My impressions of the debate in progress

[Guest]

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?

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.

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.

The way I recall it that each participant had agreed to an allotted time to make his case, with the other following up for the same specified time. Initially White presented his positive Case for a couple of day’s Gregg really never got around to his. Their appeared to be confusion over who ended yesterday and therefore who was to start today, when it finally got off the ground Gregg stopped and asked White mid-way through this opening segment a question and then cut the man off in mid-sentence when he didn’t like what he was hearing, at least it appeared that way to me. This seemed flat out rude to me. I’m amazed your amazed one would object to “editorializing” his position when ground rules for set exchange had not been agreed to in advance. What assurance would the respondent have of clarifying his position, correct the record or pointing out the logical fallacies incorporated in said editorial? As it was Gregg was talking over White. I find it interesting that Greg at this late hour has changed his tactic. He has yet to present a positive case for why one should buy his view, (surely his 6 verse expose covered in one 12 minute segment is not his positive case) and now instead of addressing Whites questions goes on the attack in the manner he chose to use today? No doubt we all allow our bias at times to shade our views, and evaluations of what transpires, but cutting another off is really not a matter of debate, no pun intended.

PaulT

[Guest]

Responses to two of Dr. White's statements in his comments about today's broadcast linked above:

1. "I asked a direct and relevant question (which Mr. Gregg has yet to respond to), "Does Jesus intercede for the non-elect?" I did not ask it like Gregg was asking his questions, 'Does Jesus intercede for the non-elect, yes or no, and you will have less than 15 seconds to answer or I will accuse you of taking too much time and hogging the conversation.' "

I distinctly heard Steve say that these were primarily "yes or no" questions but that he indeed wanted to give Dr. White enough time to answer each question. Dr. White's quote above does not accurately represent what Steve said on the program. Steve interrupted Dr. White only to keep him on track and not to discuss other scriptures when the issue was Rom. chapt. 1 and what it said.

With respect to interceeding for the elect versus the non-elect, don't confuse Christ's work on the cross (potentially available to all men) and his current ongoing intercession for the saints in Heaven. They are not the same thing.

2. "If Mr. Gregg wishes to seek to overthrow the testimony of Scripture to the universal sinfulness of man, let him make his case. I will respond."

This is a mischaracterization of the issue in question. The question was, "who is Paul talking about in Romans chapter one, all men or "those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness"? I am uaware of any Arminian who does not believe in the universal sinfulness of mankind. (Rom 3:23, Rom 5:12)

[Guest]

2. "If Mr. Gregg wishes to seek to overthrow the testimony of Scripture to the universal sinfulness of man, let him make his case. I will respond."

This is a mischaracterization of the issue in question. The question was, "who is Paul talking about in Romans chapter one, all men or "those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness"? I am uaware of any Arminian who does not believe in the universal sinfulness of mankind. (Rom 3:23, Rom 5:12)

And I think he made this pretty clear.

[Guest]

when it finally got off the ground Gregg stopped and asked White mid-way through this opening segment a question and then cut the man off in mid-sentence when he didn’t like what he was hearing, at least it appeared that way to me.

It was his time -- if you don't control your own time, you lose it -- Dr. White was merely repeating what he had said yesterday -- it seemed like a time grab to do that to me.

[Guest]

After reading some of James Whites comments on his site in regards to the show today, I feel compelled to make a comment. It is not much of a comment, and once again, I do not want to seem snide.

Yet, I do have to say that whenever I hear James White, or read his materials, just one word comes to mind, and that word certainly is not humility, the word is Pride! (Prov 13:10)

After seeing, and hearing his comments today, he remains true to his prideful form. He is no stranger to being unloving, or trying to get the upper hand in debating tactics http://www.afcministry.com/James_White_corner.htm

Steve, however, was kind in his handling James during his prideful assertions.

Greg

[Guest]

The way I recall it that each participant had agreed to an allotted time to make his case, with the other following up for the same specified time. Initially White presented his positive Case for a couple of day’s Gregg really never got around to his. Their appeared to be confusion over who ended yesterday and therefore who was to start today, when it finally got off the ground Gregg stopped and asked White mid-way through this opening segment a question and then cut the man off in mid-sentence when he didn’t like what he was hearing, at least it appeared that way to me. This seemed flat out rude to me. I’m amazed your amazed one would object to “editorializing” his position when ground rules for set exchange had not been agreed to in advance. What assurance would the respondent have of clarifying his position, correct the record or pointing out the logical fallacies incorporated in said editorial? As it was Gregg was talking over White. I find it interesting that Greg at this late hour has changed his tactic. He has yet to present a positive case for why one should buy his view, (surely his 6 verse expose covered in one 12 minute segment is not his positive case) and now instead of addressing Whites questions goes on the attack in the manner he chose to use today? No doubt we all allow our bias at times to shade our views, and evaluations of what transpires, but cutting another off is really not a matter of debate, no pun intended.

