Oh if only Dr. White could have been so fair. Thank you CThomasCThomas wrote:I just pulled up, literally at random, the first debate I came across on my computer and listened to the beginning of Dr. White's cross-examination of Tim Staples. I transcribe that beginning verbatim. This occurs, for anyone interested at 15:05 in the fourth sound file of the Staples debate, as purchased from the Alpha and Omega Ministries web site:
Dr. White: Let me ask you a few questions. Mr. Staples, does Pope Agatho use the name Honorius in his letter, yes or no?
Mr. Staples: He says, can I quote him?
Dr. White: You just did. Can you answer the quetsion yes or no. Does Pope Agatho make reference to Honorius in his letter to the sixth ecumenical council? Yes or no?
Mr. Staples: No, he says the bishop of Rome and, uh . . .
Dr. White: So the answer is no sir?
Mr. Staples: . . . [unintelligible] the apostolic pontiff and my predecessors. That means . . .
Dr. White: Does he say, okay thank you.
Mr. Staples: . . . he does include . . .
Dr. White: Okay, may I continue?
Mr. Staples: Mr. White, you can't . . .
Dr. White: May I continue, sir? Did the sixth ecumenical council write to Pope Agatho and say the following words, "[quotation of epistle omitted]." Did the council say that?
The cross-examination goes on in a similar vein. I post this because Dr. White plainly recognized the validity of pressing for a yes or no question on a narrow point even if the other side has a broader answer regarding its implications. And I cheered Dr. White in that debate. Sometimes yes or no answers are called for. But to read Dr. White now decry demanding "yes or no" questions as mudwrestling saddens me. Yes, Dr. White said that Mr. Gregg was smuggling in hidden assumptions, but all Mr. Gregg asked was whether Romans 1 expressly included everyone by its terms or whether you need to use the broader context of Romans 1-3 to infer that. No unfair assumptions smuggled in at all. I'm sorry, this whole exchange is simply sad, and I say that as an admirer of Dr. White, and one who has defended him against charges of mean-spiritedness in the past.
Best regards,
CThomas
My impressions of the debate in progress
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Did I actually hear Dr. White call the relationship between the Lord and his followers "reciprocal" (as in synergistic)? I thought it was all God and not us.
Ad hominem attacks again, stating that Robert Shank is a "horrible resource" and, by implication, that anyone who believes as Shank does must also be misguided.
WRT Acts 13:48 I have seen Calvinist adherents themselves state that this is not a verse they think can be used to make their case. But others insist on using it. Who should we believe?
The line of reasoning by Dr. White which talked about Christ's payment for sins of the elect vs. the sins of all mankind and asking the rhetorical question about people being punished for something for which Christ has already suffered. i.e. His sacrifice "was not efficacious for them" and "punishment is being meted out twice for the same crimes" (my paraphrase, not White's exact words). But are nonbelievers consigned to Hell for their sins or for not having faith in Christ? He sees the payment by Christ for sin in a purely quantitative fashion, not as the sinless Lamb who was "an acceptable sacrifice", whose spotlessness is what made it acceptable.
I would be interested on a brief discussion of Philippians 1:29, which James White mentioned in his last segment and to which Steve didn't/hasn't had a chance to respond.
Jess
Ad hominem attacks again, stating that Robert Shank is a "horrible resource" and, by implication, that anyone who believes as Shank does must also be misguided.
WRT Acts 13:48 I have seen Calvinist adherents themselves state that this is not a verse they think can be used to make their case. But others insist on using it. Who should we believe?
The line of reasoning by Dr. White which talked about Christ's payment for sins of the elect vs. the sins of all mankind and asking the rhetorical question about people being punished for something for which Christ has already suffered. i.e. His sacrifice "was not efficacious for them" and "punishment is being meted out twice for the same crimes" (my paraphrase, not White's exact words). But are nonbelievers consigned to Hell for their sins or for not having faith in Christ? He sees the payment by Christ for sin in a purely quantitative fashion, not as the sinless Lamb who was "an acceptable sacrifice", whose spotlessness is what made it acceptable.
I would be interested on a brief discussion of Philippians 1:29, which James White mentioned in his last segment and to which Steve didn't/hasn't had a chance to respond.
Jess
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_PAULESPINO
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53 pm
By the way I just want to pop in and say hi to all !!!
