Yes, We need the radio debate. You have called those who believe in justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ alone “Cowards.” I am stepping up to debate you. And no, it won’t get better than this. I think you are a wicked false teacher who needs to be challenged.
I am not backing out Randy, I will be taking what I have learned the past 10 years and focusing strictly on your opening statement. The debate will be a forum on your opening statement. if you change the definitions of words according to how you used them in the statement during the discussion, that will be evident to the audience.
I will not change the definition of words, but you certainly are bright enough to understand that the word “nomos” is not used in the same way every time it occurs in the Scripture. Of maybe you aren’t. The term “Righteousness of God” is not used univocally either. One has to determine how such terms are being used in the context in which they occur. You can’t simply give words a modern definition and plug it in everytime the word occurs.
And as much as I want this debate to happen, and as much as I want to be charitable to Randy, I am forced to agree with John’s comment at 2:32.
As I mentioned earlier (to Paul…”off the air”), my experience with Randy is that consistent contradiction is how he defines doctrinal consistency. That is, when you catch him violating a basic law of identity, A is A, he simply changes the meaning of the concept (of A). “Ability”, for example, with Randy, can be both able and unable at the same time. This is how he gets around every challenge to his assertions; and how he can perpetually claim that he is being misrepresented: it’s impossible for you to know how he defines the terms at any given moment.
As you pointed out Paul, Randy has the “gnosis” and you don’t.
To me, you can’t debate someone like that. Because the argument is no longer about ideas, but about reality itself. And that’s…well, something that precedes debate by about ten thousand miles of metaphysics.
This being the case, the debate is going to be like swatting a fly inside with a shovel. You’ll accomplish little more than reducing your own house to rubble.
The answer is that I have written extensively and I am willing to stand by the way I have defined my position in my writings. I offered to send these to Paul without charge so he could hold me to the definitions I have used consistently. He said he had no interest in reading what I offered to send him. You have made the charge that I have not used terms univocally. Please show me where that is true.
Here is an example of Paul’s misrepresentation. He has stated that Calvinists believe that “Jesus continues to obey for us so that we don’t have to obey.” I dare you to show me a quote from any reputable Calvinist who states such an outrageous idea. That seems to be what he thinks double imputation means. Do if you ask me if I believe that according to his definition, the answer has to be NO! If you ask me if I believe the doctrine as it is stated accurately, of course I do. If you think that is being equivocal, then I must be guilty.
“I dare you to show me a quote from any reputable Calvinist who states such an outrageous idea.” Oh dear, where to start? How about Paul David Tripp: “When we do something that is pleasing to God, we are only experiencing what Christ has supplied.”
I’m sorry, I can’t answer that question because written statements don’t talk. When I come across a written statement that says something to me I will let you know.
Can you actually be so dense as to think that is what he means by that statement?
My wife says you are too ignorant for me to waste my time with, and I am beginning to believer her.
And by the way, that statement contradicts your statement that Calvinist don’t believe Christians can do anything that is pleasing to God. “When we do something that is pleasing to God.. .” almost makes it sound as if he believes we can do something that is pleasing to God.
I would love to discuss it in context. I don’t know what it means without context. If in context, it means what it appears to mean out of context, I would disagree with it.
If a sentence states that a cat walked across the street, we must know the context because it may not really be stating that the cat walked across the street.
If that is all there is to the context, I must assume that the cat walked across the street. But if I am living in the 1950s and someone said “the cat walked across the street,” the reference may have been to a man and not a cat. Context is everything.
I don’t mean them as insults; simply statements of reality. Perhaps you should try to make friends with it. I want to thank you for your offer to debate you there, but I honestly can’t seen a great deal of good coming from it. The truth is, I think you and I could agree on some issues if you stated them differently, but you statements are just so blatantly wrong that no one who could entertain them would be able to understand anything I said anyway, and the ones who could understand don’t need to hear because they understand. I regret that you and I wasted so much valuable time today. Thank again for the invitation. It was gracious of you to offer to pay my way.
