JM
Puritan Board Doctor
That's not what I was trying to say.
Last edited:
White vs. Shishko
- Thread starter Founded on the Rock
- Start date
- Status
That's not what I was trying to say.
youthevang
Puritan Board Freshman
There was another place in the debate where it shows that Dr. White did not understand covenant. It was his question with regards to not having a covenant sign of the covenant of grace from Adam to Abraham. In saying that the sign was given because of land promises.
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
There was a few places in the debate where it shows that Pastor Shishko did not understand the new covenant. It had to do with the emphasis on the physical seed being the spiritual seed of Abraham.
Hay JM:
I hope you find a good church in your search.
I do not understand your point. In the Old Testament both Ishmael and Issac were physical descendents of Abraham, both received the sign of circumcision. Yet, "In Isaac shall your seed be called."
Could you clarify your point for me?
God bless,
-CH
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
Sorry, I don't believe I can.
Thank you for your well wishes on Church hunting...I'm going to visit another Church this Sunday night and if the statement of faith means anything, it should be both Calvinistic and Baptistic...please offer my name before the throne of God.
Thanks.
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
An itch that needs scratching
Season's Greetings:
Something about the Baptist argument has always rubbed me the wrong way. It appears to me that they take this phrase literally:
Believe and be baptized.
If we take these words literally, then what are we to do with the following texts?
1) And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world, 1 John 2:2.
2) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth, 1 Tim. 2:3,4.
3) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe, 1 Tim. 4:10.
4) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man, Hebrews 2:9.
1) Did Jesus (literally) die for the "sins of the whole world"?
2) Can the will of God be thwarted by men?
3) Does Jesus (literally) save "all men"?
4) Did Jesus (literally) "taste death for every man"?
If we follow the Baptist's hermeneutic, then what will stop us from interpreting these verses literally as well? The Baptist may (rightly) argue that we compare these verses with other passages of scripture. But that is the very point of paedo-baptism.
Blessings,
-CH
Season's Greetings:
Something about the Baptist argument has always rubbed me the wrong way. It appears to me that they take this phrase literally:
Believe and be baptized.
If we take these words literally, then what are we to do with the following texts?
1) And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world, 1 John 2:2.
2) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth, 1 Tim. 2:3,4.
3) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe, 1 Tim. 4:10.
4) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man, Hebrews 2:9.
1) Did Jesus (literally) die for the "sins of the whole world"?
2) Can the will of God be thwarted by men?
3) Does Jesus (literally) save "all men"?
4) Did Jesus (literally) "taste death for every man"?
If we follow the Baptist's hermeneutic, then what will stop us from interpreting these verses literally as well? The Baptist may (rightly) argue that we compare these verses with other passages of scripture. But that is the very point of paedo-baptism.
Blessings,
-CH
Kaalvenist
Puritan Board Sophomore
A few thoughts after listening to the debate:
1. I myself wonder about the "circumcision relates to the land promise" allegation. I don't think Dr. White ever actually made that argument; he simply asked Pastor Shishko questions in cross-examination which made it sound as if that was his position. But I have never heard any actual substantiation of that idea; whereas his own position that circumcision "prefigured" regeneration seems to argue against the idea that circumcision was tied to the land promise.
2. Which leads me to ask regarding the idea that circumcision "prefigured" regeneration: Where does this idea come from, other than a strained reading of Col. 2:10-12? How does anyone with "Reformed" in their church name assert that something in the Old Testament "prefigured" regeneration? Wouldn't that mean that Old Testament "saints" did not experience regeneration (because it would be a prefiguring of something under the New Testament, and so not a then present reality), and so (since regeneration precedes faith) did not have faith, and so were not saved, etc.? Was not circumcision then a sacrament, rather than a type, which represented spiritual benefits capable of being experienced under that dispensation? And would not its correlation to baptism then be rather manifest, since both are sacraments of initiation into church membership, and represent the same spiritual benefits?
