Paul, I would suggest that before we debate whatever topic you suggest and we agree on, we agree on a list of terms that we define univocally. You have assumed that Reformed or NCT theologians would define “flesh” as a person’s material being that by virtue of its being material is therefore evil. You are right in saying that would be a Gnostic concept, but it is not a concept that any Reformed or NCT teacher I know of would ever propound. If you go into the debate thinking that I believe the physical body is in itself evil and try to argue against that concept, it will simply be a huge waste of time.
Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on May 1, 2017 at 12:17 PM
Why? Because I will be citing all of your Reformed heroes to make the point. If no man lost or saved can do no good work, how is it that our bodies are somehow good or can be used for good? Unless you are talking about realm manifestations from above that act upon the evil passive body. Definitions of such things can be discussed as the debate unfolds. A debate guided by agreed upon terms? Nooooooooooo, don’t think so, a debate should reveal the definitions of terms according to one’s epistemology exposed during the debate which weighs in on the listeners decision on what to believe.
I certainly agree that definitions will become clear as the debate unfolds, but what I am suggesting is that it must be off limits for you to impute to the terms I am using a meaning I don’t accept and vise versa. Example, when I speak about “flesh” I am not speaking of an “evil passive body” Nor do I contend that no man lost or saved can do any good work. I don’t have Reformed heroes. The best of men are men at best.
Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on May 1, 2017 at 12:52 PM
No, let people decide for themselves if you are playing word games or not. There are not going to be any rules that prohibit me from calling you out on doublespeak. Example, you pick and choose “evil passive body” in order to avoid your Reformed position that no man lost or saved can do any good work which is a staple Reformed belief and plainly stated by every Reformed scholar who has ever lived. There will be no rules that guarantee the outcome you want which is from the James White play book.
It is not the Reformed position that “no man lost or saved can do any good work.” It is the Reformed view that no man lost of saved can perform a work that is meritorious for justification before God. Such statements are not “doublespeak.” They are simply an accurate statement of our views in contrast to your prodigious misrepresentations.
A justified man doesn’t need justification in the sense that he needs to be justified again. He stands justified once and for all. This is contra the idea that believers are further justified by their own works that are produced by infused grace.
Andy Young, PPT contributing editor said, on May 1, 2017 at 1:21 PM
“A justified man doesn’t need justification in the sense that he needs to be justified again.”
In what sense then does a justified man need justification? I am just responding to your own words. You said that no man lost or saved can perform a work that is meritorious for justification. The conclusion is then that a saved man still needs to be justified. Unless you would like to revise that original statement.
Justified people don’t need to be justified. My statement was made in the context of the citation of Calvin’s Institutes in which Calvin was arguing against the Schoolmen who contended that Sinners are justified at the beginning by grace but in the continuance by their own works produced by infused grace. Calvin’s argument was that there are no such works that are meritorious for justification. Believers are perpetually justified by the work of Christ alone that is received through faith alone.
That’s not a Reformed view? Luther and Calvin both used the words “good works” and “no good work” aside from any reference to the words “meritorious” or “justification.” Again, that’s fine as we will state our cases and let the folks decide. When I read from Luther’s Works and Calvin’s Institutes where they say “no good work” and you then say that’s not a Reformed view, that’s dandy Randy…we will simply let the folks decide for themselves.
Sounds good. When are we going to do it? Tell me what you are calling your opposing view. I am defending the biblical doctrine of justification by faith.
Paul, Please get back to me ASAP about the format and date of our debate. I honestly believe you will lose listeners if they have to make it through two 30 minute opening statements. I think if anything needs to be lengthened it should be the rebuttal or the cross examination. For me, this is not a deal breaker but I just think it would be more effective if we didn’t try to say everything we know in one opening statement.
Paul, For some reason I am not receiving answers from you about the debate. I keep checking here and in my email inbox but haven’t received anything yet. I need to know ASAP so that I can time the statements I am preparing to fit within the guidelines on which we have agreed.
US Eastern. “Justification based on the righteousness of Christ alone vs. Justification by New Birth.” As the guest you will make the opening statement (15 minutes each). There will be subsequent uninterrupted rebuttals in the same order not to exceed 5 minutes. That’s 6 each. Closing statements will be 15 minutes each in the same order.