Try again. Show me a statement from a Calvinist who says “Jesus continues to obey for us so we don’t have to obey.” No one believes that. That is an idea that has come out of your deluded mind.
Oh, I am sorry Bubba, let me use this one instead: “It is impossible for a person not to be puffed up by his »good works« unless he has first been deflated and destroyed by suffering and evil until he knows that he is worthless and that his works are not his but God’s.” And…”He, however, who has emptied himself (cf. Phil. 2:7) through suffering no longer does works but knows that God works and does all things in him. For this reason, whether God does works or not, it is all the same to him. He neither boasts if he does good works, nor is he disturbed if God does not do good works through him.”
In my understanding, the context would determine whether the statement is true or false. As it stands, I would disagree with it but the context would determine what the meaning is.
Paul, Can you not understand that what he is saying is that everything we do that is good results from Christ’s redemptive work and the enabling of the Spirit? This is not so we don’t have to obey but to enable us to obey.
If you want to see how I define terms, read my books. I define terms according to their usage in the contexts in which they were used and I stick to the definition. But certainly your recognize that there is a difference between physical ability and moral and spiritual ability don’t you. To say that an unregenerate man is able to walk down an aisle and sign a card is not the same as saying he is able to truly receive Christ as he is offered in the gospel. He is both able and not able at the same time. There is no contradiction there at all.
Randy, it’s okay. Lol…I count myself as a proud card carrying “wicked false teacher”. Because I’ve found that in the context of the “church” those are the only teachers that actually like other people.
And I do admire your courage to come here and take the heat, and give it, and I appreciate your input because without challenges to ideas blogs become boring. Having said that, I do think that you need really seek to understand how the entirety of your approach is as John said: to present a persistent conceptual moving target for anyone who disagrees with you. And that’s just not fair. And it’s really not fair to call that “stepping up”. It’s courageous to confront someone like Paul with very strong opinions and an outspoken loathing of your ideology (with VERY good reason…those ideas almost ruined his life). But it’s not courageous to call such a moving target of conceptual definitions “stepping up to debate”. That’s not debating. It’s just baiting, and the fact that you do this to Paul, knowing him as you do I think, is unkind at best.
You also, way in the beginning put quotes around “radio show” when Paul mentioned that as the format for the debate. I though that was mean. Like you were saying it’s not real, or merely a child’s trifle. I think you can do better than that. If I can, you can.
And we all know that the reason White didn’t debate him is not because he “backed down.” He didn’t debate him because Paul doesn’t have the educational background to qualify him for such a debate.
New criteria Randy. We will only have the debate on one wise: you will come here and debate me online at the Potter’s House and run your mouth the way you are to my face. We will pay ALL expenses. Take it or leave it.
You, of all people, know that concepts, especially biblical and theological concepts are complex and cannot be explained with simplistic answers. Paul [the apostle] did the same thing. If he without law? Yes. Is he without law to God? NO! He is under the law to Christ. Would you accuse him of presenting a persistent conceptual moving target?
Randy, all your comments here will now be confined to debate planning. The debate will be here where your personal insults can be said to my face. Let me know what you want to do.
Paul and Susan are some of the best and wisest people (easily top five) I know this side of my 15 years in the indoctrination camp known as Sovereign Grace Ministries. The idea that he doesn’t have the educational background to debate James White is absurd…and I know you know this otherwise you wouldn’t bother engaging him for 200 comments. “Not having the educational background” is an entirely subjective standard…it’s a meaningless excuse. Either Paul’s ideas and criticisms of reformed doctrine have merit or they don’t. And a simple examination of rational consistency can verify this…it doesn’t take a Pell grant and an acronym after your name.
The reason most Christians won’t debate ideas is because they believe that truth is by transcendent revelation and not by rational consistency of human thought. In other words, they believe that agreeing with them and understanding them are corollaries. But this…is completely false.