PaulT

Interesting observation. It was stated several times that each person could use their time how they wished, this included two-way communication.

I thought the exchange was very informative. James White refused to answer Steve's question about what the text states in Romans 1. Why? He would then have to admit he's carrying the meaning from a later part of Romans to decide the true meaning of Romans 1. He did admit to this somewhat (Romans 1-3 stand together) but what I think James White is not seeing is that this is exactly what the Arminian does with Romans 8 and Romans 9. We don't read these in a vacuum, do we? The Calvinist reads Romans 8-9 and says they have made their "positive case". But what Steve have shown on this latest broadcast (using Romans 1 as an example) is that you can't make a postive case that sticks by proof texting. There are limiting factors in Romans 8-9 found in the same context, Romans chapters 10-11. Just as there may very well be limiting factors to Romans 1 found in chapters 2-3. James reads part of Romans 8 (the golden chain) and Romans 9 and thinks this is convincing. When Steve tries to do the same thing with Romans 1 (that is, make a case by pure exegesis), James suddenly says we can't exegete this text without bringing in information from the greater context. I agree! We need to do this with all the Calvinist proof texts. If your a Calvinist, after you read chapter 9, keep reading! Chapters 10-11 have Paul stating that the non-elect, cast-off, vessels of dishonor can be gafted back on! Paul is still attempting to reach them, hoping they will be envious of the Gentiles savlation! Why would Paul do this if it will do no good prior to regeneration? They would not have ears to hear Paul, so we are told. The truth is they can be grafted in again, by the limiting factor of faith. They can also be cut-off again.

Peace,
Sean

[Guest]

Interesting observation. It was stated several times that each person could use their time how they wished, this included two-way communication.

I thought the exchange was very informative. James White refused to answer Steve's question about what the text states in Romans 1. Why? He would then have to admit he's carrying the meaning from a later part of Romans to decide the true meaning of Romans 1. He did admit to this somewhat (Romans 1-3 stand together) but what I think James White is not seeing is that this is exactly what the Arminian does with Romans 8 and Romans 9. We don't read these in a vacuum, do we? The Calvinist reads Romans 8-9 and says they have made their "positive case". But what Steve have shown on this latest broadcast (using Romans 1 as an example) is that you can't make a postive case that sticks by proof texting. There are limiting factors in Romans 8-9 found in the same context, Romans chapters 10-11. Just as there may very well be limiting factors to Romans 1 found in chapters 2-3. James reads part of Romans 8 (the golden chain) and Romans 9 and thinks this is convincing. When Steve tries to do the same thing with Romans 1 (that is, make a case by pure exegesis), James suddenly says we can't exegete this text without bringing in information from the greater context. I agree! We need to do this with all the Calvinist proof texts. If your a Calvinist, after you read chapter 9, keep reading! Chapters 10-11 have Paul stating that the non-elect, cast-off, vessels of dishonor can be gafted back on! Paul is still attempting to reach them, hoping they will be envious of the Gentiles savlation! Why would Paul do this if it will do no good prior to regeneration? They would not have ears to hear Paul, so we are told. The truth is they can be grafted in again, by the limiting factor of faith. They can also be cut-off again.

Peace,Sean

White refused to answer or did he withdraw when he was spoken over and not given the opportunity to answer? Are you suggesting that in Gregg’s 1st segment yesterday when after inviting White to comment, and then cut him off in mid-sentence is a reasonable standard to expect? 2 way conversation entails cutting one off? Limiting factors? Perhaps you are referring to the method Gregg sprung on White to derive the hoped for answer?

