John Bowling: When White gave his response the following segment he said something to the audience like "We've heard Wilkins say 'he hasn't addressed this and he hasn't addressed that,' but I'm not going to waste your time with that stuff because I have confidence in you, the audience, that you're smart enough to go back and see for yourselves who has and hasn't addressed the issues..."
John,
If I can shed some light on this; what usually happens in debate is that even IF you have dealt with the issues, one "cheap tactic" as he calls them is to just say that he hasn't; causing your opponent to again waste more time "going back over" what's already been dealt with....and White's response is an honest one...in effect he's just saying"
"I have dealt with this, and it's a cheap tactic to try and get me to waste my alloted minutes "re-dealing" with these issues, I'm confident that the people who are watching this debate have the ability to judge that for themselves"
l completely agree; the idea of debate is that the audience gets to see the best of each side; in real time, cross examined, and then they are "in effect" judge and jury on whether each side did their job.
That's my understanding of it; I've watched and purchased many of his debates and have many of his books...and that's my take.
bob
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
Without a doubt, James White comes across as a lightnening rod. He is assertive and very confident of the message that he preaches - that alone is enough to send his opponents into fits of frothing and spasms of indignation. His style is similar to Paul Washer. White's theocentric, intelligent, fast paced, well-researched, style is very refreshing in contrast to the tsunami of anthropocentric, Oprah-fied, psycho-babble that prevails today.
I vote for a James White collection.
How blessed is the one whom Thou dost choose, and bring near to Thee. (Psa 65:4a)
Robert Pavich: John, If I can shed some light on this; what usually happens in debate is that even IF you have dealt with the issues, one "cheap tactic" as he calls them is to just say that he hasn't; causing your opponent to again waste more time "going back over" what's already been dealt with....and White's response is an honest one...in effect he's just saying" "I have dealt with this, and it's a cheap tactic to try and get me to waste my alloted minutes "re-dealing" with these issues, I'm confident that the people who are watching this debate have the ability to judge that for themselves" l completely agree; the idea of debate is that the audience gets to see the best of each side; in real time, cross examined, and then they are "in effect" judge and jury on whether each side did their job. That's my understanding of it; I've watched and purchased many of his debates and have many of his books...and that's my take. bob
Thanks, Bob. I'm aware of how formal debates usually play out. Frankly, I don't like them because the focus becomes winning and making the audience think you're opponent doesn't have a leg to stand on. To accomplish this, debaters state their position as though it were epistemically certain and are not willing to give a modicum of merit to what the opponent has to say. I think this is false and, thus, in most of the formal debates I've heard (and participated in) the debater's conclusion exceeds the grasp of his argument. [Written formal debates are usually much much better.]
As for the particular example of White, I understand what you're saying and, of course, there is a legitimate way to say "I think the opponent is just trying to get me to waste time..." etc. But James White was doing more than just that in the example I cited. To pick up on the "more" you need to actually hear it or see it. According to some studies, the actual words of a person's speech only account for 7% of how that message is interpreted. The rest is influenced by body language and paralanguage. So I realize that my paraphrase of White's comment may seem legitimate since it lacks intonation and other contextual factors and I agree with you that there is a legitimate way to make the same point, but I still think that when White did it he was pandering.
Again, I don't want to blow the issue out of proportion. My purpose obviously isn't to bash White. Like I said, I agree with him on 80% of his views (I don't know that I agree with his credobaptism and I have no idea what his eschatology is, nor have I made up my mind on that issue myself). His work is great. But James White definitely employs a lot of rhetoric and it just doesn't suit my tastes. I recognize that this is somewhat subjective. Our current culture appears to be far more sensitive to caustic rhetoric than it was in the time of Martin Luther and John Calvin. Mark Driscoll, who is considered rough around the edges by our modern sensibilities, would curl up in a corner and cry if Luther or Calvin gave him a dose of the rhetoric that they directed at their opponents. If the people have thick enough skin to withstand it, then fine, I think it makes things more entertaining and I'm more than willing to jab my opponents if I think they can handle it and take it in good measure, but the fact is that most people today can't handle it and when you have a ministry like White's that reaches such a broad audience, why bother?
Anyway, I could go on but I won't.
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
John Bowling:Thanks, Bob. I'm aware of how formal debates usually play out.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I had special knowledge and you didn't....it just came out that way....
John Bowling:Anyway, I could go on but I won't.
No need...I see what you're saying brother...i appreciate your Christian like tone also....
God bless,
I would probably get his King James Only Controversy book, but don't really care for much of his materials.