Do you expect Q and A from the audience? I am not sure I understand what you mean about rebuttal statements. Are you talking about six rebuttal statements of the opening statement or are you talking about a cross examination in which each person offers a rebuttal and the other person answers? It seems to me that it would be better to spend our time asking questions of each other re: our views, for the the purpose of clarifying our views and then do the same for audience Q and A. if you think there will be any. After our closing statements.
A debate is a court of law in which two parties make their case to a jury. There are two opening statements–statements of positions followed by the first presenters rebuttable concerning some element of the topic. The goal is to present a case for why a given belief is better. What follows is a discussion of the two statements sometimes referred to as “point; counter-point” Since a debate has a limited time frame, you want to present your best case in the discussion process. You may pass on rebutting the other presenter’s first rebuttable and address some other part of his/her position. Then, it is concluded by final statements. In a debate, it is assumed that the debaters are well versed in the positions and don’t need to ask each other questions. Q and A will be those who call into the program and can present questions to either debater.
Paul, I understand how debates work. I am asking about your suggestion re: rebuttal. Are your suggesting that I rebut your opening statement in a five minute segment and then you rebut my opening statement, and then I rebut your rebuttal etc. repeated in six five minute segments? I would prefer a 20 minute opening statement.
Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on May 3, 2017 at 10:40 AM
20 minutes is fine. In the discussion phase, each presenter has a choice to address the previous point/counter-point/rebuttable, or address some other point of the topic. Not sure what is so complicated about all of this.
It isn’t so complicated. I simply need to be clear about what you are proposing. Is sounds as if you are saying the rebuttal need not address the issues set forth in the opening statement at all. Is that what you are suggesting?
Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on May 3, 2017 at 11:26 AM
Huh? For the love of God, what part of “You may pass on rebutting the other presenter’s first rebuttable and address some other part of his/her position” do you not understand?
Paul, It is simply that I know you well enough to know you are not an honest man. You will tell whatever lie you need to be sure you will “protect your position.” Bottom line is I don’t trust you. It is for that reason I am being careful to have you spell out in great detail what the format will be like and how we will proceed. It seems you are trying to insulate yourself from any possibility of having actually state what you are saying forthrightly.
I am not whining and I am wearing my big boy pants. It is simply that I am spending time preparing to debate you on this important subject and want it to be as profitable as possible. If you follow your typical course of action, you will be asking me to defend propositions I don’t believe. I simply urge for the sake of an honest debate to give some effort to trying to understand the position I am advocating as I am doing my best to understand your position.
I have never claimed to be a good debater. In fact, I have never engaged in a formal debate before. My only interest is in the clarification and proclamation of truth.
Randy, you are defending the Protestant doctrine of Justification Based on the Righteousness of Christ Alone. What is there to qualify? The doctrine is well clarified and established by documentation, creeds, and confessions over 500 years. The doctrine is based on double imputation, mortification and vivification, the vital union, the means of grace, and Christ for us. What is there to clarify? These are well documented doctrines.
There is not a word in our agreed on topic that mentions “Protestant doctrine.” If what I present happens to agree with so-called Protestand doctrine, so be it.
Really Randy? Leaves and bark are not relative to a tree because those two words are not in a sentence about a tree? Are you ok? Are you in good health right now? If you want to postpone the debate we can…just let me know.
“No debate requires the participants to accept the foundational premises of an argument.” I am not asking you to accept any foundational principle. I am asking you to be honest with my views which neither you or some of your readers have done in the past. Since I know you, I don’t anticipate that you will do that, but it would be a far more meaningful debate if you did. It is impossible for me to defend propositions I don’t believe.
Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on May 3, 2017 at 10:52 AM
Opening statement phase, discussion phase, closing statement phase, audience Q and A. In the discussion phase each presenter can choose to build their case by rebutting a previous point by the other presenter, or choose to address another point of the topic that would be better served in making their case.
Opening Statements 20 minutes (As the guest, I will go first).
A series of 6 rebuttal statements of 5 minutes each. Again, I will go first.
Closing Statements 15 minutes (I will go first).
