Wilkin started off by defining faith as "the conviction of something that is true." This was the most positive presentation that he gave the entire night and his entire thesis depended on this definition to work. He said Dr. White's position is illogical. He claimed that Dr. White doesn't know if he is saved. But what was amazing was that he attacked Dr. White's definition of faith as being "all of a man's life" (my summary of what he said).
He then attempted to accuse Dr. White of denying the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers. This was just stunning. At this point it started to show a pattern that this man had not read any of White's works except for possibly some "snipets" that someone may have e-mailed him. Anyone who follows Dr. White's Blog knows that he has taken a lot of heat for defending that doctrine.
Wilken then tried to show that Galatians teaches that works are not a part of salvation at all. He attempted to show that being dead in sin is not spiritual insensitivity. Atleast I think that is what he meant.
Then he asked the typical how can a man be regenerated for a time without being saved. In other words, he didn't understand the Ordo-Salutis. But I get this reaction from my SWBTS professors. So, nothing is new here.
He asked how could Nicodemus be led by the Spirit to Jesus before he was saved. He asked how could Cornelius hear the angel in Acts 10. To which Dr. White replied, "He spoke and Cornelius heard?" There were a lot of silly things like that. It was getting hard to even follow Wilkin at this point. Throwing out so many canards makes it difficult to have a real conversation.
Wilkin actually attempted to call into question John 5:25. He believed that the dead could hear simply because Jesus says the dead hear His voice. This simply was astounding that the Son of God is assumed to not be able to speak to the dead and raise them up by His own authority. Dr. Wilkin had simply jumped overboard here. For verse 29 denied the very assertion he was making.
Simply assuming "faith is simply the conviction of something being true" does not prove from the text that it is so. Dr. White demonstrated from John 2:24 that his definition was false. I only wish White had the ability and time to hammer this home. But I suppose he didn't have to. Wilken stated roughly "John's gospel is the most evangelistic. If repentance is so necessary, why does John never mention it?"
I guess Jesus' words in Matthew mean nothing, and verse 29 of John 5 means nothing either.
Optimistic Denominationalism
1 day ago
2 comments:
"The only problem is that Dr. Wilkin's view does not afford him any greater certainty than we enjoy. Dr. White, however, did not bother to reply to this until his closing remarks and then only to say, "Does having assurance mean that I cannot grow in assurance? Of course not." This, however, was a major point of contention for Dr. Wilkin."
Wilkin was certainly extremely concerned about assurance. I am surprised Dr. White didn't address the issue earlier than he did. Perhaps debates like this one should have stayed on track with one subject or been a longer debate.
"He certainly doesn't believe that the dead raise themselves. Nevertheless, his point (right or wrong) was that the verse clearly states that the dead, while still dead, hear the voice of Christ and are raised. In other words, their hearing precedes their being given life and that was the crux of the first part of the debate, whether regeneration precedes faith."
I did understand Wilkins argument. I just find it amazing that one could hold to it. Yes the dead hear because the voice of the Son is able to speak to them and cause them to hear. Not because they had hearing ears just waiting for someone to speak to them. His view assumes an ability of man that Jesus does not teach. Why else use a "dead men" analogy?
To use an example, my parents are deaf. They have NO ABILITY to hear a thing. If the Son of God were to speak to them, and if they were to hear Him, it would not be because there was some ability in them. It would be the power of the Son to speak to the deaf and overcome their deafness and make them hearing.
Now Wilkin may say my argument is false since the deaf do hear Jesus speak, since when Jesus speaks they hear. But the whole point is that the deaf or dead DO NOT hear. They are deaf and dead. They hear because Jesus causes them to hear by His voice.
"I don't think that Wilkin would disagree with the point that you're making. He mentioned, very carefully, that "faith is a gift" from GOD."
I think I remember Dr. Wilkin making the argument [my paraphrase], "Dr. White, why would Jesus speak to the dead if the dead can't hear?"
He also spent time speaking to the subject of "deadness" during his rebuttal. It seemed to me that he didn't believe dead meant inability. To be honest, I did not follow Wilkin's argument at this point. I would need to listen to his arguments again to fully understand them if that is possible.
Post a Comment