I did a second program this week so that I could respond to the comments made by Dr. White about me on his program The Dividing Line. I didn't want to skip out on the continued response to Matt Haney this upcoming week.
Is it just me, or was James White extremely rude in this exchange? Even leaving etiquette aside, this reinforces an impression I've been getting that White is losing his ability to actually interact with viewpoints other than his own. He seems more and more content lately to just repeat the same things he's been saying for years, and not listening to anything else.
I often listen to his podcast when the topic interests me and to be honest I think he is one of the more fair apologists out there. He usually plays the whole recording of who he is critiquing and doesn't inaccurately portray people. That's why I was surprised that he portrayed Jordan Coopers argument as being only about Jesus words on the cross and not about the Epistle to the Hebrews. If you're going to critique someone, you should play what they said in its entirety.
Having worked in radio before, let me say something about that, Ryan: as a radio show is constrained by time, the host is thinking about how many minutes/seconds are left in a given segment, as well as other factors such as other people on hold who might be waiting to talk, etc., so those things need to be kept in mind when one is listening to a talk show on radio.
Now, having said that, Jordan's criticism against Dr. White regarding how he handled the conversation is spot on. The reference of "saving to the uttermost/able to completely save" has nothing whatsoever to do with limited atonement. Appealing to that verse does not make sense, as it's a non-sequitur argument and does not demonstrate anything in favor of limited atonement. Dr. White did not do a good job in handling the discussion, and that has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with him.
I thought it absurd when White claimed that Luther "didn't understand the Anabaptists." Seriously?
And White claimed that he "could never be a Lutheran because Luther was inconsistent," by which he meant Luther over the entire course of Luther's lifetime.
Lutherans do not affirm every single thing Luther ever said; rather we affirm all that is taught in the Book of Concord (which I doubt White has ever read in its entirety).
White also thinks that Reformed people would be Baptists like him if they were "consistent," which is also absurd.
Good program. It demonstrates what I had also observed years ago when listening to White debate other non Calvinists, that he likes to zero in on one narrow text, ignore the context of the entire book in which his supposed proof text is found, then accuse the non-Calvinist of being the one not wanting to do "exegesis"--which is basically the pot calling the kettle black. (For example, when he refused to consider 1 Timothy 4:10 in his interpretation of 2:5, or ignoring the larger context of the argument in Hebrews, which you ably propounded, in dealing with 7:25). At any rate, keep up the good work.
Yeah I thought it strange that White freaked out when he brought up a passage in Timothy to support his argument. Scripture interprets Scripture. I still don't understand White's argument that because Paul named some specific groups of people that were to be prayed for that that necessitates a limited atonement.
I cannot get over how arrogant Dr. White sounds in your exchange with him. You and D. White should have a controlled discussion on this topic. I hate the formal debates because it does not give one the ability to really force and answer to a question and push the person in a corner where is he forced to acknowledged a point. Btw Jordan, I had sent you an email last night in regards to the Lutheran position on baptism. I hope I sent it to the correct address (justandsinner@yahoo.com)
James White's comments at the beginning of his latest podcast seem to indicate that his followers have misrepresented to him Dr. Cooper's response to their dialogue: http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5511
Wow, I just listened to the beginning of The Dividing Line and White's comments about you. He says that you called him mean for reading the Greek. What a joke. First he misrepresents your argument and now your response. Then he basically compared having to deal with your argument to having to deal with the KJV only whacko who he talked about at the beginning of the episode. I listen to a lot of podcasts during the day because I can listen at my job, and I always liked his podcasts despite my different theology. His condescending response makes me think differently about listening.
Is it just me, or was James White extremely rude in this exchange? Even leaving etiquette aside, this reinforces an impression I've been getting that White is losing his ability to actually interact with viewpoints other than his own. He seems more and more content lately to just repeat the same things he's been saying for years, and not listening to anything else.
ReplyDeleteI often listen to his podcast when the topic interests me and to be honest I think he is one of the more fair apologists out there. He usually plays the whole recording of who he is critiquing and doesn't inaccurately portray people. That's why I was surprised that he portrayed Jordan Coopers argument as being only about Jesus words on the cross and not about the Epistle to the Hebrews. If you're going to critique someone, you should play what they said in its entirety.
ReplyDeleteHaving worked in radio before, let me say something about that, Ryan: as a radio show is constrained by time, the host is thinking about how many minutes/seconds are left in a given segment, as well as other factors such as other people on hold who might be waiting to talk, etc., so those things need to be kept in mind when one is listening to a talk show on radio.
ReplyDeleteNow, having said that, Jordan's criticism against Dr. White regarding how he handled the conversation is spot on. The reference of "saving to the uttermost/able to completely save" has nothing whatsoever to do with limited atonement. Appealing to that verse does not make sense, as it's a non-sequitur argument and does not demonstrate anything in favor of limited atonement. Dr. White did not do a good job in handling the discussion, and that has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with him.
Well done, Jordan. Keep up the good work!
I thought it absurd when White claimed that Luther "didn't understand the Anabaptists." Seriously?
ReplyDeleteAnd White claimed that he "could never be a Lutheran because Luther was inconsistent," by which he meant Luther over the entire course of Luther's lifetime.
Lutherans do not affirm every single thing Luther ever said; rather we affirm all that is taught in the Book of Concord (which I doubt White has ever read in its entirety).
White also thinks that Reformed people would be Baptists like him if they were "consistent," which is also absurd.
Good program. It demonstrates what I had also observed years ago when listening to White debate other non Calvinists, that he likes to zero in on one narrow text, ignore the context of the entire book in which his supposed proof text is found, then accuse the non-Calvinist of being the one not wanting to do "exegesis"--which is basically the pot calling the kettle black. (For example, when he refused to consider 1 Timothy 4:10 in his interpretation of 2:5, or ignoring the larger context of the argument in Hebrews, which you ably propounded, in dealing with 7:25). At any rate, keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteDoubting Thomas
Yeah I thought it strange that White freaked out when he brought up a passage in Timothy to support his argument. Scripture interprets Scripture. I still don't understand White's argument that because Paul named some specific groups of people that were to be prayed for that that necessitates a limited atonement.
DeleteIs there a link to the podcast with Dr. White?
ReplyDeleteI cannot get over how arrogant Dr. White sounds in your exchange with him. You and D. White should have a controlled discussion on this topic. I hate the formal debates because it does not give one the ability to really force and answer to a question and push the person in a corner where is he forced to acknowledged a point. Btw Jordan, I had sent you an email last night in regards to the Lutheran position on baptism. I hope I sent it to the correct address (justandsinner@yahoo.com)
ReplyDeleteJames White's comments at the beginning of his latest podcast seem to indicate that his followers have misrepresented to him Dr. Cooper's response to their dialogue: http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5511
ReplyDeleteDr. Cooper never called White "mean."
Nicholas, I figured that he wouldn't listen to my response. It is what it is. I have no desire to respond any further to Dr. White.
ReplyDeleteWow, I just listened to the beginning of The Dividing Line and White's comments about you. He says that you called him mean for reading the Greek. What a joke. First he misrepresents your argument and now your response. Then he basically compared having to deal with your argument to having to deal with the KJV only whacko who he talked about at the beginning of the episode. I listen to a lot of podcasts during the day because I can listen at my job, and I always liked his podcasts despite my different theology. His condescending response makes me think differently about listening.
ReplyDeleteHe really said that? I think I will have to listen now. What a ridiculous statement.
ReplyDelete