Audience Q &. A
Unless when you speak of six rebuttal statements as in three for me and three for you, that would put us at over two hours without the Q & A.
Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on May 3, 2017 at 10:55 AM
Don’t get me wrong, you can use your 5 minutes to ask the other presenter a question, but he/she doesn’t have to use their 5 minutes to answer it and can use the time in a way that said person thinks contributes more to their case.
Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on May 3, 2017 at 10:59 AM
Hence, if I don’t think answering your question is relevant to protecting my position, I can pass on answering the question and build my case some other way. This prevents a presenter from manipulating the course of the debate with questions.
I have recently finished another book titled “Authentic Evangelism and Its Counterfeit.” It is available at Amazon Kindle. The last section of the book is a rather extensive doctrinal treatment of the foundational biblical doctrines on which we base our evangelistic practices. I suspect there is very little there with which you would agree but in the interest of helping you represent me accurately, I would be happy to email you the Word file of the book. Let me know if you are interested in that.
Addressing misrepresentation is part of the debate process. Make your case to the audience, not me. You’re debating me, but insist that I accurately represent your position according to your perspective/claims? Herein is the problem via one example; Protestant teachers claim to teach assurance of salvation or OSAS. That’s not true…that’s a big fat lie. But I am not going to make my case for that because you disagree with my assessment under the auspices that I am misrepresenting your position? Hmmmm, I’m thinkin, “no.” I understand that Protestant orthodoxy isn’t very sellable unless packaged in a certain way, but I am not obligated to agree with the packaging in order to comply with some straw man standard of ethics. Randy, dictating the outcome of a debate by manipulating the other side to agree with certain prerequisites is a lame ploy that I am not going to fall for. That’s a long answer for, “No, not the least bit interested in reading the book.”
That is fine Paul. I wanted to make the offer. Anyone who wishes to read what I truly believe as opposed to your “straw man arguments” is free to read the books. I intend to state your views as accurately as I can, based on the written material on your blog. I am not engaging in debate with you to win a debate. Such activities don’t interest me. I am engaging in debate with you to clarify the vast differences between us and seek to address those issues. If it is your purpose to muddy the water by misrepresentation, that is your choice. Anyone in the audience with a modicum of intelligence will be able to discern the difference between my views and what you claim they are. I am happy with that. It is just that the differences between us are so vast, in reality the difference between eternal damnation and eternal bliss, that to spend time debating issues on which me might even agree seems a waste of time. The truth is, I didn’t want to send you my books anyway. I was simply trying to be fair.
Paul, I wrote you a message here and I don’t see it. It concerned the time here being between 4 and 6 on a Friday and the possibility of Internet failure/slowness. I think it will be OK but I wanted to let you know in advance. After all, this is a “developing nation.” Perhaps we should do a dry run on Skype just to see how the technical part of this will work.
How well does your phone work? If there are speed issues over there call the program with Skype and use your icon. Performance problems will be linked to the streaming video. Or, just call in with your cell phone and there will be a slide show of your mug and bio to look at on the program page. If the call drops you only have to call right back. That’s one more reason why I want to use the radio program. Sometime before the debate, merely call into the program and that will test it. On our end, we have some sort of annoying audio spike we need to fix prior to the debate but that shouldn’t be a problem.
When should I call into the program? I would assume you will be discoursing. Will we be able to converse so we can see how the audio and video works on both ends?
“I would be willing to bet that if I looked at your “followers” list on this blog, they would be on it.”
I don’t follow any blog like that. I visit them to see what is new or being discussed. I visit Argos blog now and then, too. My interests are theology and political philosophy. Paul has been of interest because he was one of the first I found that took on Reformed theology in a serious theological way. Still, we have had some big disagreements.
I have been working through my problems with Calvinism/Protestantism since some in my extended family became involved with Piper (in a big way) at Wheaton about 17 years ago. They went off the deep end. Went to MN after Wheaton. It is still bad. I was only familiar with the more liberal SJW Mainline Calvinists or the more frozen chosen of the Dutch Reformed variety. But I dug in. It’s a different God. A religion.
I was not raised to think of the follower/leader paradigm except Jesus Christ. But that there were wise or educated people to learn from. Ironically, the follower/leader focus was the original big red flag to historical Calvinism. No self determination.
