-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Tim Warner debates Dr. Couch of Tyndale Theological Seminary
- Thread starter Paul33
- Start date
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
1. Why would Warner put it on Warner's
site if he didn't? It is hard to read the
debates that are NOT on warner's site
2. Actually, there was no debate. Ice
has some articles in public space
and Warner spake against them.
Couch and Warner had a debate that Couch than withdrew from, which was the right of either of them. But then Couch took the debate off the Pre-Trib Research Center's site. But look who holds the copyright. Couch's Pre-Trib Research Site.
Couch humiliated himself in the debate. Very poor job.
Hey Ed, what do you think of progressive dispensationalism?
I abandoned "classic (two-people/two-program) dispensationalism as a result of my own study. But I didn't believe in replacement theology, either. I also came to a post-trib view of the rapture.
I didn't know that there was a term for what I believed in other than "promise thelogy" which came from Walter Kaiser's "Toward an Old Testament Theology."
So to my surprise, Tim Warner's Post-Trib Research Center articulates my view almost exactly. And he calls himself a post-trib progressive dispensationalist.
So now I am a reformed, post-trib, progressive dispensationalist!
Couch humiliated himself in the debate. Very poor job.
Hey Ed, what do you think of progressive dispensationalism?
I abandoned "classic (two-people/two-program) dispensationalism as a result of my own study. But I didn't believe in replacement theology, either. I also came to a post-trib view of the rapture.
I didn't know that there was a term for what I believed in other than "promise thelogy" which came from Walter Kaiser's "Toward an Old Testament Theology."
So to my surprise, Tim Warner's Post-Trib Research Center articulates my view almost exactly. And he calls himself a post-trib progressive dispensationalist.
So now I am a reformed, post-trib, progressive dispensationalist!
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
I have no idea what progressive dispensation
is. I was not allowed as a pre-tribber to
go into the discussion board of Tim Warner
probably late
in the year 2000. So i shun his web page
and bulletin board (if any).
I am a futurist, pre-millinnial, historic
dispensational, pretribulationist.
BTW, none of my four
postitions on these matters come from
John Darby whom i've not read (this is not for
Paul33 but to rebuke upfront my harrassers).
is. I was not allowed as a pre-tribber to
go into the discussion board of Tim Warner
probably late
in the year 2000. So i shun his web page
and bulletin board (if any).
I am a futurist, pre-millinnial, historic
dispensational, pretribulationist.
BTW, none of my four
postitions on these matters come from
John Darby whom i've not read (this is not for
Paul33 but to rebuke upfront my harrassers).
I have glanced over the site, but haven't had a chance to read the debates. I am not impressed that in all three Warner is not content to let the debates stand on their own. He writes of Couch's withdrawal, Ice's failure to debate (and debates Ice's articles), and then writes quite a bit of post-debate rebuttal against Frost. I don't agree with any three against whom Warner debated, so I'm not saying this to defend their positions or their ability to debate. It just has been my experience that continuing the debate post-debate is a sign of dissatisfaction and insecurity, though not usually consciously. I look forward to finding time to read the debates.
I was also interested to find that Warner has transcribed Morgan Edwards' writing on "Millennium, Last Novelties", and hope to read it soon.
http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/resources/morgan.html
I was also interested to find that Warner has transcribed Morgan Edwards' writing on "Millennium, Last Novelties", and hope to read it soon.
http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/resources/morgan.html
The fact that a person can remain pre-trib in the progressive dispensational camp ought to bring any and all "historic" dispensationalists into the camp.
The two-program, two-people dichotomy simply cannot be maintained from Scripture and is why I think Couch and others perform so poorly in debates. They simply don't have the text on their side.
The two-program, two-people dichotomy simply cannot be maintained from Scripture and is why I think Couch and others perform so poorly in debates. They simply don't have the text on their side.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Maybe i never asked?
I got interested in a pre-trib site:
Rapture Ready.
Never mind. Looked at his site and as far as I can tell he has two unaccredited doctorates. Good Masters though (DallasTS).
Holding two unaccredited doctorates may explain his lack of ability to debate.
On the other hand, I saw the independent rating of a debate between James White & Mitch Pacwa, PhD. White apparently won, yet holds an unaccredited doctorate (now two of them) and Fr. Pacwa is a brilliant scholar, holder of a PhD from Vanderbilt, and professor. So I guess the two issues are not mutually exclusive.