It isn't him in general. Just not a big "debate" fan. I'm sure there is a place for debate somewhere in our lives, but it didn't seem a big part of Jesus' life. And the times He did (e.g., the Pharisees), you don't see a lot of them changing their minds so quickly (a few, but not a lot it would seem).
For me personally, I find it far too easy to enter into debate and study. Living out what I believe ... ah, there is the adventure.
This looks like an old post but, hey ... it's never too late to vote, yes?
I full-heartedly vote for a James White collection in L4. It would make a great addition and I would quickly purchase it.
David
Please. James White's works aim at being incredibly text-driven and are therefore chock full of Biblical references which would be much easier to read in Logos.
Also, when debating things like Calvin, KJV-only, Catholic doctrine extensive reference to primary resources are made. To have these tagged would make these works extremely valuable.
Jacob HantlaPastor/Elder, Grace Bible Church gbcaz.org
I vote for a James White collection as well.
Love his work.
I'm not saying I agree with everything he says. As well as anyone else that I like.
Come on Logos, bring on James White's books!
Blair Laird:I have seen his adhominem attacks. Even on some younger Christians namely against Christian Truth Hammer
Blair,
C'mon...if you've seen the whole exchange...you know what went down between Dr. White and CTH. CTH went at him with a smug condecending attitude and didn't know the first thing about the Greek language but produced a video saying that Dr. White didn't know what he was talking about in an interpretation of Romans 8:28....
Dr. White never ad hominem'd this guy....
He might have stated that this guy hasn't the first clue as to what he was talking about, and that he might want to wait and grow up before making videos like he did....all true and no personal attacks.
Robert Pavich:never ad hominem'd this guy
O yes, I am ever so glad to have argument mapping tools available ... now, if I could only paste the output into a Logos notes
Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."
Blair Laird: I have seen his adhominem attacks. Even on some younger Christians namely against Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Christian truth hammer Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
I have seen his adhominem attacks. Even on some younger Christians namely against
Christian truth hammer
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Actually- the young man was very "rude". James White responded very graciously under the circumstances.
James White is a "debater" and can be very forcefull since thats the atmosphere is operates in, having to deal with many cults and false christian org's.
His books are very helpful: The God Who Justifies, Scripture Alone, The Same Sex Controversy, etc.
He is a very staunch Calvinist, I as well, glad he is able to confront the errors he does.
And would be very happy to have his works in Logos 4
It would be great to have James White's books available in Logos.
+1 I'd like to see a collection of Dr. White's work available for Logos as well.
Lenovo P72: Intel 8th Gen i7-8750H 6-core, 32GB RAM, 2TB HDD + 1TB Sata SSD, 17.3" FHD 1920x1080, NVIDIA Quadro P600 4GB, Win 10 Pro
Many times!
I'd love to have White's material on Logos. He is a superb thinker and communicator. I have only heard him debate once. It was on the radio with Gail Riplenger. She had attacked his book, "The KJV-only Controversy." He was a very patient debater.
Didn't see this year old thread until today....
+++
OS X 10.14.6 | Logos 8.8
__________
15" rMBP 2.6 GHz i7 | 16 GB RAM | 1.0 TB Flash Drive | OS X 10.12.3 | Logos 7.0 (7.3.0.0062)
Robert Pavich: Blair Laird:I have seen his adhominem attacks. Even on some younger Christians namely against Christian Truth Hammer Blair, C'mon...if you've seen the whole exchange...you know what went down between Dr. White and CTH. CTH went at him with a smug condecending attitude and didn't know the first thing about the Greek language but produced a video saying that Dr. White didn't know what he was talking about in an interpretation of Romans 8:28.... Dr. White never ad hominem'd this guy.... He might have stated that this guy hasn't the first clue as to what he was talking about, and that he might want to wait and grow up before making videos like he did....all true and no personal attacks.
I did watch the whole exchange, while CTH was wrong in some of the things he said, he did later apologize which was admirable. I believe there were many attacks concerning CTH's age.. Those are adhominem attacks by my book.. The reason I believe they are considered ad-hom is because they were not attacks on CTH'S information but his character, age or person.
Blessings..
Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Theological Discussion Group
Whyndell Grizzard: Actually- the young man was very "rude". James White responded very graciously under the circumstances. James White is a "debater" and can be very forcefull since thats the atmosphere is operates in, having to deal with many cults and false christian org's. His books are very helpful: The God Who Justifies, Scripture Alone, The Same Sex Controversy, etc. He is a very staunch Calvinist, I as well, glad he is able to confront the errors he does. And would be very happy to have his works in Logos 4
I do not deny the the "young man" was rude. I believe they both were rude. It was not done in Love... I don't condemn either man, I have certainly fallen into the same error as they did... I will probably continue to do so also, as I fight against the flesh..
James White! James White! James White!