“Because I will be citing all of your Reformed heroes to make the point.”
There is no Reformed religion without gurus, creeds and confessions to distill scripture for people . I forgot to mention last comment that Calvins “followers” had no choice or it was imprisonment. :o)
I’m not sure who is supposed to be having nightmares but there is no Calvinist new or old that keeps me up at night. However I have been told that I keep some Calvinist preachers up at night.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
At this point I’d take followers in either sense.
🙂 😉
LikeLike
Paul, I would suggest that before we debate whatever topic you suggest and we agree on, we agree on a list of terms that we define univocally. You have assumed that Reformed or NCT theologians would define “flesh” as a person’s material being that by virtue of its being material is therefore evil. You are right in saying that would be a Gnostic concept, but it is not a concept that any Reformed or NCT teacher I know of would ever propound. If you go into the debate thinking that I believe the physical body is in itself evil and try to argue against that concept, it will simply be a huge waste of time.
LikeLike
Why? Because I will be citing all of your Reformed heroes to make the point. If no man lost or saved can do no good work, how is it that our bodies are somehow good or can be used for good? Unless you are talking about realm manifestations from above that act upon the evil passive body. Definitions of such things can be discussed as the debate unfolds. A debate guided by agreed upon terms? Nooooooooooo, don’t think so, a debate should reveal the definitions of terms according to one’s epistemology exposed during the debate which weighs in on the listeners decision on what to believe.
LikeLike
I certainly agree that definitions will become clear as the debate unfolds, but what I am suggesting is that it must be off limits for you to impute to the terms I am using a meaning I don’t accept and vise versa. Example, when I speak about “flesh” I am not speaking of an “evil passive body” Nor do I contend that no man lost or saved can do any good work. I don’t have Reformed heroes. The best of men are men at best.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, let people decide for themselves if you are playing word games or not. There are not going to be any rules that prohibit me from calling you out on doublespeak. Example, you pick and choose “evil passive body” in order to avoid your Reformed position that no man lost or saved can do any good work which is a staple Reformed belief and plainly stated by every Reformed scholar who has ever lived. There will be no rules that guarantee the outcome you want which is from the James White play book.
LikeLike
It is not the Reformed position that “no man lost or saved can do any good work.” It is the Reformed view that no man lost of saved can perform a work that is meritorious for justification before God. Such statements are not “doublespeak.” They are simply an accurate statement of our views in contrast to your prodigious misrepresentations.
LikeLike
“…no man lost of saved can perform a work that is meritorious for justification before God…”
Why would a saved man need justification?
LikeLike
A justified man doesn’t need justification in the sense that he needs to be justified again. He stands justified once and for all. This is contra the idea that believers are further justified by their own works that are produced by infused grace.
LikeLike
“A justified man doesn’t need justification in the sense that he needs to be justified again.”
In what sense then does a justified man need justification? I am just responding to your own words. You said that no man lost or saved can perform a work that is meritorious for justification. The conclusion is then that a saved man still needs to be justified. Unless you would like to revise that original statement.
LikeLike
🙂
LikeLike
No Andy,
Justified people don’t need to be justified. My statement was made in the context of the citation of Calvin’s Institutes in which Calvin was arguing against the Schoolmen who contended that Sinners are justified at the beginning by grace but in the continuance by their own works produced by infused grace. Calvin’s argument was that there are no such works that are meritorious for justification. Believers are perpetually justified by the work of Christ alone that is received through faith alone.
LikeLike
Er, one could ask how his statement is not a restatement of the same thing, but, then there is that question as well.
LikeLike
That’s not a Reformed view? Luther and Calvin both used the words “good works” and “no good work” aside from any reference to the words “meritorious” or “justification.” Again, that’s fine as we will state our cases and let the folks decide. When I read from Luther’s Works and Calvin’s Institutes where they say “no good work” and you then say that’s not a Reformed view, that’s dandy Randy…we will simply let the folks decide for themselves.
LikeLike
Great, Just tell me what you want to call your opposing view and when you want to do it. I’ll be there.
LikeLike
We simply do not believe that the believer’s body is either evil or passive. That would be a clear misrepresentation of what we believe.
