Dr. James White & Dr. Randal Rauser CLASH during Cross-Examination
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ต.ค. 2024
- Dr. James White cross examines Dr. Randal Rauser on the "Rebellion Thesis" in their recent debate on Apologetic Methodology. White defended Presuppositional Apologetics whereas Randal defended Reformed Epistemology.
Watch the full debate HERE: • DIALOGUE | Dr. James W...
For more information about Explain Apologetics or to request a speaker, kindly visit www.explainapologetics.com or email us explainapologetics@gmail.com
I think Dr. White's question about Romans 1 didn't deserve the triggered answer from Dr. Rauser. Dr. White was correct to assume Dr. Rauser was getting upset by his aggressive and agitated tone. And then he tried to go outside of Romans 1 by coming up with something that took him down a rabbit trail that Dr. White wasn't going to go. By the time Dr. Rauser is demanding an answer about the sun standing still, Dr. White was under no obligation to answer his question because Dr. Rauser really didn't answer Dr. White's.
Absolutely correct. That is exactly what happened lol. People who think otherwise obviously haven't listened to james white very much lol
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Which question of Dr. White did Dr. Rauser fail to answer?
@StvdiaTheolegica here comes the worshipper of rauser . Remain in denial progressive heretic
I cannot believe anyone in the comments is defending Rauser dude got completely unhinged over simple questions. James was being nice here.
As a Catholic I don’t have a huge problem with lack of belief in God. It’s objectively disordered to not believe in Him, but only immutable as grave sin if it is done with full knowledge and deliberate consent.
I don’t like the whole faux objectivity of James White et al of “Weeeeeee believe strictly as the Bible says, and yooooouuuuu have an outside ultimate authority.” The truth is that no one just walks straight up to the Bible (or any text) and interprets it strictly as it says. We all bring life experiences, suppositions about ourselves and the world, and if we are Christians, the lens of interpretation of our own Tradition. Randall is just more honest about interpreting the Bible by using a hermeneutical framework, whereas with more fundamentalist approaches like James White, more of the interpretive framework and suppositions are forced underground into the subconscious.
Randal is right on his main point. It is absurd to say that everyone who doubts God's existence (God as defined by the Christian) is doing so because they are in "sinful rebellion." Does it not occur to White that some people who doubt God's existence might have good REASON to do so? That it might not be just a matter of "sinful rebellion"? Randal provided a simple example, but White dodged it.
Am I the only one who felt Rauser getting quite hostile from the beginning? It seems rich to allege an ad hominem given the condescension. Perhaps there was some history I am missing?
It seems like James white has become the punching bag for most Christians apologetics lol
I'm familiar with him through the interactions with the late Steve Hays. He's always been like this. Yes, there is some history with him and Calvinists in general.. or anyone who holds any orthodox Christian views.
His hostility "although I saw very little of what others seem to see" wasn't really relevant to the discussion...his points still stood despite Whites constant misrepresentation.
This was such an awkward confrontation. What does the sun standing still have to do with anything? We still use colloquialisms like "the sun rose" and "the sun set" despite knowing the sun never *actually* does these things, why are some folks so caught up in trying to make the Bible a science textbook?
The issue of the sun standing still has to do with the nature of Dr. White's understanding of biblical authority. Dr. White holds a view of the authority of Scripture which, if applied consistently would result in the affirmation of geoncentrism as a biblical truth, since to interpret that passage phenomenologically would necessarily be an appeal to extra-biblical sources of information. Dr. Randall's point was that everyone brings outside information drawn from reason and experience to the interpretation of the text. But Dr. White's strict conservatism would preclude that kind of approach. Dr. White thinks only Scripture interprets Scripture, and Scripture trumps everything that is not Scripture. If he held to that view consistently he would have to affirm geocentrism, since there is no scriptural justification for thinking anything else.
@@markdaniels1730 I do not believe you fully understand the doctrine of Sola Scriptura or what Dr. White generally believes about issues such as these.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 Then please, enlighten me.
@@markdaniels1730 Regarding?
@@choicemeatrandy6572 How I have misunderstood Sola Scriptura and Dr. White's beliefs about it.
I find James White insufferable. He is incapable of listening to his interlocutors. He doesn't understand that he is out of his depth in philosophical discussion, because he despises Philosophy, and he despises positions that fall outside his narrow purview.
