Did any of you listen to this?

Although Steve Gregg is definitely more able and refined than George Bryson/Dave Hunt/ETC, I still can't believe the degree and manner to which Gregg constantly explained away passages and had the nerve to accuse White of eisogesis. I mean almost everything the guy said (and he said it with utmost confidence!) was an explaining away of the clear and explicit surface and internal subject matter of the text.

Sheesh. I don't get it.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Daddy
Member of TRBC. My Blog
The Puritan Pub (Team Blog)
Board Rules-Signature Requirements-Suggestions?

It seems to me as though White was on the battlefield, and Gregg was still up in the stands hollering. White was seriously engaging the texts and debating his own beliefs, whereas Gregg was very dodgy and aloof.

I know Dave Hunt would have been considerably worse, but Steve Gregg was a real disappointment. I was hoping for someone a little more serious (as he was often advertised as).

__________________
Devin Brian
1689er
Attending Trinity Baptist Church in Shreveport, LA.
Vivian, Louisiana, USA

"The fall of man is written in too legible characters not to be understood: Those that deny it, by their denying, prove it." - George Whitefield

From Dr. White's blog post on 04/08/2008, he nails it as to what I was trying to express:

Joshua,

Don't know if you listened to me talking with Dr. White about Gregg last Thursday. I characterized Gregg as a postmodern Pelagian.

He doesn't really interact with texts except in a "seems to me" fashion by wandering around the Bible. His appeal, in my estimation, is the same kind of appeal of any good speaker who can make it seem like you're not dismissing an idea but simply absorbing it into your own poorly defined idea of what the Truth is.

Gregg, at one point, tried to atomize Romans 1 to claim that it only speaks of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness but not those that don't do this. Technically, therefore, he holds that there are men who don't do this. In fact, the only reason the people didn't believe what Christ might have otherwise revealed is that Christ spoke in Parables to be confusing. Had He been more explicit, Gregg argued, then people would have believed of their own account.

Hence, in Gregg's schema, grace is not necessary for men to seek God. Grace seems to be something added after man does his part in not suppressing truth in unrighteousness and all men are capable of doing so. He is not Arminian and, in fact, has a lower view of the necessity of Grace than the Roman Catholic Church.

Of course, he'd probably retreat from this analysis as he did in every meaningful interaction with White by going into "squishy mode" where he speaks ambiguously. That works for the novice and others who find his method profound. I find his method ultimately skeptical and un-Biblical. It's no wonder he doesn't have the backbone to condemn open theism because the ground he stands on is shifting sand.

__________________
Rich
Okinawa, Japan

SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion
WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.

Wow. In the 4th Program, Steve Gregg acted incredibly infantile.

Not yet. I wanted to listen to the debates first.

I wish Dr. White (DrOakley here at the PB) would upgrade his music like he upgraded his website.

You whistled the Steve Gregg song!

And nailed it at that!

LOL, I heard that DL. . . .

That was funny!

But Seriously, Gregg had some of the best dance moves since Dancing the the stars! He really knows how to dance around the questions.

I was really hoping to get some solid answers in regards to Acts 13:48; he just couldn't commit. I believe that was on the 4th day, he was doing his best to play the post-modern ticket. I have listened to Steve Gregg in the past, I really expected a great deal more from him that what we showed during that debate. It goes to show that when you don't have solid theology, you don't have a solid case. Dr. White did a great job even through day 4 where you could tell that he was getting frustrated with the way the debate was going and rightly so. The 5th day was probably the best and of course the most organized.

Kudos Dr. White

Blessings,

__________________
Rev. Toby Holland
Director of Evangelism
Wiltsie Community Church (CCCC)

I confess, I listened to the first half hour of the first debate and turned off. I had listened to Rich's later call to the show first, so I wasn't expecting a great deal from Steve Gregg, but still he managed to be disappointing. The general thrust of his opening comments was "on the surface the Bible seems to teach Arminianism, Calvinists claim that if you look deeper it actually teaches Calvinism, but we shouldn't do that because, well, because we shouldn't." Which is wrong on both counts - the Bible does teach the doctrines of grace all through, there is no prima facie case for Arminianism, and also we should delve deeply into the truths of Scripture. I heard Dr White's first reply then switched off.

__________________
T W Hopper
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church
Currently between churches since PRC closed here - attending Crossroads Christian Church.
Canberra, Australia.

Honestly, Gregg's argument that Arminianism is likely correct because most people read their own ability to be righteous apart from Grace is, in my mind, an argument against Arminianism.

Why, precisely, would Christ say that men would hate us because of Him? If the Scripture's message makes sense to the world then why does the world consider it foolishness? Why is it a stumbling block if it is so obvious to all?

Indeed, Arminianism is false precisely because fallen men, Truth suppressors, read that very doctrine into the Scriptures. The fact that men who claim to be born again read the doctrine into the Scriptures is inexcusable.