Spurgeon.us formally hosted C/A debate!

Great idea, Daniel.
I'll be thinking of my nominee.

 

I would like to nominate

Bob Ryan to the Arminan side, and RC to the Calvinist side if Pastor Larry does not want to do it.

 

I accept.

 

Not me ... I have been around this barn too many times.

 

Maybe Jarthur would like to be the Calvinist?

 

If God has ordained it, he can't refuse.

 

If God has ordained it, he won't want to refuse. That's how I konw God hasn't ordained me to do it. I don't want to waste my time rehashing old arguments that have already been thoroughly beat up.

 

I do think there are better ones that can argue Calvinism than I.

Like..., jdcanady would be my pick ..very low key, yet very sharp. RC another good one and much better with words than I. If jdcanady or RC or other names brought up, can not, I will give it a shot.

But as you know from reading other post of mine, i do not up hold john calvin, but I up hold many doctrines that have become known as Calvinism.

also...Johnp should be considered. If you read johnp...you will see he holds back on his replies. some of us share all we know as soon as we can..but john pulls his debater in with short answers...and then hammers him with the truth. John could hammer the guy at the 1st, but in john’s way of doing this, the debater argues all points before hearing the truth. A classic debate tool. However in a short format, I feel john would bring out the guns sooner.


Let me suggest a few things as a outline of the debate in fairness.

1st, I think there should be at least 2 debates. Debate 1 should have a debate moderator from 1 side. The next debate should have a moderator from the other side. The 2nd debate partakers, can be by others not in the 1st debate, if need be

2nd if this is a topic debate...define the subject before hand so that the moderator can apply the rules.

3rd. If this an debate where both sides field questions by the moderator, there should be a limit set. In other words, this could go on for ever, and we need to see the end in site.

4th.. It is my view that the fairist way to debate is to have such a order where the the lead closes last.

so in my view the order should be

1,2
2,1
1,2
2,1

or...

1,2
1,2
2,1
2,1

Other wise all we hear is one persons statements and the other persons attacks of that statement.

Last...Most debates have time limits to reply. This is a bit different in that we have no idea what the other person is doing ...not being in the same room. Some of us are at work, and it may take a day to reply. So...Last, is there a time limit to reply? If so, how long?

This last one is more for me. i type slow..and hardly ever check my typing. if i have the time and it were me in this debate, I will reread my writings before sending. That way..we ALL can read them...even me.

Also..most post come from me while at work. If there is a short time frame to reply, i’ll have to do this at night where i can set aside all other things and just debate. that is..if it is me that takes this on.

anyway..these are just some ideas. Whoever takes this on, needs to know the rules.

...larry says he is out., so my vote is for jdcanady..then RC or johnp....and if they can not...i’ll be glad to give it a shot.


In Christ...James

 

Lets put this another way.....

I'll be glad to share my views, i just want to allow others this chance as well. So..if by the end of the day, no one comes forward..i will accept.

If this turns out to be the case, give us the rules, time and subject and let the debate begin.

In Christ...James

 

Hi Daniel,

I would like to nominate Scott J.
(for the Calvinist side)

Also, I think you should allow time for Scott J. and RC to respond to their being nominated. I know they both are frequently on here, but I have noticed that RC has not replied yet.

Thanks,
Here Now

 

Can someone please direct me to that debate forum?

It has been said that there are other debates that have taken place there - and I would love to see some of that history.

Bob

 

We don't have a Clavinist yet either do we?