An awful White show....

[dizzle]

http://www.straitgate.com/aom/dl/04.htm


I like James White but this show I thought was terrible with a ton of begged questions and just general obnoxiousness.

[dizzle]

Okay I am listening further, and some parts of very good such as his Stafford comments - I guess it is just when he goes on about Calvinism, he just rubs me the wrong way in those kinds of comments.

[dizzle]

Well the last few minutes were great - but I would be interested in the comments of others. While I agree that Hunt's work on many subjects is not very good (A Woman Rides the Beast comes to mind) his comments towards Hunt just ickified me a bit. Also the comments that if there are several plausible understandings of John 6 we have just nullified the perspecuity of Scripture. I don't think he would take such a Chicken Little approach to say, eschatology, where I know he believes there is room for wiggle.

[geebob]

take your White supremicist propaganda elsewhere. You skinhead!

[dizzle]

dang

[geebob]

I only said it out of tough love.

besides, I couldn't find which recording you were talking about as there were many of them.

though I couldn't listen to it right now anyway. poor me. waaaa! :bawl:

[Arminian]

I like James White but this show I thought was terrible with a ton of begged questions and just general obnoxiousness.

Reminds me of something William James said concerning past behavoir being the best predictor of future behavior.

[bar Jonah]

Interestingly, the GODISNOWHERE team recently watched a video of White's debate with John Sanders - Calvinism vs the Open View on the matter of God's foreknowledge specifically.

I'll say this - White is an effective debater. Despite the fact that 80% of what he said was pure straw man, he owned that debate. Sanders is a good scholar and probably a good teaching professor but he is not a good debater. The Open View prides itself in using a very strong scriptural foundation, if not actually standing on sola scriptura in many cases. But in this debate, White owned both sola scriptura and tota scriptura, and Sanders frankly just handed it to him from the start.

Worst of all, during the cross examination period near the end, Sanders completely fell apart. He was mediocre up to that point, but then Sanders hit him with a question, Sanders answered, and then White asked, "Do you have any scriptural examples of that?" And Sanders was a deer in headlights. Just stared blankly, then started looking around on his table, his notes, picked up a book, set it down again, hemmed and hawed....

And meanwhile, the team is shouting the scriptural answers to White's question, shouting at the TV like a bunch of crazed sports fans! :rilol: Any of us could have just bumped Sanders right off the chair and turned the tables on Sanders in a heartbeat. But no, it was a dismal defeat, rather embarassing.

White may have used 80% straw man, but he did it effectively. He won the debate, hands down. He seems like a nice guy to me, didn't come across as too arrogant (not more than the average Calvy :riwink: LOL) but there was one other interesting thing we noticed.

White was the quentissential Calvinist in his debate style. He was literally scripted, reading from papers almost every single word.

Sanders adapted, ad libbed, came up with examples and anecdotes on the spot... unfortunately, they were mostly ineffective. But in his style, he was very "open." It was just an interesting element of the debate, we thought.

Oh well, just chiming in my two cents on White. :riblack:

[GoBahnsen]

Interestingly, the GODISNOWHERE team recently watched a video of White's debate with John Sanders - Calvinism vs the Open View on the matter of God's foreknowledge specifically.

I'll say this - White is an effective debater. Despite the fact that 80% of what he said was pure straw man, he owned that debate. Sanders is a good scholar and probably a good teaching professor but he is not a good debater. The Open View prides itself in using a very strong scriptural foundation, if not actually standing on sola scriptura in many cases. But in this debate, White owned both sola scriptura and tota scriptura, and Sanders frankly just handed it to him from the start.

Worst of all, during the cross examination period near the end, Sanders completely fell apart. He was mediocre up to that point, but then Sanders hit him with a question, Sanders answered, and then White asked, "Do you have any scriptural examples of that?" And Sanders was a deer in headlights. Just stared blankly, then started looking around on his table, his notes, picked up a book, set it down again, hemmed and hawed....

