Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog
Today on The Dividing Line
04/29/2008 - James WhiteDuring the first half hour of the DL today I played some clips from Tim Staples. I also played a commercial from Catholic Answers that identifies Staples as "one of the foremost biblical scholars in the church today." I had no idea I had debated one of the foremost biblical scholars Rome has to offer! Which made it all the more odd to listen to Staples misquote Matthew 23:37 just like Dave Hunt and numerous others in another clip we listened to. Anyway, the calls started up after the break and we covered a lot of ground with a wide variety of questions right up to the end of the hour. Here's the program (free/high quality).
Yesterday on The Dividing Line
04/25/2008 - James WhiteWent over the opening statements in the Ehrman/Wallace debate from New Orleans. The topic of the integrity of the Bible is the central apologetic issue of our time, and Ehrman's "400,000 variants, which is more variants than there are words in the NT" argument has become almost ubiquitous. Being able to respond meaningfully and clearly is vital to the Christian who does not desire to be silent in today's culture. Then we took some calls as well. Here's the program (free/high quality).
Yesterday on The Dividing Line
04/18/2008 - James WhiteCovered some interesting Catholic Answers clips and noted the parallel between their arguments and those of Arminians like Steve Gregg, and took some calls along the way! Here's the program (free/high quality).
Today on The Dividing Line
04/15/2008 - James WhiteStarted off with a reminder of the upcoming debate, conference, and cruise in Ft. Lauderdale in light of Dan Wallace's debate with my future opponent, Bart Ehrman. Then I had a few things to say about the debate with Jalal Abualrub, we took a call on purgatory, and then I got to the Tim Staples "Who is James White?" Catholic Answers call. Here's the program (free/high quality).
Debate Wrap Up
04/10/2008 - James WhitePretty much covered the Calvinism debate today with callers, going over a wide variety of background issues. For those who listened to the debate, a useful wrap-up. Here's the program (free/high quality).
Steve Gregg vs. James White Debate: Finale, Part 5, Cross-Ex
04/09/2008 - James WhiteA far cry from yesterday---despite the flaming ad-hominems to be found on Steve Gregg's forums, the use of rules made today's encounter quite useful. Here's the program (free/high quality).
Day Four of the Steve Gregg vs. James White Debate
04/08/2008 - James WhiteI was, of course, very disappointed with the second half of today's program. I don't know if Mr. Gregg just became upset at the refutation of his errors on Acts 13:48 or if this was planned, but he decided to do the "This is a yes/no question---please ignore all the presuppositions and assumptions I will load into this, and answer in ten seconds and then let me add a snide remark at the end of each before moving on"---routine, which, given the gravity of the topic and the context (two professing Christians), I felt was utterly reprehensible. I will not engage in on-air food fights with folks who want to talk over me--that is not an appropriate behavior for the topic at hand, and it does not edify the listeners, who can't figure out who is saying what anyway. If Mr. Gregg wishes to seek to overthrow the testimony of Scripture to the universal sinfulness of man, let him make his case. I will respond. But I believe there are standards for those who profess to be Christians. It is one thing for a Muslim, or a Mormon, or an atheist, to behave in certain ways, but Mr. Gregg professes faith, and therefore must be held to a higher standard.
In any case, I have written to Mr. Gregg and Pastor Spurlock and included the following suggestion for the final day:
We utilize the question/answer format we use in debates where we cannot trust one or both of the participants to behave: that is, the person asking has one minute to ask a question.The person who is asked the question has two minutes to respond; the questioner then gets one minute to respond to the response. This can be done for a certain block of time, say 12 minutes (encompassing three questions by the same person), or back and forth.I believe this will allow for controlled interaction while either precluding, or making obvious, the use of disingenuous tactics. Here's the program (free/high quality).
One other note: Mr. Gregg posted this in his forum: "I almost choked when he came on afterward and said that he would never stoop to such a tactic as asking me big questions demanding a yes or no answer (like "Does Jesus intercede for the non-elect?"). I really had believed the man would participate in honest dialogue. I am saddened." I have noted that Mr. Gregg struggles to see or present meaningful comparisons and parallels. For example, he mistakenly suggested that my pointing out his promotion of a translation of Acts 13:48 found in only one committee-translated English version of the Bible (the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation) is parallel to my pointing out that 1 Timothy 2:4 defines "all men" as all groups of men by contextual indicators before and after the text. There is no logical or rational parallel between the two: I am not suggesting a meaning for "all" that is not found anywhere else in the NT, while he is presenting a meaning for the periphrastic construction in Acts 13:48 that is completely unique. The same thing appears here: I asked a direct and relevant question (which Mr. Gregg has yet to respond to), "Does Jesus intercede for the non-elect?" I did not ask it like Gregg was asking his questions, "Does Jesus intercede for the non-elect, yes or no, and you will have less than 15 seconds to answer or I will accuse you of taking too much time and hogging the conversation." As long as Mr. Gregg refuses to recognize the problems in his argumentation, little positive will come from attempting to dialogue with him. This will not stop him, however, from questioning my honesty, and, it seems, the users of his forum to question my spiritual state as well ("It is obvious that he is held under the power of another and will not be able to refuse that power.")
Day 3 of the Steve Gregg vs. James White Debate
04/07/2008 - James WhiteHere's the program (free/high quality).
Day 2 of the Steve Gregg vs. James White Debate
04/04/2008 - James WhiteHere's the program (free/high quality).
Day 1 of the Steve Gregg vs. James White Debate
04/03/2008 - James WhiteHere is the first hour of the five hour debate. If you wish to listen live, tune in tomorrow, 2pm PDT (5pm EDT) for the second portion! Here's the program (free/high quality).
First DL in Two Weeks!
04/01/2008 - James WhiteDid the first Dividing Line in a number of weeks today. I played clips from the debates in Norfolk and responded to the claims made by Sami Zaatari and Shadid Lewis. Also played some clips from the "debate" with Nadir Ahmed. Also announced that starting Thursday we will have a five-day simulcast debate with Steve Gregg on the freedom of God in salvation. Even to this point I still don't know how it is going to be run. Evidently, Mr. Gregg does not check e-mail nearly as often as I do. So, I just hope it goes smoothly on the technical side. I truly have no time to worry about it, or even to prepare for it. As the banner ad on the main page here indicates, I have a debate with Shaikh Jalal Abualrub on the 12th. What the banner ads don't tell you is that on the 22nd I will be debating Dr. Michael K. Schutz, Professor of Sociology at CSU East Bay, on the campus there in Hayward, California (San Francisco area, directly across the Bay from the main campus of the Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary) on the subject of Gay Marriage. He's for it, I'm against it. I wonder if I'll be in the minority? You think? So to say I'm a bit under the gun for the next few weeks is a major understatement. So don't blame me if halfway through a segment in the Gregg series I start going after him about misunderstanding the Qur'an or something. So anyway, here's today's program (free/high quality).