This is how its done
I stumbled across this video at Youtube where James White cross examines George Bryson and really makes Mr. Bryson look a little foolish and side-steppy. It could also be the way the video is cut, but it doesn’t appear so since the clip is the entire cross examination. In any case, from what I have seen, I can’t help but laugh at how James nailed the issues and Bryson side stepped it textually.
Related posts:
- No related posts
5 Comments so far
Leave a reply
I’m not as sure. I would want to see the whole debate, plus the cross is not even finished in the above linked cut. They did not finish the last point at all. I would also like to see Bryson cross White. Plus, both sides there seems to be using shaky logic and debate traps, such as false equivocation.
Well first, the round was over and the cross finished. So yes, as I said int he post, I would like to see the whole debate to see if the cut is as honest as it seems.
I don’t think the logic is faulty and shaky. White asked a question of grammar about a specific verse, namely John 6:44
. Instead of just answering the question, Bryson responds about we are drawn, but we don’t actually come unless we come on our own. This isn’t answering the question. We really didn’t get to see the whole point. But White’s point is that if the same person who is drawn to Christ by God is raised by Christ on the last day, then the calling is an effectual call, a call that actually effects faith in Jesus Christ and thus the person is saved. But Bryson moved the discussion away from that. Again in John 6:37
, White asked a grammatical question and Bryson just shot down the grammar of the text in exchange for his own theological presuppositions (Not saying that Calvinists don’t do that too!). I don’t think that asking questions on a grammatical level about a text is shaky logic. Now you might say that both men’s logic is shaky on the question of definite or particular atonement, but since time ran out and we didn’t see the whole debate, we can’t say for certain that either man was shaky.
Interesting side note on asking grammatical questions. I had asked these same questions of my systematic theology prof last semester (some dude in the class wanted to debate Calvinism again after the previous class period had discussed it and the class only met once a week!) and the professor refused to answer my questions on a grammatical level in favor of his theological assumptions! That is shaky logic on his part, not mine. I think that if we are going to honestly debate the Scriptures, we need to ask questions about the Scriptures and not about the logic of our theological presuppositions, that goes for all sides of any debate. In the end, our theology should be shaped by the Bible, not what is most logical (I’m not saying that our theology doesn’t have to be logical but it must be derived from Scripture).
I guess I was a bit too negative in my first comment. I was thinking about that in the shower. I guess what I am wanting to say was the shaky logic, not in their exegesis, but in their debating style. I did not get the sense that the debate was warm and civil in tone, but rather a lawyery game of “gotcha.” I don’t know exactly how to express it. But I was not speaking to their arguments, per se.
Trying to think if he did sidestep the question, or started arguing that the grammar did not dictate the temporal order of operations. As he was not allowed (due to time, or perhaps he did finish and the tape does not show it) to completely finish the answer, I can’t really evaluate the argument - or I missed something. I did get to bed at 8 this morning and got up at noon.
Nice
That’s what happens in actual debates, time limits dictate what can be said and someone might not be able to get a good argument out before the time finishes. Thus he looks like a fool when he could have been the clear victor.