Quote:
Originally posted by Kevin
My point was only that the FVers' as a group seem more willing to debate then their critics.
IF DW's review of Waters book is correct then we would all profit from an open & frank exchange. If not a face to face debate then in print.
just my  |
Suppose a debate is proposed between two groups. One group objects to having the connections drawn between its ideas, and the implications drawn out. They think that is wrong. They also object to "abstract propositions" and "narrow crabbed scholasticism", these being their terms for cogent criticisms.
Suppose further that this side also continually recreates itself, and denounces criticism based on the published ideas as unfair, because those were yesterday's ideas, not what they thought up today.
Finally, suppose this group constantly tries to justifiy itself by appropriating material by older writers and ignoring the systematic context of that material.
Then, suppose that on the other side is a group that regards theology as a science, indeed as the queen of the sciences. It seeks to develop and explore the systematic relations between ideas in order to understand them better and to test the truth of their theological formulations by examining their mutual implications, and their adequacy as a whole system.
What sort of debate can these two groups have?