3. The line from Spurgeon seems rather disingenuous. As I recall, it goes back to a debate that Spurgeon had with a paedobaptist, and they gave specific texts to discuss. The paedobaptist gave the one from the gospels, where Christ says of infants, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven (or God)." Spurgeon then gave Job 1:1. The paedobaptist said that it had no reference to the subject under debate; and Spurgeon replied that neither did his text. White claimed that Shishko's references did not relate to the subject of baptism. I suppose that I would ask what reference Hebrews 8 has to baptism. Where is baptism mentioned in that entire chapter? But the whole point of the Reformed Baptist reference to that chapter is to identify who are the members of the church; and that is the reason for paedobaptist reference to such texts. If they are members of the church ("the kingdom of heaven"), they should be received into the church by baptism.
4. I have never heard of anyone even suggesting that the "father against his son" references in the gospels have reference to the supposed change of infant membership in the church. If Dr. White wanted to look at such passages, I would recommend to him the prophecy concerning John the Baptist, that he would turn the hearts of the fathers to the children.
5. White didn't seem to understand what Shishko was saying regarding the expansion under the New Testament. If membership in the new covenant is now "circumscribed" to the called elect (which means that the "perfection" of the new covenant is always going to be administered imperfectly), then that is a farther restriction placed upon the new covenant, not correlating to the expansion we see of the gospel going out to all peoples, both Jews and Gentiles; the covenant seal being administered to both sexes, male and female; the halt and maimed being received into full favor with God, etc. In the face of all this, can it be reasonably argued that the infant members of the Old Testament church have been cast out of the church -- and that without any explicit reference in the Old or New Testament? Please note that Hebrews 8 makes no mention of infants; and yet, on the basis of this text, we should assume that the relation that has existed in all covenants made between God and man for some reason no longer exists, infants are cast out of the church, etc.?
There's other points, but those are some of the big ones.
1. I myself wonder about the "circumcision relates to the land promise" allegation. I don't think Dr. White ever actually made that argument; he simply asked Pastor Shishko questions in cross-examination which made it sound as if that was his position. But I have never heard any actual substantiation of that idea; whereas his own position that circumcision "prefigured" regeneration seems to argue against the idea that circumcision was tied to the land promise.
2. Which leads me to ask regarding the idea that circumcision "prefigured" regeneration: Where does this idea come from, other than a strained reading of Col. 2:10-12? How does anyone with "Reformed" in their church name assert that something in the Old Testament "prefigured" regeneration? Wouldn't that mean that Old Testament "saints" did not experience regeneration (because it would be a prefiguring of something under the New Testament, and so not a then present reality), and so (since regeneration precedes faith) did not have faith, and so were not saved, etc.? Was not circumcision then a sacrament, rather than a type, which represented spiritual benefits capable of being experienced under that dispensation? And would not its correlation to baptism then be rather manifest, since both are sacraments of initiation into church membership, and represent the same spiritual benefits?
3. The line from Spurgeon seems rather disingenuous. As I recall, it goes back to a debate that Spurgeon had with a paedobaptist, and they gave specific texts to discuss. The paedobaptist gave the one from the gospels, where Christ says of infants, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven (or God)." Spurgeon then gave Job 1:1. The paedobaptist said that it had no reference to the subject under debate; and Spurgeon replied that neither did his text. White claimed that Shishko's references did not relate to the subject of baptism. I suppose that I would ask what reference Hebrews 8 has to baptism. Where is baptism mentioned in that entire chapter? But the whole point of the Reformed Baptist reference to that chapter is to identify who are the members of the church; and that is the reason for paedobaptist reference to such texts. If they are members of the church ("the kingdom of heaven"), they should be received into the church by baptism.
4. I have never heard of anyone even suggesting that the "father against his son" references in the gospels have reference to the supposed change of infant membership in the church. If Dr. White wanted to look at such passages, I would recommend to him the prophecy concerning John the Baptist, that he would turn the hearts of the fathers to the children.
5. White didn't seem to understand what Shishko was saying regarding the expansion under the New Testament. If membership in the new covenant is now "circumscribed" to the called elect (which means that the "perfection" of the new covenant is always going to be administered imperfectly), then that is a farther restriction placed upon the new covenant, not correlating to the expansion we see of the gospel going out to all peoples, both Jews and Gentiles; the covenant seal being administered to both sexes, male and female; the halt and maimed being received into full favor with God, etc. In the face of all this, can it be reasonably argued that the infant members of the Old Testament church have been cast out of the church -- and that without any explicit reference in the Old or New Testament? Please note that Hebrews 8 makes no mention of infants; and yet, on the basis of this text, we should assume that the relation that has existed in all covenants made between God and man for some reason no longer exists, infants are cast out of the church, etc.?