LikeLike
Fine, you can plead that in the debate…let the folks decide whether they believe you or not.
LikeLike
Sounds good. When are we going to do it? Tell me what you are calling your opposing view. I am defending the biblical doctrine of justification by faith.
LikeLike
My position is Justification by New Birth
LikeLike
OK so Why don’t we call the debate “Justification based on the righteousness of Christ alone vs. Justification by New Birth”? Sound good to you?
LikeLike
It does. Sounds very good to me.
LikeLike
Does 20 minutes sound good for opening statements?
LikeLike
30
LikeLike
Not gonna happen.
LikeLike
30 minutes would be fine for me but we might lose our audience before we get to the rebuttal.
LikeLike
Do you want to decide who goes first by a coin toss?
LikeLike
Well, Let me know when you want to work out the details. You can email me if you like.
LikeLike
Paul, Please get back to me ASAP about the format and date of our debate. I honestly believe you will lose listeners if they have to make it through two 30 minute opening statements. I think if anything needs to be lengthened it should be the rebuttal or the cross examination. For me, this is not a deal breaker but I just think it would be more effective if we didn’t try to say everything we know in one opening statement.
LikeLike
Paul, For some reason I am not receiving answers from you about the debate. I keep checking here and in my email inbox but haven’t received anything yet. I need to know ASAP so that I can time the statements I am preparing to fit within the guidelines on which we have agreed.
LikeLike
May 26th, 6 to 8 pm on Blogtalk Radio and BoxCaste. If you want Skype you only need to call us on Skype and then do with it whatever you want.
LikeLike
Paul, What time zone are you in? We need to talk about format and how we will decided the order in which we will make our opening statements etc.
LikeLike
US Eastern. “Justification based on the righteousness of Christ alone vs. Justification by New Birth.” As the guest you will make the opening statement (15 minutes each). There will be subsequent uninterrupted rebuttals in the same order not to exceed 5 minutes. That’s 6 each. Closing statements will be 15 minutes each in the same order.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you expect Q and A from the audience? I am not sure I understand what you mean about rebuttal statements. Are you talking about six rebuttal statements of the opening statement or are you talking about a cross examination in which each person offers a rebuttal and the other person answers? It seems to me that it would be better to spend our time asking questions of each other re: our views, for the the purpose of clarifying our views and then do the same for audience Q and A. if you think there will be any. After our closing statements.
LikeLike
A debate is a court of law in which two parties make their case to a jury. There are two opening statements–statements of positions followed by the first presenters rebuttable concerning some element of the topic. The goal is to present a case for why a given belief is better. What follows is a discussion of the two statements sometimes referred to as “point; counter-point” Since a debate has a limited time frame, you want to present your best case in the discussion process. You may pass on rebutting the other presenter’s first rebuttable and address some other part of his/her position. Then, it is concluded by final statements. In a debate, it is assumed that the debaters are well versed in the positions and don’t need to ask each other questions. Q and A will be those who call into the program and can present questions to either debater.
LikeLike
Paul, I understand how debates work. I am asking about your suggestion re: rebuttal. Are your suggesting that I rebut your opening statement in a five minute segment and then you rebut my opening statement, and then I rebut your rebuttal etc. repeated in six five minute segments? I would prefer a 20 minute opening statement.
LikeLike
20 minutes is fine. In the discussion phase, each presenter has a choice to address the previous point/counter-point/rebuttable, or address some other point of the topic. Not sure what is so complicated about all of this.
LikeLike
It isn’t so complicated. I simply need to be clear about what you are proposing. Is sounds as if you are saying the rebuttal need not address the issues set forth in the opening statement at all. Is that what you are suggesting?
LikeLike
Huh? For the love of God, what part of “You may pass on rebutting the other presenter’s first rebuttable and address some other part of his/her position” do you not understand?
LikeLike
Paul, It is simply that I know you well enough to know you are not an honest man. You will tell whatever lie you need to be sure you will “protect your position.” Bottom line is I don’t trust you. It is for that reason I am being careful to have you spell out in great detail what the format will be like and how we will proceed. It seems you are trying to insulate yourself from any possibility of having actually state what you are saying forthrightly.
