White vs. Shishko

[Semper Fidelis]

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?

Not per se. I think if he's willing to answer your questions directly that would be cool. If you have questions about it here then I don't think it is bad to bring them up here as there are plenty that can responsibly answer in a way that Prof. Englesma would have. I think the recent interaction on the Sola Scriptura thread is a good example of how Godly men can disagree in a way that does not come across as mean-spirited.

 

[tellville]

Rob, you should call James White's show! I know you disagree with him on Baptism and Textual Criticism. Why not just talk to the man himself? I personally would like to hear a dialogue between you too.

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.

Hmmmm. I think a lot of people use this as an excuse to not phone his program and challenge him. I can appreciate that as he has incredible rhetoric skills. But if you really want to challenge him or you think he is grossly in error, then no matter how good at rhetoric he is it wouldn't matter. If what he was saying was false the truth would come out.

Personally at the moment I agree with Dr. White on pretty much everything But I would like to see people challenge him more often as opposed to people just poising the well about him.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Rob, you should call James White's show! I know you disagree with him on Baptism and Textual Criticism. Why not just talk to the man himself? I personally would like to hear a dialogue between you too.

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.

Hmmmm. I think a lot of people use this as an excuse to not phone his program and challenge him. I can appreciate that as he has incredible rhetoric skills. But if you really want to challenge him or you think he is grossly in error, then no matter how good at rhetoric he is it wouldn't matter. If what he was saying was false the truth would come out.

Personally at the moment I agree with Dr. White on pretty much everything But I would like to see people challenge him more often as opposed to people just poising the well about him.

Hi:

That is a good point. It is an excuse, but the question is - is it a good excuse or not? Would you be more persuaded by a person who appears sure of himself, but is wrong? The history of debate proves this concept correct - Adolf Hitler for example. A person, like yourself, who is preconditioned to believe in credo-baptism is not going to be persuaded by a first time caller on a Radio show. Would he? Also, the person sitting on the fence would not be so convinced.

I think it would be great to debate Dr. White here on the Puritanboard, but I just don't think he would agree to it because the record would show his errors.

Such is life.

May God richly bless you,

-Rob

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rob,

I would caution you not to ascribe motive to Dr. White. He is a personal friend and, like all men, has his faults and may overstate his polemics at times. I have heard him make note that there are some who are not in the lunatic fringe that disagree. He has a tendency to overstate on some issues. You must admit, however, that the bulk of KJVO are the worst kind of friends you could hope to have on the subject. His polemics are typically aimed at them from what I've seen.

Thus, unless you have actual evidence of motive, do not use the Board to infer one. The man is extremely busy. I do not agree with him on the subject of Baptism but I don't attribute the fact that he has interacted little on this board to anything other than his schedule.

Finally, I would agree with you that not everyone is cut out for a give and take on a "radio" format. Some are able to both write and speak well but oration is not necessarily the mark of the best argument. Some very brilliant writers are not very good public speakers and the validity of their arguments should not be measured in that vein.

 

[tellville]

Hi:

That is a good point. It is an excuse, but the question is - is it a good excuse or not? Would you be more persuaded by a person who appears sure of himself, but is wrong? The history of debate proves this concept correct - Adolf Hitler for example. A person, like yourself, who is preconditioned to believe in credo-baptism is not going to be persuaded by a first time caller on a Radio show. Would he? Also, the person sitting on the fence would not be so convinced.

I think it would be great to debate Dr. White here on the Puritanboard, but I just don't think he would agree to it because the record would show his errors.

Such is life.

May God richly bless you,

-Rob

Maybe you should do a critical review of his KJV only book, or maybe his lectures and debates on Baptism? If you posted enough substantial critique you would probably eventually pull him out of the woodwork. If you write quality stuff, somebody is bound to tell him about it.

As for being preconditioned for the credo position: I probably am. Which is probably why it makes a lot more sense to me at the moment But I would be lying if I didn't say that the padeo position has me quite intrigued and starting in September I will be beginning a very in-depth study of the subject. I expect it to be a long, agonizing, tough, but in the end very beneficial study.

God bless, brother!

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Rob,

I would caution you not to ascribe motive to Dr. White. He is a personal friend and, like all men, has his faults and may overstate his polemics at times. I have heard him make note that there are some who are not in the lunatic fringe that disagree. He has a tendency to overstate on some issues. You must admit, however, that the bulk of KJVO are the worst kind of friends you could hope to have on the subject. His polemics are typically aimed at them from what I've seen.

Thus, unless you have actual evidence of motive, do not use the Board to infer one. The man is extremely busy. I do not agree with him on the subject of Baptism but I don't attribute the fact that he has interacted little on this board to anything other than his schedule.

Finally, I would agree with you that not everyone is cut out for a give and take on a "radio" format. Some are able to both write and speak well but oration is not necessarily the mark of the best argument. Some very brilliant writers are not very good public speakers and the validity of their arguments should not be measured in that vein.

Thank you Rich. I happen to agree with Dr. White concerning the lunatic fringe of the KJO movement. However, does this really need to be constantly pointed out? He harps on this issue so much that he has poisoned the well with those scholars who are legitimate on this issue. He simply has to label someone "KJO" and who will listen to the argument? Now, is that charitable?

Now, as for his motives concerning self-promotion? Well, I was in attendance at Hope Reformed Baptist Church during his "visits" to Long Island. Back in 1998 or '97 he preached at the church. The "sermon" was all about himself and full of stories and anecdotes about his apologetic work - there was nothing in it about Christ. And this was a sermon on Sunday morning! His book, The Potter's Freedom has on the first few pages lists of various Reformed men who endorse the book. At the end of it he gives a webpage where you can read even more testimonies! Why all the self-promotion? Is self-centeredness a Christian virtue? Excepting for yourself - he attracts other such egoists like Chris Arnzen.

I do not consider James White as a friend (not that he is an enemy either), but I have enough experience with him to make some inferences. The word "I" is constantly in his vocabulary: "I did this," "I did that," "I spoke here" etc...

If you took a step back and actually reveiwed his website I think you would be able to catch the drift of this point. I am no psychologist, but I have taken several courses on the subject, and Dr. White's behavior is reminiscent of a man with an inferiority complex.

Now, is this unsubstantiated? In my opinion it is not, but simply my experience with the man as well as the objective material he has produced both on the internet and in writing. He goes after soft targets because it makes him look good. He is "too busy" to debate with people who are scholars on the subject, but he is not too busy to debate flakes.

As always I am the bad guy. I will take my lumps in the service of Jesus Christ.

Blessings to you as always,

Rob Wieland

 

[JohnOwen007]

Berean Issue

We must be careful when interpreting the Berean issue in its relation to the unity of OT and NT. I don't think it's got much to do with James White's appeal to the NT only issue (even though I personally am a paedobaptist).

The NT obviously presents revelation not found in the OT (hence Paul's use of the term "mystery"). If in Christ all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found (Col. 2:3) then we must recognise a certain priority to NT revelation.

So what is going on with the Bereans? They were searching the OT scriptures to see if what Paul said was in conflict with the OT, not whether all of Paul's message could be found in the OT.

Moreover, the hermeneutic of "what OT command is not rescinded in the NT still stands" is a very tricky one (is it explicitly taught by the Bible itself?). The issue is rather what does it mean for Jesus to "fulfill" the law (Matt. 5) and be the "end" / "goal" (telos) of the law (Rom. 10:4). It is this issue that stands at the heart of how the OT applies to us now.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rob,

I would caution you not to ascribe motive to Dr. White. He is a personal friend and, like all men, has his faults and may overstate his polemics at times. I have heard him make note that there are some who are not in the lunatic fringe that disagree. He has a tendency to overstate on some issues. You must admit, however, that the bulk of KJVO are the worst kind of friends you could hope to have on the subject. His polemics are typically aimed at them from what I've seen.

Thus, unless you have actual evidence of motive, do not use the Board to infer one. The man is extremely busy. I do not agree with him on the subject of Baptism but I don't attribute the fact that he has interacted little on this board to anything other than his schedule.

Finally, I would agree with you that not everyone is cut out for a give and take on a "radio" format. Some are able to both write and speak well but oration is not necessarily the mark of the best argument. Some very brilliant writers are not very good public speakers and the validity of their arguments should not be measured in that vein.

Thank you Rich. I happen to agree with Dr. White concerning the lunatic fringe of the KJO movement. However, does this really need to be constantly pointed out? He harps on this issue so much that he has poisoned the well with those scholars who are legitimate on this issue. He simply has to label someone "KJO" and who will listen to the argument? Now, is that charitable?

Now, as for his motives concerning self-promotion? Well, I was in attendance at Hope Reformed Baptist Church during his "visits" to Long Island. Back in 1998 or '97 he preached at the church. The "sermon" was all about himself and full of stories and anecdotes about his apologetic work - there was nothing in it about Christ. And this was a sermon on Sunday morning! His book, The Potter's Freedom has on the first few pages lists of various Reformed men who endorse the book. At the end of it he gives a webpage where you can read even more testimonies! Why all the self-promotion? Is self-centeredness a Christian virtue? Excepting for yourself - he attracts other such egoists like Chris Arnzen.

I do not consider James White as a friend (not that he is an enemy either), but I have enough experience with him to make some inferences. The word "I" is constantly in his vocabulary: "I did this," "I did that," "I spoke here" etc...

If you took a step back and actually reveiwed his website I think you would be able to catch the drift of this point. I am no psychologist, but I have taken several courses on the subject, and Dr. White's behavior is reminiscent of a man with an inferiority complex.

Now, is this unsubstantiated? In my opinion it is not, but simply my experience with the man as well as the objective material he has produced both on the internet and in writing. He goes after soft targets because it makes him look good. He is "too busy" to debate with people who are scholars on the subject, but he is not too busy to debate flakes.

As always I am the bad guy. I will take my lumps in the service of Jesus Christ.

Blessings to you as always,

Rob Wieland

Rob,

No good guy, bad guy thing. I respect your right to an opinion on the man. I just don't want people assuming motive. I don't presume you have a bad motive in bringing the issues to light so let's just leave it at that.

I don't believe the sun rises and sets on him but he has to have a pretty strong character to withstand the withering assault of cultists left and right. I don't want this board to be a place that levies any more stuff his way unnecessarily.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Marty,

Who are you responding to?

 

[JohnOwen007]

Marty,

Who are you responding to?

To some of the earlier posts in this thread that touched on the issues of continuity / discontinuity between OT and NT.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Posted by Tellville: Hmmmm. I think a lot of people use this as an excuse to not phone his program and challenge him. I can appreciate that as he has incredible rhetoric skills. But if you really want to challenge him or you think he is grossly in error, then no matter how good at rhetoric he is it wouldn't matter. If what he was saying was false the truth would come out.

Mark, I don't know if I would agree with this. Some folks are so adept at verbal debate they can walk circles around one who is not, even if their position is not supportable upon close examination. Consider Charles Finney; he was so eloquent and forceful in his presentations he often overwhelmed better men than he, that is, men soundly based in biblical doctrine, but who were soft-spoken and mild-mannered.

On the other hand, Robert W., I took note recently where James White talked (I think on his Aomin blog) of having lunch or dinner with a friend in England who was either TR or KJV only (James wasn't sure), and although they disagreed (perhaps it was over 1 John 5:7), their conversation was friendly and pleasant to them both.

Myself, I am sort of slow-witted when it comes to verbal repartee; I was leaving a picnic when an elder in another church (in a friendly manner) made a sarcastic remark about predestination, and as I didn't have time to develop a response, it wasn't until the next picnic some months later that I answered him, leaving him speechless. That wouldn't fly in a debate format!

I much prefer written interaction. If I discuss textual issues with Dr. White, I would prefer to do it in a forum such as PB, where he also is a member.

And if I do thus interact with him, I would not want negative remarks about my brother in the thread -- he gets enough of that from the RCs and the Muslims!

 

[tellville]

Posted by Tellville: Hmmmm. I think a lot of people use this as an excuse to not phone his program and challenge him. I can appreciate that as he has incredible rhetoric skills. But if you really want to challenge him or you think he is grossly in error, then no matter how good at rhetoric he is it wouldn't matter. If what he was saying was false the truth would come out.

Mark, I don't know if I would agree with this. Some folks are so adept at verbal debate they can walk circles around one who is not, even if their position is not supportable upon close examination. Consider Charles Finney; he was so eloquent and forceful in his presentations he often overwhelmed better men than he, that is, men soundly based in biblical doctrine, but who were soft-spoken and mild-mannered.

On the other hand, Robert W., I took note recently where James White talked (I think on his Aomin blog) of having lunch or dinner with a friend in England who was either TR or KJV only (James wasn't sure), and although they disagreed (perhaps it was over 1 John 5:7), their conversation was friendly and pleasant to them both.

Myself, I am sort of slow-witted when it comes to verbal repartee; I was leaving a picnic when an elder in another church (in a friendly manner) made a sarcastic remark about predestination, and as I didn't have time to develop a response, it wasn't until the next picnic some months later that I answered him, leaving him speechless. That wouldn't fly in a debate format!

I much prefer written interaction. If I discuss textual issues with Dr. White, I would prefer to do it in a forum such as PB, where he also is a member.

And if I do thus interact with him, I would not want negative remarks about my brother in the thread -- he gets enough of that from the RCs and the Muslims!

Steve, point taken. However, what I meant by that the truth would come out was not necessarily in the immediate context of that debate. It would come after people researched the things he had said.

Like I said in my previous post: If Rob or anybody else has a problem with Dr. White, write a review of his work! Usually, because people are afraid of his rhetorical skills, people just throw mud at him. Write something substantive. He'll notice. Then when he responds on the Dividing Line, write another response. Bang, you got a dialogue.