But wasn't their whole discussion a Theological one concerning Romans 1 and other scriptures rather than a philosophical discussion?
If you despise fellow Christians, how do you interact with everyone else?
@@Apologia5 the actual discussion was on apologetic methodology and JW decided not to talk about it.
I don't like him either, but he is on the receiving the end of hostility for no reason.
Clickbaity, I approve
Randel is conflating doubt and denial. Romans 1 is not talking about those who have doubts. It is not sinful to doubt certain things about God, but to deny(refuse) God is. They have denied God. This is the context of Romans 1.
it has been my dream to see william Lane and James white discuss on calvinism. would you please host that show
It would be a delight to host that debate if the speakers agree :)
@@ExplainApologetics i mean, Craig is free and so is White. Please, you have to do the asking. Now why Craig, because 1 he is my favorite apologist and 2 he said calvinism is wrong. It actually shook my world because i followed White and his debates and is my favorite debater. But when my favorite apologist say that the worldview of my favorite debater is wrong, you can understand what i went through 😊😊
Craig has said that he won't debate fellow Christians. He says it's not his calling or focus and wants to be wise and faithful with his time.
With that said, I get it but I also think that it would greatly benefit the body of Christ. Craig has also said that someone wants to hear what he thinks of his Molinism view or thoughts on Calvinism that they can check out all of his work on it. However, we all know that isn't the same as a debate or discussion where you can't avoid the other side's objections and refutations. In Craig's written work he an avoid what he wants and address what he wants when it comes to these things.
Furthermore, I don't think Craig has done a lot of writing or speaking on a lot of the other issues that are raised about Him. For example the accusation that he interprets scripture through a philosophical lens rather than a theological one. Or Craig's mere Christianity minimal facts approach when talking to unbelievers. Or his Evidentialist apologetic approach where he often argues only for a generic theistic God.
It's interesting because Craig is always willing to discuss with the top atheists but not the top Christians? Truth is truth whether or not it's from a Christian or an Atheist. I don't see why he would shy away from fellow believers that have serious concerns with his work.
@@jobinrajukoshy5257 I've had a similar experience. Unfortunately I dont think Craig wants to debate White. It's very unfortunate
Guys i'm here to tell you all that it ended up happening. Dr Craig and Dr white ended up debating on the "Unbelievable" channel!
I love it! I love both these guys and I have no problem with an intramural debate getting hot.
Gotta watch the full video now. Great work!
Glad you like it!
I would love to hear an answer from JW about if the sun stood still.
I think the answer will be the same if Dr. Rauser asked:
"Do you believe that Balaam's donkey literally talked?"
"Do you believe that the Plagues on Egypt literally happened?"
"Do you believe that Mary literally conceived Jesus as a virgin?"
"Do you believe that Jesus literally resurrected?"
"Do you believe that tongues of fire literally rested?"
You know, any other supernatural event in the Bible.
@@felimonerguiza7682 I don't think Randal balks at the idea that supernaturally, the sun was made to look to stand still from an earthly perspective. The question relates to whether the sun *actually* stood still, in a way that would imply geocentrism and/or a flat earth.
@@christopherjohnson1873
So, how does that concept relate to Romans 1 ... which is the context of the "sun standing still" question?
Dr. Jason Lisle (also a presuppositionalist) from the Biblical Science Institute has a helpful perspective on this that I’m willing to bet Dr. White agrees with.
@@felimonerguiza7682 "So, how does that concept relate to Romans 1"
Because Dr. White is accusing Dr. Rauser of having an "authority issue" because of the fact that he (Dr. Rauser) interprets certain passages of Scripture in the light of experience and other extra-biblical sources of information. Dr. White's position, apparently, is that one should never do that. The point of the "sun standing still question" is to expose the inconsistency of Dr. White, because unless Dr. White is actually a geocentrist, he does the exact same thing with Joshua 10 that Rauser does with Romans 1.
Rauser raises very good points. White deflected like crazy the questions regarding doubts.
Because it soothes your earsBecause it soothes your hears
James White the guy who has an unaccredited doctorate degree comes across arrogant... typical 5 point Calvinist!
And what you said is a typical non Calvinist statement. Hear it all the time. Can you Arminians come up with something better??