This is why I was so initially impressed with your offer to debate. I still kind of am, because it’s so rare. But I think I understand your approach now. And I suppose if I formulated my beliefs with such an impressive penchant for vagary I’d not fear debate either (and I don’t mean this rudly…I think in a way it’s kind of impressive; you’re one of the best at it I’ve ever seen; you are obviously high functioning, intellectually).
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
I think it is fairly clear that this won’t be a friendly debate. LOL
LikeLike
Do we even really need the radio debate? I can’t imagine it can get better than this? I haven’t read this much in months. Lol
Or, you could just print the comments section and recite your parts…like a play.:-)
LikeLike
Yes, We need the radio debate. You have called those who believe in justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ alone “Cowards.” I am stepping up to debate you. And no, it won’t get better than this. I think you are a wicked false teacher who needs to be challenged.
LikeLike
Argo, My comment was not intended for you. I thought Paul was trying to back out of the debate.
LikeLike
I am not backing out Randy, I will be taking what I have learned the past 10 years and focusing strictly on your opening statement. The debate will be a forum on your opening statement. if you change the definitions of words according to how you used them in the statement during the discussion, that will be evident to the audience.
LikeLike
I will not change the definition of words, but you certainly are bright enough to understand that the word “nomos” is not used in the same way every time it occurs in the Scripture. Of maybe you aren’t. The term “Righteousness of God” is not used univocally either. One has to determine how such terms are being used in the context in which they occur. You can’t simply give words a modern definition and plug it in everytime the word occurs.
LikeLike
Your obvious use of the words in your opening statement will be used.
LikeLike
Good, because I intend most of my opening statement to be given over to defining terms that I will use throughout.
LikeLike
By the way, Can you tell me your best definition of what you mean by being born again?
LikeLike
I can, but I’m not going to.
LikeLike
Of course you won’t because you are more interested in muddling the issues than clarifying them.
LikeLike
I don’t believe I said there is only a single imputation did I?
LikeLike
And as much as I want this debate to happen, and as much as I want to be charitable to Randy, I am forced to agree with John’s comment at 2:32.
As I mentioned earlier (to Paul…”off the air”), my experience with Randy is that consistent contradiction is how he defines doctrinal consistency. That is, when you catch him violating a basic law of identity, A is A, he simply changes the meaning of the concept (of A). “Ability”, for example, with Randy, can be both able and unable at the same time. This is how he gets around every challenge to his assertions; and how he can perpetually claim that he is being misrepresented: it’s impossible for you to know how he defines the terms at any given moment.
As you pointed out Paul, Randy has the “gnosis” and you don’t.
To me, you can’t debate someone like that. Because the argument is no longer about ideas, but about reality itself. And that’s…well, something that precedes debate by about ten thousand miles of metaphysics.
This being the case, the debate is going to be like swatting a fly inside with a shovel. You’ll accomplish little more than reducing your own house to rubble.
LikeLike
able and not able at the same time but not in the same relationship.
LikeLike
LOL! Sound familiar? Simultaneously saint and sinner…already not yet…distinct, but never separate…ect.
LikeLike
So Paul, do you reject the idea that a person could be mentally able to make a decision but not spiritually able?
LikeLike
yes because I am not an Augustinian Neo-Platonist.
LikeLike
A person can’t be spiritually able and spiritually unable at the same time. That would clearly violate the law of non-contradiction.
LikeLike
If you are a Gnostic.
LikeLike
What does Gnostic have to do with it?
LikeLike
Argo,
The answer is that I have written extensively and I am willing to stand by the way I have defined my position in my writings. I offered to send these to Paul without charge so he could hold me to the definitions I have used consistently. He said he had no interest in reading what I offered to send him. You have made the charge that I have not used terms univocally. Please show me where that is true.
LikeLike
Just define your terms in your opening statement as they apply to the relevance of the statement and I will take it from there.
