The first secret is.... immediately after your opponent gives their opening statement-- accuse your opponent of not responding to your opening statement, so you can try and fool the audience into thinking opening statements are supposed to be full-on rebuttals. Obviously.
@@dogescout5868 You do not know what debate etiquette is if you think my post is cope. Go ahead and tell me how the debate is structured and when rebuttals are supposed to be delivered.
@@ip7101 Funny how you come after Dr. White for simply pointing out that Tim’s presentation didn’t touch on any of main texts that Tim said he was “so prepared for”, but you have no issue with Tim writing his rebuttal and closing while saying “Dr White mentioned anthropomorphic language and metaphor” when Dr. White never even once brought it up, but Dr White gets your ire? The reality is you are just biased against Dr White and you are showing it. Hence why I said, “Cope”. Dr White wasn’t telling Tim he needed to rebut it, but you’d think in his opening he would touch the vital keystone texts. He didn’t.
@@dogescout5868 You didn't provide the structure of the debate. Thanks for admitting you did not know what you were talking about! Instead you try to red herring. Big surprise! :) I'll proceed to entertain myself anyway since you have no interest in acknowledging any points made to you. By God's immutable unchangeable decree of course. Tim already acknowledged during and after the debate that White didn't use anthropomorphic language. He said "I'm not above admitting when I'm wrong." After the debate he mentions how he prepared for the debate beforehand, and neglected to adapt that statement to what White had actually said. Who is biased here? You're the one telling me I have no issue with Tim, when in fact Tim already resolved the error he made. Maybe you're not used to someone owning their mistakes. This means there is no "issue" to point out with Tim anyway. If White apologized for mischaracterizing Open Theism, should I tell you that "you have no issue with White mischaracterizing Open Theism, but you come after Tim blah blah blah"? Just because you point out something else Tim did that was wrong? No, it doesn't make sense to. If that's the best you got for a "whataboutism" then you are the one coping here pal.
@@ip7101 The structure of a debate is self-evident given that they literally walk you through it. You didn’t make any points. You said Dr. White was coming after Tim for not doing a rebuttal with his opening statement. That isn’t what happened. Dr. White pointed out that Tim did not touch a single keystone text in his opening statement. Dr. White obviously knows the layout of debates, and Tim writing out his rebuttal and closing statement means he did not really come to listen and engage with Dr. White. It also shows Tim didn’t understand the point of the debate either. Tim also said that he “wrote his stuff” during the debate but in the debate said he prepared it beforehand, so as Dr. White pointed out-which is it? Did he write it beforehand or write it during the debate? Can’t be both. Secondly, where did Dr. White misrepresent open theism? And which open theism because its not even remotely consistent which is why Dr. White said Tim had a mutant open theism. It wasn’t the classical view, it was adapted to try and cover its errors and weaknesses. So again, your critique of Dr. White is dishonest and falls flat and reflects your very clear bias against him because he is not an open theist.
Really great interview! I always enjoy listening to Dr. White, whether it’s in a discussion or in a debate. There’s always something I learn from him. Glad I was able to support your channel with the super chats and get my questions answered. It was very very helpful! 👍❤️
It was very, very frustrating to listen to Tim Barber! I commend Dr White for not losing it ‘cause I was reminded right there, I am a looong way to my sanctification while listening to all his bait questions 😂
Jared Longshore was not getting his doctrine of soteriology from his doctrine of apostasy. He was getting his doctrine of apostasy and soteriology from his covenantalism, which he stated several times. The other passages he mentioned were meant not to counter or distract from Hebrews 7-10, but to demonstrate the broader Biblical basis for his covenantalism expressed by the confession and Reformed scholasticism. These were his ultimate appeals. James was right to get Roman Catholic vibes, as a magisterium of sorts was in play. James thinks being Reformed is being a Biblicist. It’s not. He’s a sovereign grace fundamentalist and I’m here for it!
the entire basis for Paedobaptist CT *is the Apostasy verses. I've had several tell me this, and others realize it but didn't want to admit it. Shaky ground.
It might prove a winning argument for some that convinces folks to agree, but an entry point into Presbyterianism is not a theological foundation for their covenantalism. Jared clearly identified the Westminsterian theological development of the Covenant of Grace as the basis of his paedobaptism.
Leighton Flowers can also claim he's a Biblicist as well "whosoever will, savior of the whole world, etc". Most people believe they're arguing from the Bible. Premillennials also believe they're believing the plain texts when they go to Revelation 20 and it says a thousand years. These aren't great arguments.
so all Biblicss are always wrong, or maybe some get it right some of the time? You sound like one of those "all religions claim to be right, so none can be!"