And meanwhile, the team is shouting the scriptural answers to White's question, shouting at the TV like a bunch of crazed sports fans! :rilol: Any of us could have just bumped Sanders right off the chair and turned the tables on Sanders in a heartbeat. But no, it was a dismal defeat, rather embarassing.

White may have used 80% straw man, but he did it effectively. He won the debate, hands down. He seems like a nice guy to me, didn't come across as too arrogant (not more than the average Calvy :riwink: LOL) but there was one other interesting thing we noticed.

White was the quentissential Calvinist in his debate style. He was literally scripted, reading from papers almost every single word.

Sanders adapted, ad libbed, came up with examples and anecdotes on the spot... unfortunately, they were mostly ineffective. But in his style, he was very "open." It was just an interesting element of the debate, we thought.

Oh well, just chiming in my two cents on White. :riblack:Hey Right, refreshing to hear some good objective remarks. I don't mean to imply that it is refreshing to hear them from you, but just to hear a Non Calvie say the Calvie won the debate.

One question I have as a non professional debater is why it seems that everytime someone disagrees with someone else they cry "strawman"? Would White say he used strawmen? I doubt it. Maybe he might admit that he could have done better here or there. But 80% strawman? So then, did he really? I'm starting to imagine that real strawmen are not used as much as people say they are.

Because... if in fact strawmen are used that often, then I suppose what I'm saying here is a strawman and Dee Dee's OP is strawman.

[geebob]

Sanders is a good scholar and probably a good teaching professor but he is not a good debater.

Sanders reviles debate. He shines most in "discussion". and yes more thoroughly, in scholarship in the written word. TGWR may be the most heavily researched and documented books you'll read by an evangelical. And of course, in debate, one has to think on his toes. I myself am more in my element when I can slowly think things out. I'm sure I could do well in a live debate, but I would much rather craft my answers carefully.

Sanders is not about division. He wants to draw on commonality before differences, and then proceed to work on the differences after important points of unity have been discussed. (that's not necessarily a temporal priority, but rather it can be brought up after the differences as long as emphasis is given).

And of course, there is the absurdity of debates where dualing soundbites are supposed to give us an impression of the quality of each side. The exegetical and philosophical subtleties deserve more respect than for us to think that they can be dealt with in a little word fencing over two or three short nights. And hence Sanders was exactly right when he mentioned over one specific point something to the effect of "you and I are not going to resolve this issue tonight".

That there is a winner and a loser in debate sometimes contributes to the nothion that the "winner" has the better and more supported, more rational position. But there is no epistemic sobriety in that. these things take time and no one should decide their views on a one or two night debate. when a view has been challenged, it isn't necessarily time to jump ship. That's the time to persevere and make sure that the next move is solid. It may be time to think things through more and do more investigating. but the outcome of a debate should never be thought of as the last word.

The Open View prides itself in using a very strong scriptural foundation, if not actually standing on sola scriptura in many cases.

I have never had more respect and a feel for the importance of orthodoxy and the tradition than I do now which I credit to my studies in open theism, inclusivism, and world religions. For more info on that, I would recomend my last post to xmansmommy in her "questions for open theists" thread, and my comments in the thread in this forum (either by jason or apologist for him...or someone else) entitled something along the lines of "what do you think of theological novelty". Also, I spoke of the importance of orthodoxy to progress and vice versa in Robyn Banks' thread in the philosophy forum on critical realism.

[GoBahnsen]

Sanders reviles debate. He shines most in "discussion". and yes more thoroughly, in scholarship in the written word. TGWR may be the most heavily researched and documented books you'll read by an evangelical. And of course, in debate, one has to think on his toes. I myself am more in my element when I can slowly think things out. I'm sure I could do well in a live debate, but I would much rather craft my answers carefully.

