White Lays Smack-Down on Silverman

Don’t tell Dr. White this, but I totally forgot that the Is the New Testament Evil? debate was going on tonight. (It’s amazing how fast the summer evolves into fall! Lame excuse, I know.) But by God’s grace I had the time and happened to be online to listen to it live when I popped my head into channel a couple hours ago. I’m glad that I did.

I write this just as the Q & A is beginning, and I truly believe this is one of (if not) the most useful Christian vs. atheist debate ever on record – even amongst presuppositional Christian vs. atheist debates (and I’ve listened to my share of atheist debates, I assure you). Why so?

Firstly, because of the number of issues and common fallacies regarding Christianity that were brought up. Silverman set himself up for about every refutation imaginable whether regarding the dignity of man (image of God vs. animal), objective morality and cultural relativism (why one is “right” and another is not; holocaust, etc.), sinners and saints (why are some saved and others not: God’s sovereign grace), the origin of Scripture (it “evolved from Egyptian texts”?), the self-attesting nature of Scripture (the epistemological nature of an ultimate authority), original sin and human perfection/corruption, the problem of evil in relation to foreknowledge and God’s decree, “babies in hell,” hermeneutics, the nature of the family, etc.

And (secondly) each of these topics were masterfully addressed by James White. Indeed, what really gives the debate a mark of excellence was the apologist representing orthodox Christianity. As I listened to each portion, I couldn’t think of more accurate, precise, and God-honoring responses than those of Dr. White. Praise God that He is effectively and powerfully working in apologetics ministries in the 21st century!

There’s much to be said, but here are a few specific summaries of the atheist break-down. Silverman:

1. really got hung up on the God’s fore-ordination and predestination topic (took up most of his first and second cross exam period), and it accomplished very little for this position (remember the title of this debate!)

2. shot himself in the foot with regard to hermeneutics in the slavery-ethics debate (he denied that Paul can be understood in its original context, but yet, said that Cicero can be understood), which took up most of White’s first cross-exam period…

3. and Silverman also shot himself in the foot with admitting several times “there is no objective morality. Truth is relative…to time and place,” since this eliminates all meaningful attempts to define “evil” in the debate question. Amazingly, Silverman continually told the audience to “live your life well” and that they are “good people,” all while admitting that “well” and “good” can’t even be objectively defined! And again, Silverman said “it’s evil to destroy families” while at the same time admitting that, for Germany, the holocaust was “right.” It was an ethical, epistemological mess.

All in all, the debate went well and I encourage everyone to download the recording when it comes out on Aomin.org; it was made very clear that it is silly, absurd, beyond rationality, for the creature to deny the goodness of God and the goodness of his Scriptures.