There's other points, but those are some of the big ones.
Excellent points - especially this:
I do remember Dr. White's relatively consistent refrain: "I have to ask - what does that have to do with Baptism...."
Without Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8, Reformed Baptists would have little to write about as they spend so much time trying to establish that New Covenant membership is the Elect alone.
I do remember Dr. White's relatively consistent refrain: "I have to ask - what does that have to do with Baptism...."
Without Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8, Reformed Baptists would have little to write about as they spend so much time trying to establish that New Covenant membership is the Elect alone.
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
The "land promise"
Hay Sean:
Dr. White does actually make the argument that the circumcision of infants had to do with the promise. It is at the very end of part 1 where Pastor Shishko is cross-examining Dr. White (1:17:19). I almost laughed when I heard that often debunked argument being used, and I wonder why Pastor Shishko did not take advantage of it - being "too nice" I guess?
Anyway, good to see you back, I hope you are doing well. Email me when you can I have some news about our Dispensationalist friend Greg as well as our Baptist friend Dave.
Blessings,
-CH
Hay Sean:
Dr. White does actually make the argument that the circumcision of infants had to do with the promise. It is at the very end of part 1 where Pastor Shishko is cross-examining Dr. White (1:17:19). I almost laughed when I heard that often debunked argument being used, and I wonder why Pastor Shishko did not take advantage of it - being "too nice" I guess?
Anyway, good to see you back, I hope you are doing well. Email me when you can I have some news about our Dispensationalist friend Greg as well as our Baptist friend Dave.
Blessings,
-CH
Last edited:
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
CH, I'm not sure how the argument for circumcision relating to land promises, but I'd like to post what I think it "might" be...feel free to rip holes into it, I'm still reforming, always reforming, always reforming... 
I'm thinking it goes something like this...
3 Basic Aspects of Covenant
1. Land (Palestinian)
2. Seed (Davidic)
3. Blessing (New)
Abraham had 8 sons by 3 different women, only through Sarah's son Isaac was the Covenant to be passed. Gen. 26:2-5, 24
Provisions to Isaac
1. Blessings Gen. 26:3, 24
2. Land Promised
3. Multiply descendants & become a 'people'
4. Gentiles would be blessed
5. Based on God's covenant with Abraham
These provisions were passed on to Jacob only. Gen. 28:13-15
Provisions to Jacob
1. Land Promised to Jacob and his seed Gen. 28:13,15
2. Seed multiplied v.14
3. Gentiles blessed through seed
Covenant provisions confirmed to all of Jacob's twelve sons who are the fathers of the twelve tribes as found in Genesis 49. So I figure the covenant made by God with Abraham which included his children would be related to the physical/national/ethnic Israel, those descending from the phsyical seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and not the spiritual seed.
Don't say it! [dispensationalist] I'm just a Baptist.
I'm thinking it goes something like this...
3 Basic Aspects of Covenant
1. Land (Palestinian)
2. Seed (Davidic)
3. Blessing (New)
Abraham had 8 sons by 3 different women, only through Sarah's son Isaac was the Covenant to be passed. Gen. 26:2-5, 24
Provisions to Isaac
1. Blessings Gen. 26:3, 24
2. Land Promised
3. Multiply descendants & become a 'people'
4. Gentiles would be blessed
5. Based on God's covenant with Abraham
These provisions were passed on to Jacob only. Gen. 28:13-15
Provisions to Jacob
1. Land Promised to Jacob and his seed Gen. 28:13,15
2. Seed multiplied v.14
3. Gentiles blessed through seed
Covenant provisions confirmed to all of Jacob's twelve sons who are the fathers of the twelve tribes as found in Genesis 49. So I figure the covenant made by God with Abraham which included his children would be related to the physical/national/ethnic Israel, those descending from the phsyical seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and not the spiritual seed.
Don't say it! [dispensationalist] I'm just a Baptist.
Kaalvenist
Puritan Board Sophomore
Another point I thought of: Dr. White claimed that, in no sphere of doctrinal development do we proceed in the manner we do to develop the Reformed case for paedobaptism. I have four words for him: "First Day Sabbath Observance."