Sanders is not about division. He wants to draw on commonality before differences, and then proceed to work on the differences after important points of unity have been discussed. (that's not necessarily a temporal priority, but rather it can be brought up after the differences as long as emphasis is given).

And of course, there is the absurdity of debates where dualing soundbites are supposed to give us an impression of the quality of each side. The exegetical and philosophical subtleties deserve more respect than for us to think that they can be dealt with in a little word fencing over two or three short nights. And hence Sanders was exactly right when he mentioned over one specific point something to the effect of "you and I are not going to resolve this issue tonight".

That there is a winner and a loser in debate sometimes contributes to the nothion that the "winner" has the better and more supported, more rational position. But there is no epistemic sobriety in that. these things take time and no one should decide their views on a one or two night debate. when a view has been challenged, it isn't necessarily time to jump ship. That's the time to persevere and make sure that the next move is solid. It may be time to think things through more and do more investigating. but the outcome of a debate should never be thought of as the last word.



I have never had more respect and a feel for the importance of orthodoxy and the tradition than I do now which I credit to my studies in open theism, inclusivism, and world religions. For more info on that, I would recomend my last post to xmansmommy in her "questions for open theists" thread, and my comments in the thread in this forum (either by jason or apologist for him...or someone else) entitled something along the lines of "what do you think of theological novelty". Also, I spoke of the importance of orthodoxy to progress and vice versa in Robyn Banks' thread in the philosophy forum on critical realism.Strawman:hehe:

[geebob]

Toto!... Tin man!... cowardly lion!

two can play at this game of ozian insult!

Lolly Pop Guild!!!

[GoBahnsen]

Toto!... Tin man!... cowardly lion!

two can play at this game of ozian insult!

Lolly Pop Guild!!!More strawman! But, seriously geebob, everybody seems to say strawman too fast. James White is a serious debater. Wouldn't he know if he was debating with 80% strawman arguments (if Rightidea is correct). That seems pretty lame for him to do that.

Don't tell me... I'm asking a strawman question?

[geebob]

More strawman! But, seriously geebob, everybody seems to say strawman too fast.

IT's because strawman is the evangelical way of thinking. I daresay it is the western way of thinking of other views one disagrees with.

And this is where Sanders is a head above the others. When he approaches another view or even another religion, he asks "where is the good and what can be affirmed in this".

You can see this at work in his book "No Other Name" where he goes through various views on the question of the fate of the unevangelized and then considers not only their problems, but their strengths as well.

Wouldn't he know if he was debating with 80% strawman arguments (if Rightidea is correct).

oh heck. Don't make such generous assumptions about "proffessional" debaters. the proof is in the pudding.

Don't tell me... I'm asking a strawman question?

but of course. strawman is the western way of understanding those we disagree with.

[GoBahnsen]

IT's because strawman is the evangelical way of thinking. I daresay it is the western way of thinking of other views one disagrees with.

And this is where Sanders is a head above the others. When he approaches another view or even another religion, he asks "where is the good and what can be affirmed in this".

You can see this at work in his book "No Other Name" where he goes through various views on the question of the fate of the unevangelized and then considers not only their problems, but their strengths as well.



oh heck. Don't make such generous assumptions about "proffessional" debaters. the proof is in the pudding.



but of course. strawman is the western way of understanding those we disagree with.What is your definition of a strawman argument?

[geebob]

generally speaking, it is mischaracterizing of anothers view and critisizing largely on the basis of those mischaracterizations.

But my usage here is more broad and not so technical and probably wrong, but it is nevertheless a bad way of thinking, and that is criticisizing a view in it's worse light without giving charity and without dealing with it in it's strongest terms. But it's not an absolute that we should always avoid that since some people don't hold the paradigm they subscribe to in it's strongest terms and of course their thoughts are worth critisizing.