Did not Gregg admit chapters 1,2 & 3 are structured to provide a single argument? I’ve listened to Gregg’s commentary on Romans 3 and haven’t had the chance to ask the question, but from what I gather his view is that “there are none righteous no not one and that there is none that understands there is none that seeks after” is hyperbole, which may or may not come from his view of Ro 1 in isolation but the mere fact that he admits the 3 chapters are to be viewed as one argument building in climax would seem now to suggest perhaps I misunderstood when I listened to the tape. I’m not sure of your conclusion that Gregg’s commentary in later chapters is similar to how White draws the conclusion that Ro 1 is an indictment of all man, do you have a for instance. Frankly, unlike you I’m not sure I understand that White necessarily relies on chapter 3 to determine chapter 1 regards all mankind. White indicated chapter 3 played a part but was cut-off and not allowed to provide a complete answer therefore I wouldn’t want to jump to conclusions that Whites entire basis for Rom 1:18 is hinged on Rom 3. How can you be so sure of Whites reason for not answering, do you have a predisposed agenda? Nevertheless the 1st 3 chapters provide a singular argument which would seem to mitigate against your charge that White is using eisegesis in Ro 1 even if he were basing his entire position on that which is found in Ro 3, at least based on my understand of what eisegesis means. I don’t follow your concept of limiting factor, granted the 1st 3 chapters of Ro are focused on setting forth the basis that all men are under commendation, is this an example of the concept of limiting factor? How does this then apply to Ro 8 & 9 or for that matter 10 & 11? Are you suggesting White reads Ro 8, 9 10 & 11 in a vacuum? From what I gather White sees these chapters building upon one another with an explanation for why his fellow brethren don’t believe? The criticism I heard thus far by White of Gregg in bringing in outside material to buttress his view of a passage is fundamentally different than the 1st 3 chapters of Romans entails, because as I said even if the single basis for Whites position of Ro 1:18 were based on Ro 3, the fact the 3 chapters together build a single argument means he is not importing his view on the text but rather recognizing the Apostles argument for what it entails, how is this eisegesis? For example, I believe it was on day 2 regarding John 6 in answer to White Gregg used both John 17 and I think John 5. The problem as I see it and what if I recall correctly White pointed out is that the 2 chapters Gregg used to comment on John 6 are referring to different subjects than what John 6 is referring. John 17 is a prayer for all believers, John 5 is a condemnation for non believers, however John 6 is about how do men believe. Gregg provided the 2 texts which indicates believers believe and non believers don’t believe, I believe that all parties involved would agree for the most part what visibly separates believers from nonbelievers is belief however the point of John 6 is what if anything enables unbelievers to believe. Gregg begged this question and attempted to limit John 6 by this begged question, which would seem to me is an example of eisegesis.

Thank you for your thoughts,

PaulT

[Guest]

Why is it that people are surprised that in a debate one would want to control the interaction with the opponent and retain his time for his own purposes?

I am no expert on debate, but one of the most fundamental aspects of cross-examination is to use your opponent's expert (or the opponent himself) to prove your case. The goal is for the other view to better understand your own position, and cross-examination is one of those tools to do just that. It is also fundamental to carefully control the conversation. In a court of law, you are even expected to ask - yes - leading questions (which are by definition, yes/no questions). The rules of procedure otherwise consider such questions inappropriate. The very purpose of cross-examination is to allow such questions. It is up to the opponent to make his own case or to rebut the assumptions that come from those yes/no questions in his own time.

This is so fundamental that I hardly see the need to explain it, but it has been repeated a number of times.

You may find this essay interesting (from University of Vermont's Debate Center).

excerpt from http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/LDMcCradynew.pdf...
Cross Examination: Where the Battle’s Lost and Won
By Rusty McCrady
***
As one judge put it, the examinee has the right to ignore the request for yes/no answers; another judge said that it is the examinee’s duty to “sneak in more information to support their case, just as the other side should try to stop them.” Most of the respondents went on to state that the key here is for the examinee to elaborate briefly beyond the “mandated” yes/no limit, and to do so courteously and with relevant information (i.e., NOT with the intent to filibuster and take
up the opponent’s valuable time for questioning). Thus the other extreme—students giving long-winded, vacuous responses just to rob the opponent of time—was seen, especially by the judges, as equally obnoxious as the dictatorial demand for yes/no responses.
***
Interestingly, both judges and debaters responded that they enjoy the tension created by the examiner’s push to get answers to all questions, versus the examinee’s desire to elaborate at length, and even to use up the examiner’s precious minutes by expounding at much greater length than is necessary. Virtually all experienced debaters and judges seemed to acknowledge that the pressure thus created is both inevitable and acceptable as simply one aspect of competition. In other words, skillful debaters know that the opponent will try to take over the cross ex. period through making his/her own points or even filibustering, and they also acknowledge that part of the job of the examiner is to prevent this from happening! All’s fair in love and debate.

[Guest]

PaulT wrote:

from what I gather his view is that “there are none righteous no not one and that there is none that understands there is none that seeks after” is hyperbole,

There is no need to see it as hyperbole. It simply says that the natural man does not persistently seek God, not that he cannot, at a point in time, seek God.

My impression was that Dr. White's answer to Steve regarding Romans 1 and total depravity was not pertinent. I think we can all agree that all are sinners and need a Savior. This does not show, or even imply, the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity.

[Guest]

I just thought I would "bump" this for the web link (below) that I did not put on my previous post. I found this while looking for something else. It is a long read, but pretty self explanatory.

Greg

After reading some of James Whites comments on his site in regards to the show today, I feel compelled to make a comment. It is not much of a comment, and once again, I do not want to seem snide.

Yet, I do have to say that whenever I hear James White, or read his materials, just one word comes to mind, and that word certainly is not humility, the word is Pride! (Prov 13:10)

After seeing, and hearing his comments today, he remains true to his prideful form. He is no stranger to being unloving, or trying to get the upper hand in debating tactics, or simply trying to make his "apponent" look bad. http://www.afcministry.com/James_White_corner.htm

Steve, however, was kind in his handling James during his prideful assertions.

Greg