|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| So great...
| | |
| Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher...Yes, I know I need to post. It's been.... a long time. But what do I say? I could write about theology, art, or music. Or perhaps some "how to" posts on lock picking, knife throwing, survival skills, or the most effective ways to kill an assailant in hand-to-hand combat.
But the fact of the matter is that I feel like I have nothing left to say. I could write about a lot of things, but why? For the benefit of others? So I have something to do? I don't know. I feel as though I've been drained of motivation, and anything worth saying has become unworthy to be said.
Perhaps I'll revisit my journal writing when I feel a bit more inspiration.
| | |
| This was a big stump.
Before:
After:
| | |
| Who else has pre-ordered their copy?
I ordered one as soon as I saw the ad in Credenda. Hopefully it'll be published soon. Ten bucks, people. It'd just be wrong to pass that up.
| | |
| Calvinism Debate Massacre - White vs. Wright
On Friday I went to hear James White debate in Sedalia on the subject of Calvinism. While it was fun to hear and meet Dr. White in person, the debate was quite disappointing. Representing Armininianism (the four-point variety), was a lawyer named Jonathan Wright. He was actually filling in for Dr. Davis, who was the originally planned opponent who couldn't make it for some reason. Anyway, despite Mr. Wright being a seemingly kind and respectable person in many ways, he did a horrific job promoting and defending Arminianism (as well as attacking Calvinism). Thirty seconds after he opened his mouth, I knew we had another Dave Hunt on our hands. I kid you not, this guy was that bad. I can't even count the number of times that he said that Calvinism teaches that God created and authored evil, and also that He forces men to sin. On top of this (after Dr. White's opening statement), he kept saying how he was so glad that the gospel is a "simple gospel." He talked about how he didn't know the Greek or Hebrew meaning of this word or that word, but that's okay; the meaning of the text is obvious when you just read it for what it is. Of course, in saying this, he was casting a negative light on Dr. White's presentation - which was obviously well thought out and very precise in every respect.
During the break, we got to turn in questions for the speakers to answer. I decided at the last minute that I would join in the fun, so I quickly scribbled down a question for Mr. Wright. In an intended reference to Mr. Wright's "simple gospel" mantra, the question I asked basically said, "If truth exists - if real, objective truth exists in the infallible Word of God - then why make ignorance into a noble thing? Why not dig as deeply into Scripture as possible instead of refusing to confront the issues head-on?" That's the gist, anyway. I think it's mostly word for word, if my memory serves me rightly.
In hindsight, I wish I would have put a disclaimer on my question, letting Mr. Wright know that I was not attempting in any way to insult him. You can't exactly say everything you need to say on a 3"x5" card, so I just got to the point in a way that I thought was straightforward, but not at all rude. Unfortunately, Mr. Wright took my question not as a question, but as an "obvious insult" (his words, I believe). At the reading of the question, there were gasps from the audience, and Mr. Wright was obviously very offended and visibly shaken up by it. He didn't answer the question, but he did put in a good piece about Calvinists being arrogant know-it-alls.
Thankfully, Dr. White knew exactly what I was trying to say in my (apparently) poorly worded question, and came to the rescue at the next opportunity, explaining that he didn't think the question was intended as an insult at all. He mentioned it in his blog entry yesterday:
"Likewise, one of the audience questions asked Dr. Wright why he seemed
to glory in his "ignorance" of the Word of God. While the question was
not phrased very well, I fully understood what was being asked: Wright
had started the debate by asserting that Calvinism "complicates" the
gospel; he had later talked about the "plain" meaning of the English
text and how we do not need to go into "Greek participles" and the
like. So the questioner was asking how it is a virtue to remain
ignorant of these things as if that is somehow more "spiritual." Mr.
Wright took extreme offense at the question, but he never answered it,
either. He did affirm that Calvinism appeals to the "intellect" and the
"arrogance" of man, so in reality, the question was quite valid, though
it did not get a meaningful response."
Dr. White made that clear at the debate, as well.
My point was really having to do with the nature of truth itself. Does it exist or doesn't it? If it does, then why shy away from plumbing its depths? What good does it do to say that the gospel is a "simple gospel" if in fact the gospel is more than just simple? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" is true, and it is simple. But it's not all God has said to us. Truth exists in great measure beyond that statement, and it is that fuller, more complete picture of truth that I wanted Mr. Wright to confront. To the disappointment of many, he did not.
Oh, and my dad (Joe Rostollan) got quoted in the Sedalia Democrat paper by the journalist who was covering the event. That's almost like being famous.
| | |
|
