C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
[video=vimeo;18770377]http://vimeo.com/18770377[/video]
I'd pay to see that!
I'd pay to see that!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I've never investigated FV very much so I don't know a whole lot about it. Watching a debate might really help to crystallize it for me.
I've never investigated FV very much so I don't know a whole lot about it. Watching a debate might really help to crystallize it for me.
I would actually doubt this to be true.
Reading the book may do a great deal of good. But that doesn't mean that watching a debate wouldn't.
We can't wait for debates everytime we wan't to decide whether something is herasaaay or not.
Doug Wilson is very skilled debater. He debated James White (another very good debater) on a similar topic a few years ago and came across as winning the debate hands down. But "winning" a debate, of course, doesn't mean one is necessarily correct on the issue.
The kind of people who admire Wilson admire cheap rhetoric.
Wilson would do something like focus in on R2K and make it seem like all opponents of the FV hold to it. He'd force Clark to defend some of the extreme (extreme defined as only a small number of Reformed people hold to it, not that it's necessarily wrong) teachings of R2K and people would eat it up. I've seen it happen. "Those NAPARC churches claim what we teach isn't Reformed, but look at what they believe! Who's got history on their side?"
If his purpose was to show the breath of allowable positions within Reformedom, that would not be a bad thing.
Unfair ad hominem.
That wouldn't be his purpose.
conspiracy types
I can only guess you haven't followed any of the PCA's court cases against these people.
And, yes, I have been watching the court cases and I have not seen any instance of “cheap rhetoric” in cases as they have been reported.
Doug Wilson is very skilled debater. He debated James White (another very good debater) on a similar topic a few years ago and came across as winning the debate hands down. But "winning" a debate, of course, doesn't mean one is necessarily correct on the issue.
Not the Tim you asked (I'm the one who likes cheap rhetoric ), but R2K is "Radical Two Kingdom" theology, a position attributed to Dr. Clark and Westminster Seminary California.
Doug Wilson is very skilled debater. He debated James White (another very good debater) on a similar topic a few years ago and came across as winning the debate hands down. But "winning" a debate, of course, doesn't mean one is necessarily correct on the issue.
I found it interesting that they ended up debating infant baptism rather than the question at hand, whether or not Roman Catholics are members of the New Covenant because of Trinitarian baptism. But then. little wonder, since they didn't agree on the nature of the New Covenant.
---------- Post added at 03:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------
Not the Tim you asked (I'm the one who likes cheap rhetoric ), but R2K is "Radical Two Kingdom" theology, a position attributed to Dr. Clark and Westminster Seminary California.
A debate between Wilson and one of the R2K guys! Now THAT would be interesting...
---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------
I'd ove to see a debate between Doug Wilson and Lane Keister...I read Reformed is Not Enough and Greenbaggins' commentary after each chapter...
Wilson is a VERY skilled debater and a quick on-the-spot thinker. My money would still go on the extravagantly gifted Rev. Keister.
If the debate involved Dr. Clark, I would NEVER bet against a man with his intellect and badgeresque tenacity and keen sense of going for the jugular.
We can't wait for debates everytime we wan't to decide whether something is herasaaay or not.
That's obviously not what I'm doing. To suggest that's what I meant is ludicrous.
In my humble and insignificant opinion, there have been enough talks, enough debates, enough reports, enough deliberations, enough decisions... what is needed now is the resolve and tenacity to take action by implementing the ruling(s) of the church courts.
Tom, I'd seriously like to hear which of those PCA trials you've followed.
And in Siouxlands whining about thinking they've woken up in the OPC? Or claiming historical continuity since Bullinger said we shouldn't distinguish between the sign and the thing signified? Could you please tell me say, two of the PCA court cases you've been watching? That way we can both be specific.
Silly Ben; don't you realize that no one really understands the FV unless they actually are FV?