LikeLike
A good debater will make that evident to the jury which will discredit my argument. Stop whining and put your big boy pants on.
LikeLike
I am not whining and I am wearing my big boy pants. It is simply that I am spending time preparing to debate you on this important subject and want it to be as profitable as possible. If you follow your typical course of action, you will be asking me to defend propositions I don’t believe. I simply urge for the sake of an honest debate to give some effort to trying to understand the position I am advocating as I am doing my best to understand your position.
LikeLike
So you don’t understand my position? Is that what you are saying?
LikeLike
I have never claimed to be a good debater. In fact, I have never engaged in a formal debate before. My only interest is in the clarification and proclamation of truth.
LikeLike
Randy, you are defending the Protestant doctrine of Justification Based on the Righteousness of Christ Alone. What is there to qualify? The doctrine is well clarified and established by documentation, creeds, and confessions over 500 years. The doctrine is based on double imputation, mortification and vivification, the vital union, the means of grace, and Christ for us. What is there to clarify? These are well documented doctrines.
LikeLike
There is not a word in our agreed on topic that mentions “Protestant doctrine.” If what I present happens to agree with so-called Protestand doctrine, so be it.
LikeLike
Really Randy? Leaves and bark are not relative to a tree because those two words are not in a sentence about a tree? Are you ok? Are you in good health right now? If you want to postpone the debate we can…just let me know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul,
You wrote,
“No debate requires the participants to accept the foundational premises of an argument.” I am not asking you to accept any foundational principle. I am asking you to be honest with my views which neither you or some of your readers have done in the past. Since I know you, I don’t anticipate that you will do that, but it would be a far more meaningful debate if you did. It is impossible for me to defend propositions I don’t believe.
LikeLike
Huh? You are forced to defend a position because it is a misrepresentation? really?
LikeLike
You mentioned a bio. I suppose I need to send you one, right?
LikeLike
Just post it here and I will copy and paste it.
LikeLike
It might help to watch a Senate hearing. You have 4 or 5 minutes to build on your case, and then you yield to whoever is next.
LikeLike
Senate hearings are designed to conceal the prodigious lies of politicians and other government officials.
LikeLike
…or that of theologians as well.
LikeLike
No debate requires the participants to accept the foundational premises of an argument.
LikeLike
Opening statement phase, discussion phase, closing statement phase, audience Q and A. In the discussion phase each presenter can choose to build their case by rebutting a previous point by the other presenter, or choose to address another point of the topic that would be better served in making their case.
LikeLike
Opening Statements 20 minutes (As the guest, I will go first).
A series of 6 rebuttal statements of 5 minutes each. Again, I will go first.
Closing Statements 15 minutes (I will go first).
Audience Q &. A
Unless when you speak of six rebuttal statements as in three for me and three for you, that would put us at over two hours without the Q & A.
Please clarify.
LikeLike
We are extending our program time.
LikeLike
Don’t get me wrong, you can use your 5 minutes to ask the other presenter a question, but he/she doesn’t have to use their 5 minutes to answer it and can use the time in a way that said person thinks contributes more to their case.
LikeLike
That is acceptable to me. I assume at the beginning of the debate either you or a moderator will explain the format to the audience.
LikeLike
Ok.
LikeLike
Hence, if I don’t think answering your question is relevant to protecting my position, I can pass on answering the question and build my case some other way. This prevents a presenter from manipulating the course of the debate with questions.
LikeLike
You said fifteen minute closing statement, right?
LikeLike
We can make it 20…no problem.
LikeLike
I am not interested in protecting my position. I intend to answer all questions in an honest and straight forward way.
LikeLike
…from the callers, I won’t be asking you any questions.
LikeLike
If you don’t mind. Please type the agreed on format and email it to me. Thanks.
LikeLike
I just did. Read what I have stated here. What would I email you that would be different?
LikeLike
Easier to print from an email.
LikeLike
Copy and paste to Word or some other writing software.
LikeLike
Thanks for your co-operation.
LikeLike
or vice versa.