Nord
Holding two unaccredited doctorates may explain his lack of ability to debate.
On the other hand, I saw the independent rating of a debate between James White & Mitch Pacwa, PhD. White apparently won, yet holds an unaccredited doctorate (now two of them) and Fr. Pacwa is a brilliant scholar, holder of a PhD from Vanderbilt, and professor. So I guess the two issues are not mutually exclusive.
Nord
This is a general reply not directed at any other reply. Just my general thoughts on this issue.
I am very (very, very) uncomfortable with resorting to the "nature" of someone's education during/after a theological debate. To me, it rings of desperation. Dr James White's degrees may not be accredited but that in no way discredits his work or puts doubt on his positions. If one disagrees with White one must prove theologically/Biblically that White is wrong. Attacking his education seems like a cheap shot of pure desperation.
As for debates in general, the modern debate is for all meaningful purposes WORTHLESS. Thats right, the modern debate style is 110% a waste of time, energy, and effort. Why? Because most of the time there is no real interaction, the time limits are too tight, and the format is too structured. Today many resort to proof texts and old hat straw man arguments in debates. Thus the debates are a waste of time and prove nothing (but the position one went into the debate with).
I believe theological discussion is best. There, in theological discussion, there can be a untimed/unformated exchange of ideas and close examination of the texts/issues at hand. But of course this takes mental work (which sad to say many in the church today would rather avoid, they would much rather stick with the old arguments than actually have to think). This is mainly true on the issue of pre-trib/mid-trib/post-trib. The majority of the debates I have heard/read on this really gained no real ground. Each side presented their position, then used predictable arugments against the other position with little (to no) real interaction with the material.
I wish people would get back to the issues and stop resorting to attacking someone's education. Look, someone can have an accredited PhD from Dallas Theological Seminary (or Southeastern, Southern, any of them) and be 100% wrong. Then you can have a Godly man who has never stepped foot onto the campus of a seminary be 100% right. A person's educational background here is beside the point, the point is the truth.
In Christ,
Martin.
I am very (very, very) uncomfortable with resorting to the "nature" of someone's education during/after a theological debate. To me, it rings of desperation. Dr James White's degrees may not be accredited but that in no way discredits his work or puts doubt on his positions. If one disagrees with White one must prove theologically/Biblically that White is wrong. Attacking his education seems like a cheap shot of pure desperation.
As for debates in general, the modern debate is for all meaningful purposes WORTHLESS. Thats right, the modern debate style is 110% a waste of time, energy, and effort. Why? Because most of the time there is no real interaction, the time limits are too tight, and the format is too structured. Today many resort to proof texts and old hat straw man arguments in debates. Thus the debates are a waste of time and prove nothing (but the position one went into the debate with).
I believe theological discussion is best. There, in theological discussion, there can be a untimed/unformated exchange of ideas and close examination of the texts/issues at hand. But of course this takes mental work (which sad to say many in the church today would rather avoid, they would much rather stick with the old arguments than actually have to think). This is mainly true on the issue of pre-trib/mid-trib/post-trib. The majority of the debates I have heard/read on this really gained no real ground. Each side presented their position, then used predictable arugments against the other position with little (to no) real interaction with the material.
I wish people would get back to the issues and stop resorting to attacking someone's education. Look, someone can have an accredited PhD from Dallas Theological Seminary (or Southeastern, Southern, any of them) and be 100% wrong. Then you can have a Godly man who has never stepped foot onto the campus of a seminary be 100% right. A person's educational background here is beside the point, the point is the truth.
In Christ,
Martin.
There is certainly truth in what you say. Also, you are correct about debates. To me they are mental chewing gum. Rarely is there a knock out punch or "ah hah" moment. It is like the endless debates between Catholics and Protestants or Calvinists and Arminians. If there were a knock out punch to be delivered everyone would have packed up and gone home long ago.