LikeLike
Here is an example of Paul’s misrepresentation. He has stated that Calvinists believe that “Jesus continues to obey for us so that we don’t have to obey.” I dare you to show me a quote from any reputable Calvinist who states such an outrageous idea. That seems to be what he thinks double imputation means. Do if you ask me if I believe that according to his definition, the answer has to be NO! If you ask me if I believe the doctrine as it is stated accurately, of course I do. If you think that is being equivocal, then I must be guilty.
LikeLike
“I dare you to show me a quote from any reputable Calvinist who states such an outrageous idea.” Oh dear, where to start? How about Paul David Tripp: “When we do something that is pleasing to God, we are only experiencing what Christ has supplied.”
LikeLike
And where does that statement say anything at all about Christ continuing to obey for us?
LikeLike
I’m sorry, I can’t answer that question because written statements don’t talk. When I come across a written statement that says something to me I will let you know.
LikeLike
Ok Paul, where does it state anything. . .?
LikeLike
Can you actually be so dense as to think that is what he means by that statement?
My wife says you are too ignorant for me to waste my time with, and I am beginning to believer her.
LikeLike
Randy, I think the best way to do the debate is for you to come here. I will pay your way totally. What say you?
LikeLike
Nope.
LikeLike
And by the way, that statement contradicts your statement that Calvinist don’t believe Christians can do anything that is pleasing to God. “When we do something that is pleasing to God.. .” almost makes it sound as if he believes we can do something that is pleasing to God.
LikeLike
Wait a minute, you disqualified the statement from making the point; why do you now want to discuss it?
LikeLike
I would love to discuss it in context. I don’t know what it means without context. If in context, it means what it appears to mean out of context, I would disagree with it.
LikeLike
If a sentence states that a cat walked across the street, we must know the context because it may not really be stating that the cat walked across the street.
LikeLike
If that is all there is to the context, I must assume that the cat walked across the street. But if I am living in the 1950s and someone said “the cat walked across the street,” the reference may have been to a man and not a cat. Context is everything.
LikeLike
Randy, the debate will only take place here at the Potter’s House where you can hurl your insults to my face. We will pay ALL expenses.
LikeLike
I don’t mean them as insults; simply statements of reality. Perhaps you should try to make friends with it. I want to thank you for your offer to debate you there, but I honestly can’t seen a great deal of good coming from it. The truth is, I think you and I could agree on some issues if you stated them differently, but you statements are just so blatantly wrong that no one who could entertain them would be able to understand anything I said anyway, and the ones who could understand don’t need to hear because they understand. I regret that you and I wasted so much valuable time today. Thank again for the invitation. It was gracious of you to offer to pay my way.
LikeLike
Try again. Show me a statement from a Calvinist who says “Jesus continues to obey for us so we don’t have to obey.” No one believes that. That is an idea that has come out of your deluded mind.
LikeLike
Oh, I am sorry Bubba, let me use this one instead: “It is impossible for a person not to be puffed up by his »good works« unless he has first been deflated and destroyed by suffering and evil until he knows that he is worthless and that his works are not his but God’s.” And…”He, however, who has emptied himself (cf. Phil. 2:7) through suffering no longer does works but knows that God works and does all things in him. For this reason, whether God does works or not, it is all the same to him. He neither boasts if he does good works, nor is he disturbed if God does not do good works through him.”
LikeLike
And can you tell me the precise context from which this quote was taken?
LikeLike
Why? would it make my point?
LikeLike
In my understanding, the context would determine whether the statement is true or false. As it stands, I would disagree with it but the context would determine what the meaning is.
LikeLike
Paul, Can you not understand that what he is saying is that everything we do that is good results from Christ’s redemptive work and the enabling of the Spirit? This is not so we don’t have to obey but to enable us to obey.
LikeLike
What are you referring to? Who is “he”?