JM: A couple problems that I see are, (1.) All of God's covenants, not just the Davidic covenant, included the children of the covenanters; (2.) All of God's covenants have promised blessing, not just the new covenant; and, (3.) You are positing major disjunctions between these various covenants, instead of understanding them to all spell out a single, unified covenant of grace -- which is dispensational.
JM: A couple problems that I see are, (1.) All of God's covenants, not just the Davidic covenant, included the children of the covenanters; (2.) All of God's covenants have promised blessing, not just the new covenant; and, (3.) You are positing major disjunctions between these various covenants, instead of understanding them to all spell out a single, unified covenant of grace -- which is dispensational.
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
I agree to the disjunctions between covenants...but did I at least have a grasp of the argument? I've never heard the full argument presented before.
~JM~
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
I'll add: All of the covenants are eternal and none of them are abrogated.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
JM,
You didn't hear the full argument there either; thats what I've been saying. Unless you have the basics of CT down, both camps will be talking past each other; one talking about oranges, the other about apples. It's an unavoidable conundrum. The only reason I became paedo is because I allowed for the wiring to be rewired for the sake of truth. I allowed for the paedo idea and challenged it, trying to prove it illicit and couldn't.
I will add: Anyone who's position is based upon default is no position at all.
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Children of the Promise
Hay:
When Dr. White tries to explain the Acts 2:39, "For the promise is made to you and to your children..." he tries to cross-reference it with Matthew 27:25 which reads:
Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
He claims that the curse the Jews made in Matthew 27:25 was remitted by Peter in the Acts passage. In making this claim he seems to think that he has avoided the Covenantal perorgatives of Believers and their children. However, the facts are just the opposite.
But the Jews are calling down the responsibility of their actions upon their children as well - who had no say in their decision. This is clear case of Federal Theology at work and in the understanding of the 1st Century believers.
By uniting Matthew 27:25 with Acts 2:39 Dr. White is actually making a sound case for the paedo-baptist position. Paedo-baptists argue that Federal Theology is firmly in the mind of Peter when he preached in Acts chapter 2. If, as Dr. White claims, that Matthew 27:25 was in the mind of Peter when he spoke, then it would necessarily follow that Peter was speaking of the Covenantal priviledges that believers have with their children.
Dr. White is actually trying to use Covenant theology against itself.
Blessings,
-CH
Hay:
When Dr. White tries to explain the Acts 2:39, "For the promise is made to you and to your children..." he tries to cross-reference it with Matthew 27:25 which reads:
Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
He claims that the curse the Jews made in Matthew 27:25 was remitted by Peter in the Acts passage. In making this claim he seems to think that he has avoided the Covenantal perorgatives of Believers and their children. However, the facts are just the opposite.
But the Jews are calling down the responsibility of their actions upon their children as well - who had no say in their decision. This is clear case of Federal Theology at work and in the understanding of the 1st Century believers.
By uniting Matthew 27:25 with Acts 2:39 Dr. White is actually making a sound case for the paedo-baptist position. Paedo-baptists argue that Federal Theology is firmly in the mind of Peter when he preached in Acts chapter 2. If, as Dr. White claims, that Matthew 27:25 was in the mind of Peter when he spoke, then it would necessarily follow that Peter was speaking of the Covenantal priviledges that believers have with their children.
Dr. White is actually trying to use Covenant theology against itself.
Blessings,
-CH
Good point.
Iconoclast
Puritan Board Junior
It was instructive
I was able to attend this debate. Pastor Shishko was able to present much of his material from his lengthy series of bible studies which are available on sermon audio.
Pastor Shishko is a faithful minister of God's word and sought to present the padeo position in the time allowed. I am sure both men would have liked much more time to develop some of their theological threads. Pastor Shishko was very good on showing how God has indeed worked in times past in families and households and this was one of the most instructive parts of His presentation.
Many times in baptist churches there is not as much an emphasis on this as there should be . Pastor Shishko sought to frame this out and demonstrate it and the material he put out was worthwhile.
James White went about to give a Reformed Baptist presentation of what took place in the book of Acts. James White was able to show some inconsistencies in the position offered.
The men made it clear that they were brothers in Christ by new birth. They were not looking to make personal attacks as that is not productive.