@@adamcarpenter1869I just made a factual statement...James White does NOT have an accredited Doctorate Degree! He graduated from a Degree Mill.
Btw.. Adam...Jesus never died for you anyway!
Indeed, you have no Irrefutable Explicit Biblical Evidence that Jesus Specifically died for you...None what's so ever!
Indeed, I'd worry about that!
@@cassandragarcia5548 degrees don’t mean a thing to God. I’m sure He could care less what type of education you have. the Word of God tells us over and over again how you can be sure of salvation. The faith I have is a persevering faith because God keeps me. The last letter of TULIP that you seem to detest so much is clearly taught in Scripture.
I Love Rausers ability to expose the holes in White's theology that in my opinion creates a stumbling for many unbelievers !!!
Love dr jame white hold res accountable while he twist and turn and deflecting the main issue.
Where is it from the Greek?? He admitted the exegesis from the text is not his ultimate authority.
I may be misremembering the passage, but I think the problem with White's interpretation is that he isn't absorbing the whole chapter of Romans 1, he's picking parts of it. It isn't just doubt about the existence of God that Roman's is talking about, it's refusal to acknowledge God and worship him. It's both those things. In this instance, you can go through doubts and questions about the existence of God and still acknowledge and worship him. Doubt alone is not the subject of the passage, doubt plus rebellion is.
I think Rauser's thesis is intriguing: he is showing that under the Calvinist view, ALL human doubt about God's existence must be ultimately rooted in sin...which means the Calvinist cannot sympathize with the woman who becomes an atheist after being raped. The consistent Calvinist would instead insist that she is only denying God because she wants to fulfill her sinful urge to rebel against his rightful authority.
In other words, consistent Calvinism forces a conclusion which even the vast majority of the Christians would classify as the very opposite of love.
Thomas doubted, but we are not told that he sinned in his doubt; in fact, Christ used the instance of his doubt as a teaching moment.
not only was it a teaching moment for Thomas, it was a 'proof' moment for every person who went on to read that passage. We can know that Jesus was flesh and blood after the resurrection, because they touched his body. We can know that it was the same Jesus that died, because they touched his wounds. We can know because of Thomas's doubt that Jesus really died and rose again. Aside from the straightforward reading of the verse, maybe that's also a small part of the reason why Jesus said "blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe" because all of us can be more confident in our faith because Jesus offered that proof to Thomas.
I think that the reason Rauser seems hostile towards James White is that it is difficult to be friendly when interacting with someone who espouses such logically ridiculous and morally reprehensible views as White does.
Lol say what?
True. It's almost a moral obligation to be hostile to James White lol
Exactly. It's one of those "What did you just say?!" type moments.
What I like about Rauser is that he holds Apologists to the fire.
What did he hold to the fire exactly?
Where is it from the Greek?? He admitted the exegesis from the text is not his ultimate authority.
Hmmmmm...that is what I think.
How many can dance on the head of a pin?
James White is a narcissist imo he literally cannot be wrong about anything and acts as if what he speaks is always 100% truth - I’ve never known anyone to be 100% correct on anything including theology or religious beliefs
So Paul, a zealot level believer, tells the Roman church why people don't believe as he does. Then, over the next few centuries, the church insists that every single word in the books they've chosen is inspired by God and inerrant. In the sixth century, Rome falls, for about 800 years, almost no one in the West can read, outside of the upper echelons of the church, certainly not Latin, Greek or Hebrew, and the Bible being forbidden reading even if they could. The extraordinarily powerful Church insist that everyone believe the doctrines they've devised or be punished for eternity and 2000 years after Jesus, theologians so buy into this baseless doctrine that they still argue as though Paul wasn't simply expressing a zealot's opinion. And here come Christian Nationalism once again rearing it's ugly head.
What sort of witchcraft blended Matt Dilahunty with Sir Ben Kingsley?
I couldn't imagine in a million years believing that Jesus was God incarnated and died for my sins, and then worship a guy who lived several years after him who could have been a complete charlatan usurping a budding movement for his own agenda
The beautiful irony is is the flight rejects tradition, even though tradition is what made a Canon of scripture to begin with. And not only that the traditional Church
But the Catholic Church wrote several of those letters that are purported to be written by Paul
James White effectively worships a piece of paper. He had the doll to say we have an authority problem. But if you pay attention to Calvinists and a lot of evangelicals in general, you realize that they actually worship the Bible as a book. Which is idolatry
Everyone is in sinful rebellion or an enemy of God unless they’re reconciled to God through Christ.
