For those of you who saw the debate and thought the second half was far stronger for Dr. White's presentation than the first half, I would agree. The first half, Dr. White's job was to explain the doctrine of regeneration. I think there are several ways that doctrine can be taught. Perhaps his weakness was not using primary texts such as John 3:1-8 and exegeting them.
Personally I think contrasting the two men in Romans 5 is another great way to explain it. Just my opinion though. John 3 is still the best text. Perhaps he needed more time to contrast the meaning of dead sinners with resurrected saints. Perhaps he needed to spend more time speaking to regeneration than particular redemption. I don't know what it was, but it did seem to be the weaker part of the presentation. I just didn't come away from the first half being convinced of regeneration, even though I already am.
After talking about the first half of the debate with my wife, I am tending to think it may have been more the listener (me) that was not quite grasping it. It was my first live public debate that I have attended. I was also taking notes and perhaps the "note taking" was distracting me. My wife on the other reminded me of the several texts Dr. White used in his presentation. But that may have been the problem. I think I have an understanding of what the other side wants. Perhaps Dr. White wasn't explaining the doctrine to their ability of comprehension (can I say that about a professor?).
The second half of the debate was far stronger because he was exegeting 1 John. In fact he got to preaching, and I think those of us who love Scripture and reformed beliefs derived from the text were quite moved at his presentation. Atleast my row seemed to be.
I also noticed months ago that there was no "cross examination" on the schedule. I only wish I had pointed that out to Dr. White then. Maybe then his first presentation would have been steered in a direction it may have needed to go.
A La Carte (April 18)
1 day ago
3 comments:
"The passage reads (in the ESV): "If you know that He is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of Him."
"Dr. White also cited I John 2:29 and it was here that I watched him make a logical blunder. Thankfully, Wilkin did not capitalize upon it and hammer it home for his side."
This is hardly a logical blunder. It is only a logical blunder if the verse is isolated from the prior verses. A simple reading of the text shows that Dr. White's argumentation here is rock solid. He read the text, therefore it was not isolated. But even if he didn't, his position on that verse is still correct.
"You admitted this much yourself in saying that, "It is only a logical blunder if the verse is isolated from the prior verses," which is precisely what Dr. White did in isolating it from its context."
In a 20 minute time frame, I thought Dr. White did quite well in refuting the other position. Please keep in mind that Dr. Wilkin never argued that those who believe MAY NOT be born again. I have never heard anyone argue that. If Dr. Wilkin did argue that, I missed it. Therefore Dr. White did not need to make the case you want him to. He was simply showing the order and nature of regeneration to faith.
Dr. Wilkin wishes to change the Ordo Salutis. That is what he argued for. He even argued for that after the debate. Dr. White was speaking to his opponents position.
Sir I understand the point you are making. I may be wrong. I thought the text says those who are born of God do the certain things John speaks of. John never makes the negative case that those born of God may not. Instead his teaching is, if one is born of God, then they do righteousness.
To argue that John means that those who do righteousness are born of God as well as those who are believers but don't isn't in John's thinking at all.
Maybe Dr. White wasn't clear on that, but John certainly was. Dr. White if I remember correctly demonstrated that the being "born of God" is a necessary cause of the righteous one.
I realize you are saying that one may be born of God and not be righteous, but that is not John's thinking, since John is teaching that God produces righteous lives.
Perhaps it should be argued the other way. A birth by God will produce righteous living, if a person is not following Christ's life in principle, then he is necessarily not born of God.
I thought Dr. White made this argument several times.
God Bless
Howard
Post a Comment