There were times when I felt that a more forceful arguement could have been offered in a decisive way, but I sensed a letting up if you will with the answer being pointed too,but not completely pressed home.
The question and answer portion was short in my opinion. We were allowed one written question with no follow up. The next time I speak with Dr.White I will invite him to come onto the puritanboard and watch you explain to him his "mistaken presuppositions"
I was able to attend this debate. Pastor Shishko was able to present much of his material from his lengthy series of bible studies which are available on sermon audio.
Pastor Shishko is a faithful minister of God's word and sought to present the padeo position in the time allowed. I am sure both men would have liked much more time to develop some of their theological threads. Pastor Shishko was very good on showing how God has indeed worked in times past in families and households and this was one of the most instructive parts of His presentation.
Many times in baptist churches there is not as much an emphasis on this as there should be . Pastor Shishko sought to frame this out and demonstrate it and the material he put out was worthwhile.
James White went about to give a Reformed Baptist presentation of what took place in the book of Acts. James White was able to show some inconsistencies in the position offered.
The men made it clear that they were brothers in Christ by new birth. They were not looking to make personal attacks as that is not productive.
There were times when I felt that a more forceful arguement could have been offered in a decisive way, but I sensed a letting up if you will with the answer being pointed too,but not completely pressed home.
The question and answer portion was short in my opinion. We were allowed one written question with no follow up. The next time I speak with Dr.White I will invite him to come onto the puritanboard and watch you explain to him his "mistaken presuppositions"
Anthony,
I have been personal friends with Dr. White for 7 years.
When I started a thread on the Puritanboard challenging Dr. White on his inconsistencies, I sent him a personal e-mail so that he could interact here if he desired. I don't post things behind people's backs that I'm not willing to interact with them on to their face. To do so in Dr. White's case would be to stab a friend in the back.
I have been personal friends with Dr. White for 7 years.
When I started a thread on the Puritanboard challenging Dr. White on his inconsistencies, I sent him a personal e-mail so that he could interact here if he desired. I don't post things behind people's backs that I'm not willing to interact with them on to their face. To do so in Dr. White's case would be to stab a friend in the back.
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
I was able to attend this debate. Pastor Shishko was able to present much of his material from his lengthy series of bible studies which are available on sermon audio.
Pastor Shishko is a faithful minister of God's word and sought to present the padeo position in the time allowed. I am sure both men would have liked much more time to develop some of their theological threads. Pastor Shishko was very good on showing how God has indeed worked in times past in families and households and this was one of the most instructive parts of His presentation.
Many times in baptist churches there is not as much an emphasis on this as there should be . Pastor Shishko sought to frame this out and demonstrate it and the material he put out was worthwhile.
James White went about to give a Reformed Baptist presentation of what took place in the book of Acts. James White was able to show some inconsistencies in the position offered.
The men made it clear that they were brothers in Christ by new birth. They were not looking to make personal attacks as that is not productive.
There were times when I felt that a more forceful arguement could have been offered in a decisive way, but I sensed a letting up if you will with the answer being pointed too,but not completely pressed home.
The question and answer portion was short in my opinion. We were allowed one written question with no follow up. The next time I speak with Dr.White I will invite him to come onto the puritanboard and watch you explain to him his "mistaken presuppositions"
Greetings:
Hearing James White's presentation at that time I doubt very highly that he would do so, because any paedo here would clean his clock.
The more you get to know him the more you will realize that Dr. White will not debate a person he senses will get the best of him. Dr. White goes after easy targets: KJO fanatics, Mormons, Roman Catholics, etc...
You do not need to wait to speak with him. You can email him and ask him to do so.
Blessings,
-CH
Iconoclast
Puritan Board Junior
a matter of perspective
The look you are describing was James White trying to ease up. there were several series of questions that pastor Shishko basically side stepped and Dr.White let it go
Dr.White pointed out that the padeo baptist on the issue of padeo communion does the same thing as the baptist in reference to believers baptism. Do you also remember the series of questions about the adult who comes to faith but has children,not just infants some of whom deny the faith ,or some older than infants.
Dr . White raised the issue and then backed off. Both men did not have enough time to do much more.