For example, we christians want to emphasize that other religions are purely wrong would study them mainly to see why our view is better. But is that the biblical way? Paul critisized the idolotry of the greeks all the while capitalizing on what he say as evidence of God's grace in greek religion and philosophy. He identified the God of their alter to the unknown God as the true God, and even identified the deity of a hymn to Zeus as our God (though it is of course wrong to say that he believed that zeus was the real God...things are a bit more complicated than that).

So for instance, are we to merely critisize for example ancestor worship in african religion, or can we look at what's good in that and use it to show Africans that the good that they viewed in thier ancestors really is good, but any good has really come through christ. That is the approach of Benezet Bujo for instance who finds in Christ the ideal that Africans believed that the ancestors idealized.

If we look back on the historical Jesus of Nazareth, we can see in him, not only one who lived in the african ancestor-ideal in the highest degree, but one who brought that ideal to an altogether new fulfillment. Jesus worked miricles, healing the sick, opening the eyes of the blind, raising the dead to life. In short, he brought life and life force in it's fullness. He lived his mission for his fellow humans in an altogether matchless way, and furthermore, left to his disciples, his final commandment, the law of love.

Taken from Velli-Matti Karkkainen's Christology: A global introduction pg 257

Of course we are not to go to the other extreme and assume that there is nothing demonic or false in other viewpoints, but to proceed with the notion that even in other religions, or even viewpoints, there is God god's grace at work which pervades the world and is not bound only to go where the chuch has been.

[bar Jonah]

What is your definition of a strawman argument?
Simply when you set up a false version of your opponent and then knock it down. I try not to throw it around any more than is really warranted. But to be honest, it's certainly one of the most commonly committed logical fallacies, if not the most.

Been a couple weeks since I saw the debate, so I honestly have to struggle a little to recall specific examples.

Claiming that any view that doesn't hold to Calvinist meticulous sovereignty believes that God cannot guarantee there is or will be ANYONE saved at all... is really a pretty absurd strawman. After all, we BOTH agree that if God is omnipotent, and he has the final sovereignty (even if he sovereignly chooses to operate currently under general rather than meticulous sovereignty), then if a person is saved, God can very easily declare that He declares such a person certainly will be saved, that He will not change His mind on that matter.

God changes His mind on certain things, but on other things, He says He absolutely won't change His mind. A great example is King Saul. God repented that He had made Saul king. Saul pretended to be repentant, and asked for another chance. God said, heck no, I will not change my mind about this, because I am not a man that I should repent. God concludes that Saul's repentance is not real, therefore He wont' repent of His decision to remove Saul.... therefore God still DID repent that He made Saul king.

So He changed His mind about making Saul King... but He was not going to change His mind back. At that point, it was irrevocable, unconditional.

By the same token, God can operate the salvation plan in the same way. God expects that Wilbur is going to Hell. But Wilbur does something (repents) and therefore God repents of the eternal destruction that had been ahead for this person. But now... God will not repent to go back on this yet again, and have him headed for Hell all over again.

This, and so many other issues are matters of omniPOTENCE. Not omniscience. But Calvies and many others so often try to confuse this issue. God can declare it, and make it happen. What Open theologian questions that? None that I know of. If God declares X unconditionally, no one can stop Him. He doesn't need a shred of omniscience; if God decides to drive to Atlanta... does He need foreknowledge of any kind in order to make that come about? Of course not. God can declare it... and it WILL happen. Not because of omniscience but because He is all powerful, and who is gonna stop Him? Nobody.

So, to say that non-Calvies believe God can't possibly guarantee anything is a ridiculous straw man.

[GoBahnsen]

Simply when you set up a false version of your opponent and then knock it down. I try not to throw it around any more than is really warranted. But to be honest, it's certainly one of the most commonly committed logical fallacies, if not the most.

Been a couple weeks since I saw the debate, so I honestly have to struggle a little to recall specific examples.

