Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Federal Vision/New Perspectives' started by C. M. Sheffield, Jan 14, 2011.
I'd pay to see that!
I wouldn't pay to see a debate, but I'd cough over some cash to see a wrasslin' match!
I don't think this will happen.
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. You would be much better off just reading the Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros and Cons book. That's actually a written debate, and still the best entry level discussion in the debate.
Reading the book may do a great deal of good. But that doesn't mean that watching a debate wouldn't.
"A venue of his choosing".... Is that just in case Douglas Wilson might have an advantage at a venue of his choosing?
Quote from C.M.
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.
That's obviously not what I'm doing. To suggest that's what I meant is ludicrous.
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?"
This is an excellent point. Sometimes we can do greater harm to the cause of truth by entering into such debates if we have not the faculties to competently contend with our challenger. Though I would't put Dr. Clark anywhere near that category. He can certainly handle himself.
---------- Post added at 11:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 AM ----------
Help me out Tim, "R2K"? Is that a Reformed computer virus?
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.
Unfair ad hominem.
If his purpose was to show the breath of allowable positions within Reformedom, that would not be a bad thing.
That wouldn't be his purpose. His purpose would be to discredit any criticism of FV by pointing to an an historical school of thought held by a critic that is confessional and making it seem that the pot is calling the kettle black. And it works, for theologically ignorant conspiracy types, as well as those who long for the security of themselves and their children through works.
I can only guess you haven't followed any of the PCA's court cases against these people.
Know this you do?
Speaking of conspiracy types …
Now we’re equivocating. First it was Wilson, now it’s “these people.” Are “these people” the same ones who “admire Wilson” per your earlier post?
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.
To the extent there has been “cheap rhetoric,” seems there’s been enough on both sides to go around.
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.
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 ----------
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...
Thank you for your vote of confidence, Marie! I did debate Douglas Wilson on a variety of topics, blog to blog. I would not be comfortable debating Douglas Wilson in person.
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 (vs. Doug Wilson), I would NEVER bet against a man of Clark's intellect and badgeresque tenacity combined with such a keen sense of going for the jugular.
Uh-oh. Now I'm really embarrassed!
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.
Sorry. No offense meant.
Silly Ben; don't you realize that no one really understands the FV unless they actually are FV?
In the meantime, carry on with the scheduled programming:
Hopefully you all heard that audio clip of Jordan at their Moscow school commencement ceremony saying that the Holy Spirit has confused the thinking of all the rest of us.
Tom, I'd seriously like to hear which of those PCA trials you've followed.
But not on this thread, please. . . .
Since I'm not presently a member of any PCA presbytery were an actual court case has been heard, I'm not privy to anything other than the official SJC or presbytery records where published. I can't recall seeing any “cheap rhetoric” in those records.
You don't have to recall anything. Just name the court cases. We can open up another thread.
As far as I know this invitation was offered back in 2006. I hope Dr. Clark comes on to comment.
It's kinda like they're Emergent; the "you don't understand my Jesus because you're not me, and He is real to me in a way you'll never understand - debate finished".