Has this been already? If not, we should do it.

__________________
Andrew C.
IFB
LBCF 1689

I have actually thought about this as well. However, the debate forum has high goals (which may explain why we haven't had any debates yet, aside from the promise they would be infrequent). I'll propose the moderators discuss this and see if anything comes of it.

__________________
Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Dallas, Texas.
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• Westminster Letter Press
• The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
• The Blue Banner Archive

The Regulative Principle: The Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference” (Samuel Miller).

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum

I am cringing at the idea...but maybe not.

The anti-theonomic side would have to agree on who to debate. Ultimately, this would be a debate, not about God's law, but a debate on presuppositions. Would the anti-theonomy side choose a Klinean who has little in common, with regard to social ethics, with Calvin and Knox? Or would the anti-thoenomic side choose a Puritan? (The Puritan would do much better, btw).

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

Is that a presupposition?

__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA

"What sort of pledge and how great is this of love towards us! Christ lives for us not for himself!"
John Calvin, Commentary on the Hebrews (7:25)

Presuppositions can be challenged and changed.

yes

Right. And the Theonomic side(s) don't have a similar problem? There's the question of definition at the very least. It won't be easy to organize but its worth discussing.

Agreed.

For better or for worse (probably for worse), theonomy is usually presented as closer to monolithy than its detractors. Most of them agree with most of Bahnsen's conclusions and the theonomists on this board are fairly monolithic. I am not denying disagreements within their camp, but simply pointing out the difference between Bahnsen and Rushdoony is smaller than the difference between Doug Kelly and Lee Irons.

Debate sounds fun....

__________________
Adam B., Wine Country, California, PCA

"I fear not to hold with Junius, de Politia Mosis cap. 6, that he who was punishable by death under that Judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now."