Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Daniel David, Apr 1, 2003.
What happened here? Does an arminian want to step up and debate a believer?
I'll debate you any time, any place.
Um, does anyone else see how un-Christian Preach the Word is getting in his insults and behavior, or is it just me?
Preach the Word,
We will debate you as needed. Hey, hopefully we might even agree with your positions.
Boy, are you going to be suprised to see Scott, Brother Bill, me and other antagonists like us in Heaven. And we will get there because of our human response to His love and grace, without being forordained to this unspeakable future joy and blessing.
You're on Preach the Word. You post your opinion, someoone with a different opinion will debate you! I am debating your ignoramous statement that implies that only Calvinists are believers, and to be more precise that you are a believer! Not one of us has heard your personal salvation testimony!
What is this a gang debate?... A true debate is for two brethren to pair off... And debate doctrine and doctrine only... And each one state their belief according to scripture... This is a debate not a free for all... Which is what has been going on so far on the debate forum... I suggest that a debate not start until the participants are known and the rules are established... And the moderator of the debate is established and the time and the parameters are set... Any attempt at starting one without any guidelines on how it will be run... And the set up of a true debate forum... Will be closed by me... You are free to diagree but that is my position... You are free to email Clint Kritzer one of the administrators... He moderated one... When we had a true debate forum... Maybe he will bring it back with the webmasters permission... Until then there will be no debate until I hear otherwise... Brother Glen Moderator
Brother Glen asked me to look into this thread as I was the moderator of the short-lived formal debate forum here on the BB which was removed for lack of involvement. Such a format could easily be implemented here within this forum.
Rather than the free flow discussion to which we are accustomed, a formal debate would follow a rigid set of guidelines involving a preset number of positions amd rebuttals. An example of this platform would be:
1. Opening remarks
2. First rebuttals
3. Second rebuttals
4. Conclusionary remarks
Each of these essays would be submitted to the moderator of the debate via email and would not be posted byt the moderator until both debators had submitted their response. Each step of the debate would have a word limit, such as:
1. Opening remarks - 750 words
2. First rebuttals - 1000 words
3. Second rebuttals - 1500 words
4. Conclusionary remarks - 1000 words
As each submission is admitted, the thread would be immediately closed. A parallel thread for discussion by the membership would be established.
Ground rules would also need to be established such as the allowance of UBB coding, the citing of links for source of quotes only (to protect the integrity of the word limit), time limits for responses to be submitted, formatting opponents quotations in UBB coding being held against or not held against the word count, etc.
Needless to say, the posting rules of the Baptist Board at large would also apply. A panel of judges could also be established if the participants wished to have the debate judged. This option was not established before. Once the contestants are decided on the ground rules please let Brother Glen know that you wish to begin and I will aid in whatever way I can.
Since this forum is monitored by two moderators I feel that Pastor Larry should also express his views on the matter... Thank you Brother Clint for the explanation... Now brethren you want to get a debate going the ground rules have been set and you know how it will be run... Are you still interested?... Brother Glen Moderator
Oh, please for the love of all that is good and holy don't allow PTW to represent the Calvinists!
I'm not trying to be mean, but it is apparent that he is not equipped to represent the Calvinistic views with any kind of tact, respect or overall knowledge of the system.
Please go with Russell55, Dallas or Pastor Larry, otherwise the debate will be in the mud from the very first post and nothing will be accomplished.
Just my opinion.
I think you will find Russell55, Dallas, or Larry to be much tougher in formal debate than you think, Brother Bill. You might find a theological MOAB being dropped on the Arminian side.
Just my opinion
Go get 'em Calvinism defender!
Bill, I had to laugh out loud for this one. I must admit, I do have alot more fun in this forum than in any of the others. Alot of my posts are meant to, rib, elbow, and yank your ears. In a serious debate, you would find me to be quite serious as I find the glory of God no laughing matter.
I don't care who debates. I think Scott said he would debate.
I certainly do NOT want to participate in the debate (and my critics can interpret that however they please), but anyone who has been mentioned so far for the side of calvinism has my enthusiastic support.
IMO (in no special order), Frogman, tyndale1946, russell55, Ken H, Pastor Larry, PTW, Harald, would all be excellent. I'm sure there are other good candidates - I can recall some good posts but I'm blanking on their handles right now.
That's my point. They would be much tougher in formal debate and much less vindictive in there responses--btw, the two go hand in hand.
Early I voiced that I would be willing to debate. At this time I am not able to do so. My studies at Western are consuming much of my time with a book review and three research papers to complete; and in view of my prospective trip to Alaska I would not be able to devote the necessary time to the debate.
Thanks for the kind words nonetheless I would accept any brethren/sister who has been mentioned so far and would be satisfied with any chosen.
If he would be willing, ScottJ would be a great person for the side of the freewill of God.
PTW, given that I also often engage in a "schtick" in my professional life, but also lose the "schtick" when the occasion calls for it. I just wanted you to know that I see where you're coming from. Whether or not you end up being the person to debate, I believe you would approach a debate format differently and would do extremely well in that setting.
If you guys want a debate, I am all for it. At this time, I am not able time wise to devote a lot of time to debating but would be willing to let you guys go at it.
Clint's format is find with me.
I have to take a raincheck on debating. I'm in my last semester of seminary & have two due dates within the month of April to complete all work.
Also I have married a wife and bought a cow and I cannot come to the...
I also agree with Pastor Larry pick sides and square off... I'm also not in the position to debate... But if Pastor Larry wants to monitor the debate it is fine with me... Now what is the debate topic or question?... Brother Glen The Primitive Baptist
It sounds like most everyone is dropping out of consideration.
So I will toss my hat into the ring. As long as the debate doesn't have to move at a rapid pace and there is plenty of time to formulate a reasoned reply over 2-3 days. I am going to start going out of town two nights a week for dog training classes so that wipes out two nights(Monday and Wednesday) for coming up with a reply or formulating an argument right there.
And, yes, I can engage in a reasoned debate without all of the yak yak.
Your humble servant,
Ken the Spurgeonite
Having not visited this forum in a few days, what precipitated this challenge?
Where are we going with this?