Steve good Job!!!!!!!!!!!!
Everyday I get more and more convinced that non Calvinist is the way to go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Steve good Job!!!!!!!!!!!!
Everyday I get more and more convinced that non Calvinist is the way to go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Philippians 1:29 says, "For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake." This is taken by Calvinists to say that faith is a gift of God.
Dr. White, at the end of the third debate Monday, in the process of trying to bolster his assertion that Acts 13:48 teaches Calvinism, made two significant errors (which I had considered calling him on, but I didn't want to be nit-picky). First, he misquoted the line from Acts 13:48 as "as many as were appointed to faith" (instead of "appointed to eternal life"), and second, he misquoted Philippians 1:29, reading the word "appointed" in place of "granted." Talk about eisegesis!
Now I felt it would be uncharitable to jump on these mistakes, because I did not wish to embarrass him. If it were coming from a person of less familiarity with the material, I would think nothing of the mistake. But Dr. White has no doubt quoted these verses more often than he can count, which makes the error seem somewhat more inexcusable.
The word "granted," in Phil.1:29, is not the same word as tasso ("appointed" in Acts 13:48). It is the word charizomai, which is well translated as "grant." It is to show a favor or kindness.
To the Calvinist, the idea is taken from this verse that faith is simply a gift. This is an important concept to them, because they intend by it that no man can believe unless given a special gift of faith at regeneration. It is an important concept, and, if true, would be good to have stated in unambiguous terms in scripture (not in merely the standard ambiguous text, like Eph.2:8-9).
The most serviceable text, outside of Eph.2:8-9 to establish this "faith is a gift" claim is Philippians 1:29. But does the word "grant" carry this much doctrinal baggage? Of course, we can speak of a gift as something "granted"—but we can also speak of the granting of a favor or a privilege.
In my opinion, Paul is saying that the Philippians have not only been granted the privilege of believing the gospel, but of enduring the suffering that comes with it. Both, believing and suffering for Christ, are privileges.
I certainly would agree with that statement, and have never found it to challenge anything I have ever believed. Not all people have had the privilege of hearing the gospel. "Faith comes by hearing," but hearing is a privilege some have experienced and others have not. God had directly decreed that the Philippians would have this privilege of hearing, because, when Paul and his companions, on their second missionary journey, were casting about for some indication of God's will for their itinerary, one of them had a dream telling them to go to Macedonia, of which Philippi was the foremost city, and the first city where they ministered (Acts 16:6-12).
It is clear that, had Paul's team taken one of their other planned routes, the Philippians might not have heard the gospel for another generation. God specifically granted these readers the privilege of becoming believers, by sending the gospel to them.
There is another aspect to this that Paul may also intend. One of the Philippian Christians, Lyddia, had been of the faithful Jewish remnant, and was among the first converts there. We are specifically told that God opened her heart to heed what Paul preached (Acts 16:14). No doubt other of the faithful Jews and God-fearers in that town had the same experience of God opening their hearts. For those, like Lyddia, who were looking for the Messiah, having Paul come to her town was indeed a great favor from God—in view of how many similar faithful Jews there must have been in many of the towns that Paul never visited.
Dr. White, at the end of the third debate Monday, in the process of trying to bolster his assertion that Acts 13:48 teaches Calvinism, made two significant errors (which I had considered calling him on, but I didn't want to be nit-picky). First, he misquoted the line from Acts 13:48 as "as many as were appointed to faith" (instead of "appointed to eternal life"), and second, he misquoted Philippians 1:29, reading the word "appointed" in place of "granted." Talk about eisegesis!
Now I felt it would be uncharitable to jump on these mistakes, because I did not wish to embarrass him. If it were coming from a person of less familiarity with the material, I would think nothing of the mistake. But Dr. White has no doubt quoted these verses more often than he can count, which makes the error seem somewhat more inexcusable.
The word "granted," in Phil.1:29, is not the same word as tasso ("appointed" in Acts 13:48). It is the word charizomai, which is well translated as "grant." It is to show a favor or kindness.
To the Calvinist, the idea is taken from this verse that faith is simply a gift. This is an important concept to them, because they intend by it that no man can believe unless given a special gift of faith at regeneration. It is an important concept, and, if true, would be good to have stated in unambiguous terms in scripture (not in merely the standard ambiguous text, like Eph.2:8-9).
