Last Report On The Debate

After reading AOMin's Blog today, I was reminded that I had not finished reporting on the Wilkin debate. In the rebuttal period Dr. White brought up a great question, "IS faith just propositional? What about coming, drinking and obeying?" Dr. White clearly thought that a man who is in union with Christ is a "big thing". He also rebutted the Ordo Salutis argument given by Dr. Wilkin. What I found ironic is that Dr. White had to explain the same thing I had to explain to my professor at SWBTS. Why do these people with doctorates not know these things?

In Dr. Wilkin's rebuttal, he misquotes Dr. White's accusation of Wilkin's position, saying faith is "uni-directional", when in fact Dr. White said Uni-dimensional. This may seem like a small point, but I simply got the feeling that Dr. Wilkin did not even show up to the debate at times.

He kept asking Dr. White if he was saved and if he would persevere. It was as if Dr. Wilkin did not hear a word White had said. But, Dr. Wilkin had some great pictures. During the debate, both men were to use power point presentations. During Wilkin's time, he showed a shack that was falling down, a plane crash and a road sign that gave directions to the state prison. Pretty funny guy, but he never demonstrated that he even attempted to understand his opponent's position. I thought this was simply rude for someone who has a doctorate and chooses to participate in public debate. It was insulting to Dr. White and the audience..

Wilkin in the second part of the debate attempted to show that faith needs no works. He stated, "Faulty faith axes assurance, if the basis of faith is works, then you can not have it." I am not sure what books he has been reading. Perhaps he isn't reading at all. Why assuming one is a true believer because he says so is beyond me.

During his presentation of certain passages that all one has to do is believe (I would agree if it is saving faith) and produce no works of repentance, my wife followed along in her bible. She showed me passage after passage of how works are an integral part of salvation. For example, Wilkin disputed the John 5:25 passage as referring to regeneration as reformed people understand it. Yet in verse 29 Jesus specifically tells us that our works will be the basis of the judgment to see if we are the true people of faith. The New Testament is so full of these passages I am not sure why it is even a point of contention, but it is. Please understand, Dr. White did not argue that our salvation depended on our works, but that our faith is seen in our works.

Dr. White then went through certain passage explaining the purpose of God saving a people, who are zealous for good deeds. He used Ephesians and 1 John to show this. Dr. White also showed that the Reformers condemned the belief Wilkin describes and teaches. Wilkin took great offense at this and demanded that the debate focus only upon the Scriptures. I am still waiting for Wilkin to do just that.

In the end, it seemed to me that Dr. Wilkin's assumption is that man has a libertarian free-will. Perhaps the debate should have focused more on that. Perhaps the debate would have been better if Wilkin had showed up prepared. It is my understanding Dr. White was very apologetic and embarrased for suggesting Dr. Wilkin for this debate. There are probably far better reviews of the debate on the internet. These were just some observations for a first timer.