LikeLike
Paul,
I have recently finished another book titled “Authentic Evangelism and Its Counterfeit.” It is available at Amazon Kindle. The last section of the book is a rather extensive doctrinal treatment of the foundational biblical doctrines on which we base our evangelistic practices. I suspect there is very little there with which you would agree but in the interest of helping you represent me accurately, I would be happy to email you the Word file of the book. Let me know if you are interested in that.
LikeLike
Addressing misrepresentation is part of the debate process. Make your case to the audience, not me. You’re debating me, but insist that I accurately represent your position according to your perspective/claims? Herein is the problem via one example; Protestant teachers claim to teach assurance of salvation or OSAS. That’s not true…that’s a big fat lie. But I am not going to make my case for that because you disagree with my assessment under the auspices that I am misrepresenting your position? Hmmmm, I’m thinkin, “no.” I understand that Protestant orthodoxy isn’t very sellable unless packaged in a certain way, but I am not obligated to agree with the packaging in order to comply with some straw man standard of ethics. Randy, dictating the outcome of a debate by manipulating the other side to agree with certain prerequisites is a lame ploy that I am not going to fall for. That’s a long answer for, “No, not the least bit interested in reading the book.”
LikeLike
That is fine Paul. I wanted to make the offer. Anyone who wishes to read what I truly believe as opposed to your “straw man arguments” is free to read the books. I intend to state your views as accurately as I can, based on the written material on your blog. I am not engaging in debate with you to win a debate. Such activities don’t interest me. I am engaging in debate with you to clarify the vast differences between us and seek to address those issues. If it is your purpose to muddy the water by misrepresentation, that is your choice. Anyone in the audience with a modicum of intelligence will be able to discern the difference between my views and what you claim they are. I am happy with that. It is just that the differences between us are so vast, in reality the difference between eternal damnation and eternal bliss, that to spend time debating issues on which me might even agree seems a waste of time. The truth is, I didn’t want to send you my books anyway. I was simply trying to be fair.
LikeLike
Ok.
LikeLike
Paul, I wrote you a message here and I don’t see it. It concerned the time here being between 4 and 6 on a Friday and the possibility of Internet failure/slowness. I think it will be OK but I wanted to let you know in advance. After all, this is a “developing nation.” Perhaps we should do a dry run on Skype just to see how the technical part of this will work.
LikeLike
How well does your phone work? If there are speed issues over there call the program with Skype and use your icon. Performance problems will be linked to the streaming video. Or, just call in with your cell phone and there will be a slide show of your mug and bio to look at on the program page. If the call drops you only have to call right back. That’s one more reason why I want to use the radio program. Sometime before the debate, merely call into the program and that will test it. On our end, we have some sort of annoying audio spike we need to fix prior to the debate but that shouldn’t be a problem.
LikeLike
When should I call into the program? I would assume you will be discoursing. Will we be able to converse so we can see how the audio and video works on both ends?
LikeLike
“I would be willing to bet that if I looked at your “followers” list on this blog, they would be on it.”
I don’t follow any blog like that. I visit them to see what is new or being discussed. I visit Argos blog now and then, too. My interests are theology and political philosophy. Paul has been of interest because he was one of the first I found that took on Reformed theology in a serious theological way. Still, we have had some big disagreements.
I have been working through my problems with Calvinism/Protestantism since some in my extended family became involved with Piper (in a big way) at Wheaton about 17 years ago. They went off the deep end. Went to MN after Wheaton. It is still bad. I was only familiar with the more liberal SJW Mainline Calvinists or the more frozen chosen of the Dutch Reformed variety. But I dug in. It’s a different God. A religion.
I was not raised to think of the follower/leader paradigm except Jesus Christ. But that there were wise or educated people to learn from. Ironically, the follower/leader focus was the original big red flag to historical Calvinism. No self determination.
I hope more people find their way here.
LikeLike
“Because I will be citing all of your Reformed heroes to make the point.”
There is no Reformed religion without gurus, creeds and confessions to distill scripture for people . I forgot to mention last comment that Calvins “followers” had no choice or it was imprisonment. :o)
LikeLiked by 1 person
“… I have skills that make me a nightmare . . .”
LOL
I’m not sure who is supposed to be having nightmares but there is no Calvinist new or old that keeps me up at night. However I have been told that I keep some Calvinist preachers up at night.
Sweet dreams boys!
LikeLike