Romans 5:10
That bit about 'actual exegesis of the text is not your ultimate authority' was uncalled for and somewhat below the belt.
I'm sure everyone on the panel knows that everyone else places the authority of Scripture first and foremost, to insinuate otherwise would be taken as a flat out insult.
Different interpretations of Scripture can be acknowledged as such without starting down the slope of mudslinging about eisegesis and man-made philosophy.
To be fair, I heard Dr Reuser's answer as being eisegetical, his example of that poor guy fell away because of the actions of the priest is a fine example, an example that it no way changes the meaning of the text of Rom 1-3. No matter how hurt he was he was still rebelling against God. To change a definition because of this guys feelings is eisegesis.
@@WelshPaulJames If you saw it that way then I'll have to relisten for what I missed and possibly learn more about his actual position. From a first hearing I felt that his citing the bad priest was giving an example of his point rather than his point resting on the example.
Rauser said he believes in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, in which he states that the Scriptures are the primal source of authority.
But as a United Methodist, he went wrong when he said something like, "When science and the Bible contradict, it's the Bible that should adjust." pointing about the sun standing still and the natural fact that it's the earth that moves.
I didn't see it as an insult. Rauser talked about his view of scripture when he talked about the Weslyan Quadrilateral and using experience AND tradition. I don't see how it's mudslinging but rather sharing what you genuinely think a person's position is based on the very things that they say.
@@felimonerguiza7682That's saying we ought to reinterpret the Bible. In this case I'd think that was uncontroversial, since we 1. Know almost certainly that the sun is always standing still and 2. Can very easily just interpret it as the sun standing still from the perspective of people on earth, meaning that the earth was standing still.
I am torn between the two: Rauser is correct to expose the problem with White's presuppositionalism, for it does suggest that the presence of doubt, whether in the believer or unbeliever, is a type of sin. But White raises a good objection to Rauser concerning exegesis, in that Rauser, in order to alleviate doubt, is tempted to cut corners, in terms of exegesis, when such readings of Scripture are unnecessary. For example, John Walton offers a plausible alternative interpretation to the Joshua sun-standing-still passage, as referring not to a spectacular astronomical event, that necessarily implies geocentrism, but rather to a providentially placed cosmic omen, that would have made perfect sense, in the ANE context.
Depends what you mean by doubt. If you ask the Paul who wrote Romans 1, whether atheism or polytheism was a sin, he'd answer yes. Regardless of context.
I didn't really follow the original question, but when the gentleman went to those other verses to justify reinterpretation of scripture, it became suspicious.
I believe we all mostly believe the same stuff, and if we just took time to use different words, instead of certain terms or phrases which people may have assumptions about, we'd be able to communicate out unity of belief to each other a bit better.
When White can’t answer a question, he deflects emotion on to his opponent
he speaks the truth heretic
Clashing over whose fantasy makes the most sense. Sad.
James White can't deal with the text, or the implications of his philosophical traditions.
Books 📚 books 📚 books 📚
Love Randall
Randal was being a jerk and not listening very well. But his glib , smug attitude is disgusting
Sam - I thought you were above this! Haha.
All have sinned and fallen short haha
@@ExplainApologetics ^^
Above what? What’s the problem?
I think she meant "above" posting click-bait sounding titles. I thought the title was an accurate representation of the discussion haha.
Explain Apologetics it was. I was actually gonna upload that portion on my channel since I found it to be quite weird and immature on Randal’s part. The other three speakers were better well behaved.
This is what I'm hearing.
JW- Is the sky blue?
RR- Sometimes but not always.
JW- So you're saying birds can't fly in the sky?
RR....WUT?
God, is, the author of confusion, for there are none more so confused than those who believe in Him!
This is not even debatable when looking at the entire body of believers in Christianity.
Yes! The sun literally stood still! Geocentricity is biblical and scientific truth!
Christianity, what a hoot
If you think Christianity is funny wait to you get a load of Atheism!