The most serviceable text, outside of Eph.2:8-9 to establish this "faith is a gift" claim is Philippians 1:29. But does the word "grant" carry this much doctrinal baggage? Of course, we can speak of a gift as something "granted"—but we can also speak of the granting of a favor or a privilege.
In my opinion, Paul is saying that the Philippians have not only been granted the privilege of believing the gospel, but of enduring the suffering that comes with it. Both, believing and suffering for Christ, are privileges.
I certainly would agree with that statement, and have never found it to challenge anything I have ever believed. Not all people have had the privilege of hearing the gospel. "Faith comes by hearing," but hearing is a privilege some have experienced and others have not. God had directly decreed that the Philippians would have this privilege of hearing, because, when Paul and his companions, on their second missionary journey, were casting about for some indication of God's will for their itinerary, one of them had a dream telling them to go to Macedonia, of which Philippi was the foremost city, and the first city where they ministered (Acts 16:6-12).
It is clear that, had Paul's team taken one of their other planned routes, the Philippians might not have heard the gospel for another generation. God specifically granted these readers the privilege of becoming believers, by sending the gospel to them.
There is another aspect to this that Paul may also intend. One of the Philippian Christians, Lyddia, had been of the faithful Jewish remnant, and was among the first converts there. We are specifically told that God opened her heart to heed what Paul preached (Acts 16:14). No doubt other of the faithful Jews and God-fearers in that town had the same experience of God opening their hearts. For those, like Lyddia, who were looking for the Messiah, having Paul come to her town was indeed a great favor from God—in view of how many similar faithful Jews there must have been in many of the towns that Paul never visited.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Troy has pointed out to me that I wrote on Philippians 1:29 more at length some time ago at the following thread:
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=225&start=0
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=225&start=0
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Was the format agreed to by both parties in advance? Did they then upon agreement adjust the time period to 12 minute intervals in advance? Was there ever any ground rules for the exchange of yes/no type questions?Rick_C wrote:Till today I thought the debate has been civil and pretty good overall, considering the time limitation, and so on.
However, Session 4 revealed that James White is not interested in an open exchange of ideas. His refusal to answer Steve's questions succinctly showed he wants to be in total control of the debate criteria, which has been a chief characteristic of Calvinists in debate. This is nothing new, yet remains an ongoing fact.
James made a comment about how he wants a "high level" dialog, which came across as his flaunting his formal education at Steve. While formal theological credentials can equip one to engage in theology; if one refuses to participate, the credentials don't mean anything, imo, (and I'm speaking as one who has had formal theological education).
Steve attempted get into high level dialog and James' "Are you talking to me?" was not only a low level comment, but sarcastic and uncalled for, especially coming from a man with his credentials.
Steve, I encourage you to avoid asking James questions (as it was a waste of your time today). Rather, I think you may do better to give a presentation based on what James has said or written.
You did all you could to make discussion happen and were patient. And what you said about we listeners following-up and using our own judgment---since James refused dialog---was a great advice! Use tomorrow to get out as many ideas as you can. And take all of your time for yourself, with no questions, imo. Questions would probably just give another opportunity to sidestep the very issues you bring up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts 10:48.
James White's knowledge of Greek and the case he presented using it was unconvincing. Non-Calvinists who argue for "disposed themselves" miss the mark also, imo.
Acts in context provides the correct interpretation: Luke wasn't discussing "the nature of predestination". He was recording the spread of the Kingdom of God, reporting the Gentiles believed, which puts them into the predestined People of God: the true Israel, whom God has ordained would be His Own. Luke doesn't say a single thing about determinism or the free will of these Gentile believers; such ideas are imported over the text. (Why I said earlier we must read the authors in terms of their own context, intention, and meaning).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly on Session 4.
Though things took a bad turn today, I'm still glad you (Steve) and James
have debated. It has confirmed what I've thought about some, but not all, Calvinists. Confirmed what? To wit, dialog is impossible. Thanks.