@@pewburrito just saying the argument "Im just using the Bible" isn't a great argument because every side of every debate believes that and can give evidence.
@philipmurray9796 What he's actually doing is appealing to his followers' arrogance and encouraging them to use further arrogance in place of reason. Just assert that your position is more Biblical harder and you can attempt to bully and shame the opposition through the unearned implication that they're being anti-Biblical.
@@JD-xz1mx I love James but he has some blindspots, as we all do. He also likes to pull the "I can read it in the Greek and you can't" argument, which doesn't follow that his conclusion is necessarily correct.
@@philipmurray9796Often times, it's on issues that aren't even clarified by the Greek. Much of the time, when White finds an opponent who *does* understand the Greek, he'll refuse to get into the issue. It's mostly a rhetorical point to gain authoritative standing to make the opponent look stupid and less studied - it's quite the deceptive tactic.
This was an enormous misrepresentation of my stance and behavior in the debate, but I'm grateful that Dr. White, at least, would stop shy of saying I'm not a believer. I also happen to think that Calvinism is extremely dangerous for all of the same reasons I mentioned in the course of the debate - but I don't doubt your salvation. It is faith in Christ, and trust in Him to rescue you by His death, burial, and resurrection that leads to forgiveness of sin and eternal life. I repeat, that I am grateful that there will come a day when -- whether one of us or both of us are proven wrong in our view of who God is -- that it's by Christ's sacrifice we will stand and be made new. Careful with your rhetoric.
@@pewburrito pluralism has a greater assurance than any worldview. Would you give credence to them because of that? Also, how do you know that God hasn't chose you and is simply allowing you to have a false sense of assurance for the purpose of judging you unrighteous and demonstrating His glory? If the spiritually dead can't understand spiritual truths, how do you know you're not spiritually dead right now and not misunderstanding the spiritual truths you claim to know? Sounds like Calvinists have alot to think about when it comes to salvation. For us, it simply depends on the power of the gospel and whether or not we trust it. As long as you're trusting in it, you have assurance.
Tim, your behavior during the debate was really immature, abrasive, and rude. I thought you were doing great in your opening (speaking to your temperament), but man, you put such a sour taste in my mouth concerning your character and conduct and the position you were espousing. It was not a good look, and it basically guaranteed that I will not take any time to listen to your content/material post debate.
@@dogescout5868 there's no accounting for taste, I suppose. I am curious if you would say White engaged in the same behavior of which you're accusing me. Would speak volumes.
You said Dynamic Omniscience denies God knows the future. This is demonstrably false. Moreover Tim affirmed the proposition of the debate. If you dont know what Dynamic Omniscience holds, then stop condemning it until you do. If you do know what it holds, then you've knowingly bore false witness and im calling you to repent. No one should resort to dishonesty to defend their view, especially if youre seeking to kick folks out of the kingdom as you've sought to do here.
@TheApologeticDog again, you're misrepresenting the position. Please steelman Dynamic Omniscience so we can consider if you're qualified to critique it.
43:36 "Trying to nail Jell-O to a wall" Well that's your problem James! You're trying to do something that Jell-O isn't designed to do. Kinda like how you try to use prophecy to disprove Open Theism 😉 And I'm not even an open theist; I just think those arguments were particularly faulty. Also, dude, James you hold all kinds of particular views that your reformed baptist comrades don't necessarily hold. For example your recent usage of the word "decreedelism." So it's a little disingenuous to accuse Mr Barber of innovating.
Both Voice of Reason and Reason and Theology (Michael Lofton) have numerous videos addressing the Francis confusion, btw. It's not even close to what James White thinks.
@@ChristisLord2023 Virtually everything White says about Francis trying to fundamentally change the Church is wrong. Check out Reason and Theology and Voice of Reason for more information, particularly Reason and Theology.
Love the Apologetic Dog, Jeremiah, and Dr. White. A treat!
The first secret is.... immediately after your opponent gives their opening statement-- accuse your opponent of not responding to your opening statement, so you can try and fool the audience into thinking opening statements are supposed to be full-on rebuttals. Obviously.
@@ip7101 cope harder.
@@dogescout5868 You do not know what debate etiquette is if you think my post is cope. Go ahead and tell me how the debate is structured and when rebuttals are supposed to be delivered.
@@ip7101 Funny how you come after Dr. White for simply pointing out that Tim’s presentation didn’t touch on any of main texts that Tim said he was “so prepared for”, but you have no issue with Tim writing his rebuttal and closing while saying “Dr White mentioned anthropomorphic language and metaphor” when Dr. White never even once brought it up, but Dr White gets your ire?
The reality is you are just biased against Dr White and you are showing it. Hence why I said, “Cope”. Dr White wasn’t telling Tim he needed to rebut it, but you’d think in his opening he would touch the vital keystone texts. He didn’t.
@@dogescout5868 You didn't provide the structure of the debate. Thanks for admitting you did not know what you were talking about! Instead you try to red herring. Big surprise! :)
I'll proceed to entertain myself anyway since you have no interest in acknowledging any points made to you. By God's immutable unchangeable decree of course.
Tim already acknowledged during and after the debate that White didn't use anthropomorphic language. He said "I'm not above admitting when I'm wrong." After the debate he mentions how he prepared for the debate beforehand, and neglected to adapt that statement to what White had actually said.
Who is biased here? You're the one telling me I have no issue with Tim, when in fact Tim already resolved the error he made. Maybe you're not used to someone owning their mistakes. This means there is no "issue" to point out with Tim anyway. If White apologized for mischaracterizing Open Theism, should I tell you that "you have no issue with White mischaracterizing Open Theism, but you come after Tim blah blah blah"? Just because you point out something else Tim did that was wrong? No, it doesn't make sense to. If that's the best you got for a "whataboutism" then you are the one coping here pal.
@@ip7101 The structure of a debate is self-evident given that they literally walk you through it.
You didn’t make any points. You said Dr. White was coming after Tim for not doing a rebuttal with his opening statement. That isn’t what happened. Dr. White pointed out that Tim did not touch a single keystone text in his opening statement. Dr. White obviously knows the layout of debates, and Tim writing out his rebuttal and closing statement means he did not really come to listen and engage with Dr. White. It also shows Tim didn’t understand the point of the debate either. Tim also said that he “wrote his stuff” during the debate but in the debate said he prepared it beforehand, so as Dr. White pointed out-which is it? Did he write it beforehand or write it during the debate? Can’t be both.
Secondly, where did Dr. White misrepresent open theism? And which open theism because its not even remotely consistent which is why Dr. White said Tim had a mutant open theism. It wasn’t the classical view, it was adapted to try and cover its errors and weaknesses.
So again, your critique of Dr. White is dishonest and falls flat and reflects your very clear bias against him because he is not an open theist.
Literally thought Dr White's headphone cord was a scratch on my phone's screen, lol
How to win a debate according to James... If you don't win move the goalposts.
Really great interview! I always enjoy listening to Dr. White, whether it’s in a discussion or in a debate. There’s always something I learn from him. Glad I was able to support your channel with the super chats and get my questions answered. It was very very helpful! 👍❤️
@@BornAgainRN thank you so much!
I have a habit of subscribing to channels that do interviews with Dr White😊👍
Good discussion here. I was especially interested in the review of the Tim Barber debate.
Fun episode
Thanks brother
Lol when did James white EVER win a debate?
It was very, very frustrating to listen to Tim Barber! I commend Dr White for not losing it ‘cause I was reminded right there, I am a looong way to my sanctification while listening to all his bait questions 😂
White and Alex need to discuss Pope Francis!!!
Jared Longshore was not getting his doctrine of soteriology from his doctrine of apostasy. He was getting his doctrine of apostasy and soteriology from his covenantalism, which he stated several times. The other passages he mentioned were meant not to counter or distract from Hebrews 7-10, but to demonstrate the broader Biblical basis for his covenantalism expressed by the confession and Reformed scholasticism. These were his ultimate appeals. James was right to get Roman Catholic vibes, as a magisterium of sorts was in play. James thinks being Reformed is being a Biblicist. It’s not. He’s a sovereign grace fundamentalist and I’m here for it!
the entire basis for Paedobaptist CT *is the Apostasy verses. I've had several tell me this, and others realize it but didn't want to admit it. Shaky ground.
It might prove a winning argument for some that convinces folks to agree, but an entry point into Presbyterianism is not a theological foundation for their covenantalism. Jared clearly identified the Westminsterian theological development of the Covenant of Grace as the basis of his paedobaptism.
Have you scheduled a show with Zach Davis yet?
@@allthingsbing1295I am not really interested in a conversation with him, but let him know I will debate him on a topic of his choosing
Leighton Flowers can also claim he's a Biblicist as well "whosoever will, savior of the whole world, etc". Most people believe they're arguing from the Bible.
Premillennials also believe they're believing the plain texts when they go to Revelation 20 and it says a thousand years. These aren't great arguments.
so all Biblicss are always wrong, or maybe some get it right some of the time? You sound like one of those "all religions claim to be right, so none can be!"
@@pewburrito just saying the argument "Im just using the Bible" isn't a great argument because every side of every debate believes that and can give evidence.
@philipmurray9796 What he's actually doing is appealing to his followers' arrogance and encouraging them to use further arrogance in place of reason.
