistent with it. Brown shows that his view is consistent, not only with the passage, but with the wider context of John.

So does the immediate context only support White? Well, if it did, he would have a justifiable point. But the immediate context could theoretically be understood according to White's view, or according to Brown's. The giving could be the arbitrary and absolute giving of predestination, or it could be the bestowal upon the of Israel's faithful remnant by the Father. So White really had no place assuming that the immediate context supported only his view, while Brown had to go elsewhere. He never accepted or conceded that Brown's view was a possible and consistent interpretation of the passage.

White is very, very good at 'winning' (or appearing to win), and he possibly even 'won' this section of the debate, at least in the eyes of his followers. I would insist upon a very skilled and neutral moderator were I ever to debate someone like that, but even then, how can you prevent someone taking up your entire question period by waffling?

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.

Nice comments Apollos.