The look you are describing was James White trying to ease up. there were several series of questions that pastor Shishko basically side stepped and Dr.White let it go
Dr.White pointed out that the padeo baptist on the issue of padeo communion does the same thing as the baptist in reference to believers baptism. Do you also remember the series of questions about the adult who comes to faith but has children,not just infants some of whom deny the faith ,or some older than infants.
Dr . White raised the issue and then backed off. Both men did not have enough time to do much more.
Iconoclast
Puritan Board Junior
did he answer you
Rich, did he say he would come in? Did he respond to you in email? I will discuss it with him the next chance I have.
I know he he really working on the upcoming Islamic debate[ shabir allie]sp?
He has a growing concern as many of us do that Islam is spreading like a plague and needs to be addressed.
He comes out here once in awhile and is a frequent guest on a local christian radio show,iron sharpens iron, which is on mon-fri on the internet, at 3pm-4pm est.it is on 1440 spirit of ny. They have various pastors and guests on. It is small but growing
Rich, did he say he would come in? Did he respond to you in email? I will discuss it with him the next chance I have.
I know he he really working on the upcoming Islamic debate[ shabir allie]sp?
He has a growing concern as many of us do that Islam is spreading like a plague and needs to be addressed.
He comes out here once in awhile and is a frequent guest on a local christian radio show,iron sharpens iron, which is on mon-fri on the internet, at 3pm-4pm est.it is on 1440 spirit of ny. They have various pastors and guests on. It is small but growing
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Nonsence Anthony!
The criteria for communion is different than that of Baptism. Communion requires one to be able to discern the body and blood of Christ, and to examine oneself to make sure that one is in the faith. These are not requirments for Baptism.
-CH
Iconoclast
Puritan Board Junior
I was able to attend this debate. Pastor Shishko was able to present much of his material from his lengthy series of bible studies which are available on sermon audio.
Pastor Shishko is a faithful minister of God's word and sought to present the padeo position in the time allowed. I am sure both men would have liked much more time to develop some of their theological threads. Pastor Shishko was very good on showing how God has indeed worked in times past in families and households and this was one of the most instructive parts of His presentation.
Many times in baptist churches there is not as much an emphasis on this as there should be . Pastor Shishko sought to frame this out and demonstrate it and the material he put out was worthwhile.
James White went about to give a Reformed Baptist presentation of what took place in the book of Acts. James White was able to show some inconsistencies in the position offered.
The men made it clear that they were brothers in Christ by new birth. They were not looking to make personal attacks as that is not productive.
There were times when I felt that a more forceful arguement could have been offered in a decisive way, but I sensed a letting up if you will with the answer being pointed too,but not completely pressed home.
The question and answer portion was short in my opinion. We were allowed one written question with no follow up. The next time I speak with Dr.White I will invite him to come onto the puritanboard and watch you explain to him his "mistaken presuppositions"
Greetings:
Hearing James White's presentation at that time I doubt very highly that he would do so, because any paedo here would clean his clock.
The more you get to know him the more you will realize that Dr. White will not debate a person he senses will get the best of him. Dr. White goes after easy targets: KJO fanatics, Mormons, Roman Catholics, etc...
You do not need to wait to speak with him. You can email him and ask him to do so.
Blessings,
-CH
Rob,
You have gotten to know Dr.White,and he confided in you that he only goes after easy targets? He is afraid to come in here,because he would "get his clock cleaned"
Are you sure of this? I do not think he thinks of brothers in Christ as 'targets'!
It looks like he targets false gospels,not christian brethren!
Rob, I read most of your posts and I know you have a seeming zeal for truth. I hope that some of this zeal translates to a zeal for lost souls.
Did you ever hear a presentation where the person has much truth but lacks grace or patience and instead of communicating they drive away the hearer by a lack of charity?
If you have spoken to Dr. White face to face and voiced your concerns to him,I am more than sure that he would discuss any issue you choose time permitting
He was really, really busy at the time. His baptism debate occured about the same time as the Tomb Story surfaced and he wrote that book in two weeks of straight work. I think he was a bit busy to take it up but I'm always willing to interact.
I'm actually not that concerned either way. I love listening to his show and the topics he takes up in defense of orthodoxy. If he has time to come in here and interact on the thread I started asking about his own consistency then I'm quite willing to interact. He does have a username here.
Iconoclast
Puritan Board Junior
your opinion
Rich,
Thanks for your response. I would like to ask your opinion on something.
