Questions for the discussion with Dr. White

[Guest]

I know Steve wouldn't want us to turn this into a "bash James" thread, but I wish James White wouldn't turn so much to sarcasm and negative tone. It's not that big of a deal, but it's fairly typical -- he suggests they reduce the 12 minute sessions to 8 minutes and then after the show he feigns integrity by suggesting he not comment further on the debate but then repeats his complaint that there was "SOOOO little time" and that folks "will just have to" do their own research into his points made briefly on the debate.

I am looking forward to "dialogue" as I have heard both of their points on these subjects.

[Guest]

I missed Thursday's session "live" but loaded it and heard yesterday's on the air. (I was, actually, surprised at how civil Steve and James were. I suppose I didn't expect it to be very "pretty").

Friday, James outlined his overall approach as (1) exegesis of relevant passages, and, (2) putting the passages into a philosophical systematic theology, noting that, (3) he does not begin with philosophy. This illustrates a primary difference between Calvinist and non-Calvinist interpreters. Namely, how the Calvinistic systematic theology or worldview "overarches" all of their their exegesis (in order to have passages fit into their system).

I felt Steve's comments on John 6 and other related passages demonstrated how non-Calvinists differ in interpretation: "How would the passages have been understood by the first hearers (or readers)?" This is historical-grammatical hermeneutics in action: Good job on that, Steve.

Calvinists also say they believe in and "do" historical-grammatical exegesis. But their commitment to their system always overarches their exegesis. I feel this prevents them from reading and understanding passages in the ways they would have been first understood 2,000 years ago. In other words, I think Calvinists are not doing historical-grammatical. They "say" they do it but really aren't, though they seem to think they really are....

Other than this, when will The Synod of Dort Two convene?
Isn't it time we get over it? I'm not joking or being sarcastic. Really. Why not let's just get right down to it and make it official? (I realize Steve and James may not talk about anything like this in the debate, but I feel it could be helpful at some point: The sooner the better, imo). Thanks.

[Guest]

Here's a question I'd like to see asked: Calvinist literature constantly makes the assertion that the Calvinist concept of God's sovereignty does not conflict with man's free will. Steve indicated in his "Sovereignty of God" lecture series that these statements are given as naked assertions with no ensuing argument to back them up. I'd like to hear Dr. White challenged to give a "positive case" for why and how Calvinistic radical determinism does not conflict with man's free will.

[Guest]

Now that, Jared, is a fine question and I think Steve may be one capable of asking this to James in an intelligent way.