You can read the post at SEA here.
David does a fine job exposing White’s spurious debate tactics. James White has truly made an art out of poisoning the well as Martinez well points out (See post below for more evidence). And again, we see the tired old assumption that one cannot possibly disagree with Calvinism on Biblical grounds. Why? Because Calvinism is so obviously Biblical, of course. So any disagreement with Calvinism must be driven by some sort of ulterior motive or disrespect for Scripture.
David also does a great job easily dispatching the horrible Calvinist prooftexting of John 17:9. I will borrow one of White’s favorite superlative phrases and agree with Martinez in my “utter amazement” that Calvinists still try to use this passage to support Calvinism. I’m amazed, truly and utterly amazed!
Related:
Those in Glass ivory Towers Shouldn’t Throw Stones
Five Part Series Responding to C. Michael Patton’s “The Irrationality of Calvinism” (Highlights Several Problems With Calvinist Argumentative Techniques and Fallacious Debate Tactics).
The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics (14 Part Series on Apologetic Fallacies Typically Employed by Calvinists Like James White)
Arminian Perspectives 
Thank you for posting the article. I appreciate that you took the time to read it and comment. God bless you, brother.
A good assessment of the debate. As I said on James White Facebook page, “This Fischer/White debate/discussion was another example of why I dislike this forum as a means for determining truth, it’s kind of like the difference between a sharp shooter and a gun slinger. A person may be in the right with sharp shooting skills, but can appear to be bested by the cunning of a gun slinger. It takes another skill set entirely to be a good debater and those skills are not necessarily ones rooted in integrity”.
Having watched White for 10 years or so, I’ve reached the conclusion that White is not debater, he’s controversialist. The two are completely different.
White has learned over the years that he can’t “win” unless he does one of two things, engage in a ton of logical fallacies, his favorite being “poisoning the well,” and drawing the terms so tightly he can do nothing but “win.”
I know it sounds harsh, but I have reached the conclusion that Calvinism is a subchristian philosophy and those that hold it, and happen to be Christian, are Christian in spite of holding it. What Calvinism says about God is blasphemous. Not what it purports to say about God, but the consequences of their soteriology. Wesley was correct about Calvinism.
A perfect being wouldn’t need to deceive to ensure the loyalty of his followers. Such a being wouldn’t need to send his Calvinist recruits to allegedly preach a “gospel” to the majority of mankind, when such a being never had any intentions of saving them to begin with, since He never made propitiation for their sins.
It is no surprise that James White & other followers of this imperfect being, would resort to similar, ungodly & deceptive tactics as a means of giving the illusion of their opponents being in the wrong, only to make themselves appear to be correct by default.
Austin Fischer has willingly submitted himself to Gods Holy calling by rejecting these erroneous, Calvinistic views, knowing that such views are not from God.
The antithesis of John 7:17 would likewise declare James White as one who seeks his own glory, having no will to do the will of God.
Hey guys. How about kevin deyoung’s(sp?) post which just summarize austin didn’t know Calvinism from the start?
rex,
I only skimmed it and got bored pretty quick based on that sort of thing. The whole “you just don’t understand Calvinism” (along with, you were probably not a real Calvinist anyway) gets really old and it is tiring to keep seeing it put up as a defense when it cannot be shown that the critic actually does not understand Calvinism. People tend to reject Calvinism because they really do understand it, rather than ignoring and whitewashing the important details that make all the difference.
I would say the difference is not between one who understands and one who does not, but one who refuses to grapple with the inevitable realties of the system and one who is honest with the inevitable realities of the system and sees that in light of Scripture, the system needs to be abandoned. I would say Austin is the latter. But then I probably just don’t understand Calvinism. 😉
I did, however, leave some responses to some people in the comments thread.
James White only impresses Calvinists. Once you’ve watched him debate a few times, he becomes a one-trick pony with his repeatedly faulty proof-texting and special Calvinist lexicons. Weak tea debater.