Just assert that your position is more Biblical harder and you can attempt to bully and shame the opposition through the unearned implication that they're being anti-Biblical.
@@JD-xz1mx I love James but he has some blindspots, as we all do. He also likes to pull the "I can read it in the Greek and you can't" argument, which doesn't follow that his conclusion is necessarily correct.
@@philipmurray9796Often times, it's on issues that aren't even clarified by the Greek. Much of the time, when White finds an opponent who *does* understand the Greek, he'll refuse to get into the issue.
It's mostly a rhetorical point to gain authoritative standing to make the opponent look stupid and less studied - it's quite the deceptive tactic.
This was an enormous misrepresentation of my stance and behavior in the debate, but I'm grateful that Dr. White, at least, would stop shy of saying I'm not a believer.
I also happen to think that Calvinism is extremely dangerous for all of the same reasons I mentioned in the course of the debate - but I don't doubt your salvation.
It is faith in Christ, and trust in Him to rescue you by His death, burial, and resurrection that leads to forgiveness of sin and eternal life.
I repeat, that I am grateful that there will come a day when -- whether one of us or both of us are proven wrong in our view of who God is -- that it's by Christ's sacrifice we will stand and be made new.
Careful with your rhetoric.
@@pewburrito pluralism has a greater assurance than any worldview. Would you give credence to them because of that?
Also, how do you know that God hasn't chose you and is simply allowing you to have a false sense of assurance for the purpose of judging you unrighteous and demonstrating His glory? If the spiritually dead can't understand spiritual truths, how do you know you're not spiritually dead right now and not misunderstanding the spiritual truths you claim to know? Sounds like Calvinists have alot to think about when it comes to salvation.
For us, it simply depends on the power of the gospel and whether or not we trust it. As long as you're trusting in it, you have assurance.
God is not the God of confusion, but of peace
Tim, your behavior during the debate was really immature, abrasive, and rude. I thought you were doing great in your opening (speaking to your temperament), but man, you put such a sour taste in my mouth concerning your character and conduct and the position you were espousing. It was not a good look, and it basically guaranteed that I will not take any time to listen to your content/material post debate.
@@dogescout5868 But White has never been rude or immature...? Like maybe to Flowers?
@@dogescout5868 there's no accounting for taste, I suppose. I am curious if you would say White engaged in the same behavior of which you're accusing me. Would speak volumes.
Idk how you snagged that interview
@@anonymousmouse505 it was predestined :D
@@TheApologeticDog😂
You said Dynamic Omniscience denies God knows the future. This is demonstrably false. Moreover Tim affirmed the proposition of the debate. If you dont know what Dynamic Omniscience holds, then stop condemning it until you do. If you do know what it holds, then you've knowingly bore false witness and im calling you to repent. No one should resort to dishonesty to defend their view, especially if youre seeking to kick folks out of the kingdom as you've sought to do here.
@@IdolKiller oh yeah the view that says God knows the future….but not really? 😄
@TheApologeticDog again, you're misrepresenting the position. Please steelman Dynamic Omniscience so we can consider if you're qualified to critique it.
@@IdolKiller I think it’s to0o0o0o dynamic to steelman
@TheApologeticDog is the avoidance due to not knowing, or having intentionally misrepresented it?
@@IdolKiller actually it’s a “dynamic response”
43:36 "Trying to nail Jell-O to a wall"
Well that's your problem James! You're trying to do something that Jell-O isn't designed to do.
Kinda like how you try to use prophecy to disprove Open Theism 😉
And I'm not even an open theist; I just think those arguments were particularly faulty.
Also, dude, James you hold all kinds of particular views that your reformed baptist comrades don't necessarily hold. For example your recent usage of the word "decreedelism." So it's a little disingenuous to accuse Mr Barber of innovating.
One of James White’s biggest L’s is in his debate with Greg Stafford. I’ve never seen a trinitarian get crushed so bad by a Jehovah’s Witness.
Both Voice of Reason and Reason and Theology (Michael Lofton) have numerous videos addressing the Francis confusion, btw. It's not even close to what James White thinks.
Please explain
@@ChristisLord2023 Virtually everything White says about Francis trying to fundamentally change the Church is wrong. Check out Reason and Theology and Voice of Reason for more information, particularly Reason and Theology.
Tell me about your Jesuits Bibles .😅
Has James White won any debates because I can't find one?
Maybe you are not familiar with classical Language
Without winning many debates, how come many wanted to debate him? And how is he completed 199 debates? Losers always heated the opponents.
Maybe against a Muslim, but other than that....
@RStark-ek7h on his show after the debate, he is free to twist and misrepresent without competition to an audience that trusts him without question.
@@RStark-ek7mhAmen brother!! Great testimony.