Here is some interesting interaction between Douglas Wilson and Peter Leithart concerning Leithart’s thesis in his new book The End of Protestantism. As posts become available I’ll post them here:
Tag: debate Page 1 of 2
“I would say, as a Christian and as a historian: the stories of Easter are really true, even though I’m skeptical myself that the tomb was empty, even though I’m skeptical myself that anything happened to the corpse of Jesus. I would say the stories of Easter are really true even though they may not be literally true.” – Marcus Borg
This jello is laced with poison and can’t be nailed to the wall. Go ahead, try.
To counter, Albert Mohler:
In this radio debate, Dr. James White (Trinity) and Dr. David Bernard (Oneness) debate whether the trinity is a biblical doctrine or not. Good stuff:
I’m absolutely all for having “conversations” with those outside orthodoxy. But to have fellow “orthodoxians” castigate people who have serious theological questions downgrades the very discourse that would bring light and truth, the very truth that leads to Christ. The church should be an example of proper discourse (like the Bethke/DeYoung exchange) not the one’s emulating the world in shutting it down in the name of Rodney King’s mantra, “Can’t we all just get along?” There are serious issues at stake in these debates.
It is not enough that T.D. Jakes said, yes, I affirm, “One God – Three Persons.” He qualifies this affirmation and it is that qualification that speaks volumes, inviting more questions, questions that weren’t asked, questions that won’t be answered in all likelihood.
I’ve seen responses to those with questions stating that we shouldn’t attack the darkness but just bring light. My response? The Book of Jude. That whole letter is only about shining light on the darkness, attacking the darkness with the light. You do this through positive proclamation of truth (Ephesians 1-3), but also discourse that isn’t afraid of a debate (Paul taking Peter to task, Mars Hill debates, Jewish leaders).
Paul took the leaders to task everywhere he went, even going to Mars Hill to debate them, on their own turf. The Western world’s doctrine of positivism (that negation is evil) is making deeper inroads in evangelicalism and manifesting (no pun intended) itself in different ways. This has been there for a while, but the latest Elephant Room conversation has only brought it to the surface.
Two kinds of economists exist in the world: those who know first-hand the inner-workings of the economy and those who theorize about how they think it should work and implement policies that have the opposite effect intended. That is the story of the difference between the Austrian school of economics and Keynesianism. One view is real-world, the other is from an alternate universe (yeah, okay, that was a strawman :] ).
Something is starting to boil. It has been simmering for a while, kind of quietly on the back burner, but it seems the critiques have really escalated in the past few weeks and been brought to the forefront ever since Time Magazine published their 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now in which the “New Calvinism” was named Idea # 3. The article mentions Mark Driscoll as one of the key players, in addition to John Piper and Albert Mohler who have done a significant amount of work in bringing a resurgence of Reformed theology and thinking to the church, particularly to my generation. But, what has also fueled the debate that has now been brought to the fore in the Reformed world is that Driscoll has been in several TV interviews and debates (and even hosted one at Mars Hill Church in Seattle recently) on various major TV shows (particularly on ABC), in which it is implied he is the face of this New Calvinism in the media (at least that’s what I’ve gathered). In addition, Matt Chandler was a featured speaker at the 2009 Desiring God Pastors Conference which has really brought the Acts 29 Network into focus within many Reformed camps.
James White and Tom Ascol were going to debate Ergun and Emir Caner on Baptists and Calvinism back in the Fall of 2006. However, it never happened, for whatever reason (you decide (1), (2)). So White and Ascol decided to put together this audio clip with their opening statements for the debate that never was, as well as rebuttals to statements the Caner’s have made leading up to the debate. They give the Caner’s a fair look by playing audio clips from their sermons pertaining to Calvinism. Then White and Ascol respond to their statements. Very good …