If I read a book or article and would like to question it,do you think it would be wise to take up that persons time or it is better to interact on this type of forum until such an opportunity might present itself,like at a family conference?
Most of the time there is good interaction and links offered here and that is very valuable.
What would you say?
Rich,
Thanks for your response. I would like to ask your opinion on something.
If I read a book or article and would like to question it,do you think it would be wise to take up that persons time or it is better to interact on this type of forum until such an opportunity might present itself,like at a family conference?
Most of the time there is good interaction and links offered here and that is very valuable.
What would you say?
I'm not sure I understand the question.
If I'm reading you properly then you seem to suggest that I shouldn't have posted the interaction specifically challenging Dr. White's assertions on the board until I had the time to interact personally.
If that is what you mean then I would disagree. It was a publically moderated debate where he challenged paedo-baptists as a class on their consistency with Scripture. I responded and challenged in like manner. His brethren of like mind took up the challenge. Debate participants know they're going to open themselves up to public discussion. They can't possibly interact with everybody, personally, they might have addressed as a group.
If you meant something else by the question then please clarify because I want to make sure I answered your question.
If I'm reading you properly then you seem to suggest that I shouldn't have posted the interaction specifically challenging Dr. White's assertions on the board until I had the time to interact personally.
If that is what you mean then I would disagree. It was a publically moderated debate where he challenged paedo-baptists as a class on their consistency with Scripture. I responded and challenged in like manner. His brethren of like mind took up the challenge. Debate participants know they're going to open themselves up to public discussion. They can't possibly interact with everybody, personally, they might have addressed as a group.
If you meant something else by the question then please clarify because I want to make sure I answered your question.
Iconoclast
Puritan Board Junior
clarification
Rich,
No , I was not talking about that. I mean if I read a book by David Englesma and have questions. Should I write Him directly,or should I use the book to raise the questions in a forum like the puritanboard? This way it does not come across as an attack,but more of a questioning for clarification. Sometimes I see some really good responses in here.
But if others have not read the book,or heard a particular sermon they might not feel as comfortable defending someone elses position.[ i do not think Prof. Englesma would feel uncomfortable, lol. ] But sometimes I am not so sure what to do. Do you think the response to the book would be looked at as welcomed?
Rich,
No , I was not talking about that. I mean if I read a book by David Englesma and have questions. Should I write Him directly,or should I use the book to raise the questions in a forum like the puritanboard? This way it does not come across as an attack,but more of a questioning for clarification. Sometimes I see some really good responses in here.
But if others have not read the book,or heard a particular sermon they might not feel as comfortable defending someone elses position.[ i do not think Prof. Englesma would feel uncomfortable, lol. ] But sometimes I am not so sure what to do. Do you think the response to the book would be looked at as welcomed?
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Hey:
The problem with calling him on his radio show is the limited time allowed on an issue that requires a lot of information. His radio show is also set up in a way so as to make him look good - this is typical of any call-in radio show, like, for example, Rush Limbaugh. Also, Dr. White is practiced on the Radio where such would be my first time. Being uncomfortable in such a situation would be a detriment to the argument.
Why will Dr. White not appear here on the Puritanboard? I have invited him to do so about a year or so ago. Putting things in writing is a more sure record of his thoughts. It is apparent that he uses logical fallacies in order to promote his views. Such fallacies would be clearer, and easier for me to point out, if he wrote them down rather than in a debate or radio show.
Iconoclast:
"Seeming zeal for truth"? Where do you get that from? Are you accusing me of insincerity? That is an amazing statement from a guy who never met me. One could point out your lack of charity here - could one not?
As for White choosing easy targets - it is obvious from his website. Does he engage in the arguments of Robinson and Pierpont? Does he belittle Dr. Theodore Letis? Especially since Dr. Letis is dead and cannot defend himself? Reading his website over the last three months he has not engaged a godly scholar on the TR, but simply posts articles relating to the KJO fanatics. There is an endless list of errors that Dr. White engages in, but he has poisoned the well with his KJO rhetoric.
It seems to me that a person like Dr. White who lumps all defenders of the Textus Receptus as being KJO fanatics is uncharitable. So, the answer is yes I have seen people present their views as being uncharitable.
Grace and Peace,
-CH
- Status