LikeLike
If you want to see how I define terms, read my books. I define terms according to their usage in the contexts in which they were used and I stick to the definition. But certainly your recognize that there is a difference between physical ability and moral and spiritual ability don’t you. To say that an unregenerate man is able to walk down an aisle and sign a card is not the same as saying he is able to truly receive Christ as he is offered in the gospel. He is both able and not able at the same time. There is no contradiction there at all.
LikeLike
Randy, it’s okay. Lol…I count myself as a proud card carrying “wicked false teacher”. Because I’ve found that in the context of the “church” those are the only teachers that actually like other people.
And I do admire your courage to come here and take the heat, and give it, and I appreciate your input because without challenges to ideas blogs become boring. Having said that, I do think that you need really seek to understand how the entirety of your approach is as John said: to present a persistent conceptual moving target for anyone who disagrees with you. And that’s just not fair. And it’s really not fair to call that “stepping up”. It’s courageous to confront someone like Paul with very strong opinions and an outspoken loathing of your ideology (with VERY good reason…those ideas almost ruined his life). But it’s not courageous to call such a moving target of conceptual definitions “stepping up to debate”. That’s not debating. It’s just baiting, and the fact that you do this to Paul, knowing him as you do I think, is unkind at best.
You also, way in the beginning put quotes around “radio show” when Paul mentioned that as the format for the debate. I though that was mean. Like you were saying it’s not real, or merely a child’s trifle. I think you can do better than that. If I can, you can.
LikeLike
Argo, We all know it isn’t a radio show now don’t we?
LikeLike
And we all know that the reason White didn’t debate him is not because he “backed down.” He didn’t debate him because Paul doesn’t have the educational background to qualify him for such a debate.
LikeLike
So why are you debating me?
LikeLike
New criteria Randy. We will only have the debate on one wise: you will come here and debate me online at the Potter’s House and run your mouth the way you are to my face. We will pay ALL expenses. Take it or leave it.
LikeLike
When can we do it? I can’t do it on the date you had suggested. I have previous commitments. I have to go for a while. I’ll check back when I return.
LikeLike
Because you are there.
LikeLike
And I don’t have the intelligence of James White.
LikeLike
Argo,
You, of all people, know that concepts, especially biblical and theological concepts are complex and cannot be explained with simplistic answers. Paul [the apostle] did the same thing. If he without law? Yes. Is he without law to God? NO! He is under the law to Christ. Would you accuse him of presenting a persistent conceptual moving target?
LikeLike
Randy, all your comments here will now be confined to debate planning. The debate will be here where your personal insults can be said to my face. Let me know what you want to do.
LikeLike
Randy,
Paul and Susan are some of the best and wisest people (easily top five) I know this side of my 15 years in the indoctrination camp known as Sovereign Grace Ministries. The idea that he doesn’t have the educational background to debate James White is absurd…and I know you know this otherwise you wouldn’t bother engaging him for 200 comments. “Not having the educational background” is an entirely subjective standard…it’s a meaningless excuse. Either Paul’s ideas and criticisms of reformed doctrine have merit or they don’t. And a simple examination of rational consistency can verify this…it doesn’t take a Pell grant and an acronym after your name.
The reason most Christians won’t debate ideas is because they believe that truth is by transcendent revelation and not by rational consistency of human thought. In other words, they believe that agreeing with them and understanding them are corollaries. But this…is completely false.
This is why I was so initially impressed with your offer to debate. I still kind of am, because it’s so rare. But I think I understand your approach now. And I suppose if I formulated my beliefs with such an impressive penchant for vagary I’d not fear debate either (and I don’t mean this rudly…I think in a way it’s kind of impressive; you’re one of the best at it I’ve ever seen; you are obviously high functioning, intellectually).
LikeLike
“No need to postpone the debate. I am in fine health. I just don’t know where you got the idea that I would be defending Protestant doctrine.” (Randy)
Sounds to me like Randy is getting scared and backing out of the debate. He forfeited already; he says he’s not even going to defend his own position.
LikeLike