Claiming that any view that doesn't hold to Calvinist meticulous sovereignty believes that God cannot guarantee there is or will be ANYONE saved at all... is really a pretty absurd strawman. After all, we BOTH agree that if God is omnipotent, and he has the final sovereignty (even if he sovereignly chooses to operate currently under general rather than meticulous sovereignty), then if a person is saved, God can very easily declare that He declares such a person certainly will be saved, that He will not change His mind on that matter.

God changes His mind on certain things, but on other things, He says He absolutely won't change His mind. A great example is King Saul. God repented that He had made Saul king. Saul pretended to be repentant, and asked for another chance. God said, heck no, I will not change my mind about this, because I am not a man that I should repent. God concludes that Saul's repentance is not real, therefore He wont' repent of His decision to remove Saul.... therefore God still DID repent that He made Saul king.

So He changed His mind about making Saul King... but He was not going to change His mind back. At that point, it was irrevocable, unconditional.

By the same token, God can operate the salvation plan in the same way. God expects that Wilbur is going to Hell. But Wilbur does something (repents) and therefore God repents of the eternal destruction that had been ahead for this person. But now... God will not repent to go back on this yet again, and have him headed for Hell all over again.

This, and so many other issues are matters of omniPOTENCE. Not omniscience. But Calvies and many others so often try to confuse this issue. God can declare it, and make it happen. What Open theologian questions that? None that I know of. If God declares X unconditionally, no one can stop Him. He doesn't need a shred of omniscience; if God decides to drive to Atlanta... does He need foreknowledge of any kind in order to make that come about? Of course not. God can declare it... and it WILL happen. Not because of omniscience but because He is all powerful, and who is gonna stop Him? Nobody.

So, to say that non-Calvies believe God can't possibly guarantee anything is a ridiculous straw man.I guess it kind of goes like this then : it is really, really, really hard for humans to put a view they think is bad, in a good light?

In other words, if I'm debating satanists, I don't want to say "well they try not to sacrifice cats most of the time, especially if they know it is the pet of some close friend." So I try to put them in a good light as much as possible, even though everything within me wants to turn people away from the satanists. Something like that?

So when I debate them, and I make them look bad, they can cry "strawman", because I'm not being courteous enough to paint a better picture of them. Am I getting warm?

I used to think a strawman argument was when a person set up a clear misrepresentation of a particular view, a false view of it, then sought to take that caricatured version of the view, and tear it apart. But now it seems to me that just making another view look bad is also "strawman". So we can't escape strawman. Every disagreement is a strawman to some degree. If you disagree with me, your argument is a strawman, because it doesn't reflect well on my belief. How am I doing?

[Starkman]

Hey geebob,

What's TGWR...or was it TWGR? Rats, I can't remember.
You mentioned it, I believe, with regard to something Sanders wrote.

Thanks,

Starkman

[bar Jonah]

I guess it kind of goes like this then : it is really, really, really hard for humans to put a view they think is bad, in a good light?

In other words, if I'm debating satanists, I don't want to say "well they try not to sacrifice cats most of the time, especially if they know it is the pet of some close friend." So I try to put them in a good light as much as possible, even though everything within me wants to turn people away from the satanists. Something like that?

So when I debate them, and I make them look bad, they can cry "strawman", because I'm not being courteous enough to paint a better picture of them. Am I getting warm?
Um, nope.

I used to think a strawman argument was when a person set up a clear misrepresentation of a particular view, a false view of it, then sought to take that caricatured version of the view, and tear it apart.
Yep!

But now it seems to me that just making another view look bad is also "strawman". So we can't escape strawman. Every disagreement is a strawman to some degree. If you disagree with me, your argument is a strawman, because it doesn't reflect well on my belief. How am I doing?
Ummm...

Nope. :rifrown:

[Tercel]

TGWR = The God Who Risks

[GoBahnsen]

Um, nope.


Yep!


Ummm...

Nope. :rifrown:Oh... I was just venting. I know what a strawman is, I just see it get called far too often. I'll drop it. Thanks for the yep and nope.