PaulT
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_darin-houston
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
- Location: Houston, TX
My understanding was that they agreed to let each other use their time allotments to do what they wanted with them -- put their positive case forward, answer questions, or have a q/a exchange -- I didn't hear anything specifically permitting yes/no questions, but that's pretty standard debate fare in my opinion -- if you think you got a raw deal or need time to explain, you take notes and use your own time to respond or elaborate. I can't imagine a debate question where one would have the time to clarify and respond perfectly to avoid the loaded questions unless you own the floor. My initial opinion was that Dr. White was merely doing what he does well -- using debate tactics and rhetoric to burn time and to try as hard as he could to avoid that difficult situation during Steve's round. However, when he responded with the shock and amazement and criticism afterwards, I would have to think now that he truly was taken aback and maybe wasn't using a tactic.Was the format agreed to by both parties in advance? Did they then upon agreement adjust the time period to 12 minute intervals in advance? Was there ever any ground rules for the exchange of yes/no type questions?
I do think his criticism that Steve was using inappropriate "tag lines" after his questions was ridiculous. After q/a, it's not uncommon to characterize and comment on what you think are the consequences attributable to the answer. That's what your rebuttal time is usually for (or own free time).
I think the biggest problem here was not having official rules and specific topics for each day. After the live debate was cancelled and communication wasn't all that great, it just sort of "happened," and even Dr. White before the debate mentioned he had done no preparation and was going to "wing it."
I noticed Dr. White commented on this forum's "behavior" in his post-debate closing comments (and if I remember correctly, during the debate).
I find it amazing that such a truly brilliant man can see our forum exchanges in such a way. I just don't understand how some people can see black as white. It makes me wonder if I am susceptible to the same error at times.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Steve,
Thanks for the explanation of Phil 1:29, especially the historical and geographical background. I was aware of both Paul's dream to go to Troas and Lydia's faithfulness to what she knew but hadn't ever connected the two. Makes a lot of sense that way. Much more than a polemic on "the gift of faith".
Jess
Thanks for the explanation of Phil 1:29, especially the historical and geographical background. I was aware of both Paul's dream to go to Troas and Lydia's faithfulness to what she knew but hadn't ever connected the two. Makes a lot of sense that way. Much more than a polemic on "the gift of faith".
Jess
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Troy wrote:
"In light of your explanations given in this thread on Romans 9, can you tell if you see any relevant passages to Romans 9 in Galatians 4?"
Absolutely! Especially the discussion of Isaac and Ishmael at the end of Galatians 4. These two chapters (Romans 9 and Galatians 4) are the two places where Paul distinguishes between different categories of Abraham's offspring as "children of promise" and "children of the flesh."
Of course, the the imagery is different, and Paul takes separate routes in the two passages, but arrives at the same conclusion in both, viz, that the Jews (and Gentiles) who are in Christ are the branch of Abraham's family that is to inherit the promises, while others, who have only physical descent to tie them to Abraham, are left out in the cold.
The interesting difference in Paul's two approaches is that, in Galatians 4, the two branches of Abraham's family are typified in Isaac and Ishmael (with their respective mothers representing the old and new covenants), whereas, in Romans 9 (written later, and possibly representing a further development in his thinking), Paul saw Jacob and Esau (a generation later than Isaac and Ishmael) as the desirable men to use as prototypes. This substitution allowed him to utilize the statements in Genesis 25:23 and Malachi 1:2-3 to underscore the stark distinction between the destinies of the two respective branches of the family.
"In light of your explanations given in this thread on Romans 9, can you tell if you see any relevant passages to Romans 9 in Galatians 4?"
Absolutely! Especially the discussion of Isaac and Ishmael at the end of Galatians 4. These two chapters (Romans 9 and Galatians 4) are the two places where Paul distinguishes between different categories of Abraham's offspring as "children of promise" and "children of the flesh."
Of course, the the imagery is different, and Paul takes separate routes in the two passages, but arrives at the same conclusion in both, viz, that the Jews (and Gentiles) who are in Christ are the branch of Abraham's family that is to inherit the promises, while others, who have only physical descent to tie them to Abraham, are left out in the cold.
The interesting difference in Paul's two approaches is that, in Galatians 4, the two branches of Abraham's family are typified in Isaac and Ishmael (with their respective mothers representing the old and new covenants), whereas, in Romans 9 (written later, and possibly representing a further development in his thinking), Paul saw Jacob and Esau (a generation later than Isaac and Ishmael) as the desirable men to use as prototypes. This substitution allowed him to utilize the statements in Genesis 25:23 and Malachi 1:2-3 to underscore the stark distinction between the destinies of the two respective branches of the family.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve