The following has been posted by Mr. Gregg:
“I feel a need to apologize for Dr. White’s behavior, because I am the one who brought him to our airwaves. I am hoping that, by tomorrow, he will have had time to consider what he did today, and how negatively it reflected on his position-and how it would make any thinking skeptic in our audience evaluate the intellectual honesty of Christian apologists.”
Mr. Gregg, I have no interest in your apologizing for me. I will not apologize for refusing to mud-wrestle with you on our respective programs. The fact is, sir, you are wrong in your presentation on Acts 13:48; I demonstrated this, and you had no answer. When I then asked you further difficult questions, you decided to engage in one of the oldest, and, I must admit, lamest, tricks in the book: the “it is just a yes or no question but I will fill it with a ton of assumptions that will require any honest man to untangle them before answering but I will preclude you from doing that so that I can get cheap debating points” trick. There is nothing new to it, and I would have actually enjoyed taking a non-believer apart who tried such a tactic in another context. But you have the advantage here: I have to consider you a fellow believer, and hence, expect of you certain standards of behavior. I am not under that constraint when debating enemies of the faith, and while I refuse to use that kind of cheap debating trick even then (a fact I can document with many examples), the fact is I refuse to drag an “intra-mural” discussion that is ostensibly on the very text of sacred scripture down to that level. Cross-ex is fine, and as I have noted, if you wish to frame your questions in about sixty seconds, give me two minutes to respond, and then you have sixty seconds to comment back, that may preclude the talking-over/interruption tactic you introduced into our conversation today.
But let me make it very clear: if you think you have impressed a serious skeptic in the audience through such sophomoric behavior as the “yes/no—do it quick or I will blow!” technique, I think this is just another indication of how far apart we are on many issues, including the very foundations upon which we seek to make proclamations to such “skeptics.” I would suggest that your theology forces you to be concerned about pleasing the skeptic, for you need his cooperation to bring about his salvation. I am thankful that Jesus taught otherwise. As I noted in closing today:
John 8:43, 45-47 43 “Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. … 45 “But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 “Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 “He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”
I am so thankful I believe the Lord Jesus is powerful. He is able to subdue the rebel heart: He does not have to work out a compromise peace settlement. He will reign amongst His people without question and without partner.
I will not seek to apologize for your behavior, Mr. Gregg. I could point out that you have left many questions unanswered, questions that one might be tempted to conclude that you cannot answer. But that is between you and the Lord, you and those who look to you for teaching. But let me make it clear: I reject your “apology” for me. I do not apologize for refusing to sully the vitally important topic of man’s sinfulness by turning it into a food fight. I would call you to a higher plane, sir.