As to the degrees. Here is the problem with the unaccredited degree route. We owe God our best and beyond that, we should not do anything to drag His cause into the mud. When someone gets an unaccredited degree (not talking about Bob Jones U which is rigorous or PCC or even necessarily Columbia Evangelical Seminary) then there is always the potential to hold the cause of Christ up to ridicule, especially when the degrees lack any real rigor. Is it a straw man type argument to attack White's degrees...sure. But when Mormons or Roman Catholics are able to discredit the person based on what they perceive as the individual calling themselves "Dr." and then lacking credentials to back it up, it causes an integrity problem for the cause as a whole. It is used on some sites to paint those against Mormon theology or Catholic Theology as if they were without formal education. In other words when these folks can point to several of the leading apologists for evangelical christianity and say....see these folks go around attacking us and yet where is their integrity, they have degrees from schools that have one room offices or are run out of mail boxes, or out of a small church somewhere, etc. Then they point to their scholars who are properly degreed and using the title "Dr" with integrity and tell people not to even bother hearing these strange and phony evangelical Christians out. That is the problem.
Let's put it another way, if I ran around calling myself Lord Nord, Lord of Glastonwich and claiming to be British aristocracy, someone might check out my claim. Now, it may have nothing to do with my debate with a leading Mormon Theologian over the correctness of his beliefs. However, if that Mormon Theologian discovered that I had bought my "title" off one of these internet "Titles for Sale" sites (based on purchase of 1 square inch of land and goofy name change), don't you think he would be raising some legitimate credibility issues regardless of the correctness of the actual debate points I raised.
Might it not cause a poor witness to the cause of Christ.
***Please note the above is not meant to refer to any particular school or person.
Nord
As to the degrees. Here is the problem with the unaccredited degree route. We owe God our best and beyond that, we should not do anything to drag His cause into the mud. When someone gets an unaccredited degree (not talking about Bob Jones U which is rigorous or PCC or even necessarily Columbia Evangelical Seminary) then there is always the potential to hold the cause of Christ up to ridicule, especially when the degrees lack any real rigor. Is it a straw man type argument to attack White's degrees...sure. But when Mormons or Roman Catholics are able to discredit the person based on what they perceive as the individual calling themselves "Dr." and then lacking credentials to back it up, it causes an integrity problem for the cause as a whole. It is used on some sites to paint those against Mormon theology or Catholic Theology as if they were without formal education. In other words when these folks can point to several of the leading apologists for evangelical christianity and say....see these folks go around attacking us and yet where is their integrity, they have degrees from schools that have one room offices or are run out of mail boxes, or out of a small church somewhere, etc. Then they point to their scholars who are properly degreed and using the title "Dr" with integrity and tell people not to even bother hearing these strange and phony evangelical Christians out. That is the problem.
Let's put it another way, if I ran around calling myself Lord Nord, Lord of Glastonwich and claiming to be British aristocracy, someone might check out my claim. Now, it may have nothing to do with my debate with a leading Mormon Theologian over the correctness of his beliefs. However, if that Mormon Theologian discovered that I had bought my "title" off one of these internet "Titles for Sale" sites (based on purchase of 1 square inch of land and goofy name change), don't you think he would be raising some legitimate credibility issues regardless of the correctness of the actual debate points I raised.
Might it not cause a poor witness to the cause of Christ.
***Please note the above is not meant to refer to any particular school or person.
Nord
Martin and Nord,
While I affirm almost all of what you say, especially the issues of integrity and witness, I do think debates have some value. For instance, I've read of not a few who became creationists after hearing a creation/evolution debate. Debaters rarely, if ever (it's hard to use an absolute negative), convert their oponent to their side. Listeners and readers, though, can be persuaded.
Blessings,
Bill
While I affirm almost all of what you say, especially the issues of integrity and witness, I do think debates have some value. For instance, I've read of not a few who became creationists after hearing a creation/evolution debate. Debaters rarely, if ever (it's hard to use an absolute negative), convert their oponent to their side. Listeners and readers, though, can be persuaded.
Blessings,
Bill
Some attacks on White that I have read by Latter Day Saint apologists have addressed White's using the ThD after his name. These attacks claimed that White did not earned his doc in a standard manner as eg having a qualified doc committee and writng a scholarly dissertation which contributes in some original way to the literature re the topic.
The claims have been made that only Walston was White's committee and that White's CES degrees were granted merely for composing popular sort of books which White may have already much written prior to even beginning the degree program(s). I don't know that this is true, but I've not seen those attacks convinvcingly rebutted. It seems that counters could simply be made by naming the committee members and producing the dissertation.
As Nord says, this exemplifies one reason why our academics should be credible to those outside the Church not to just those who are of our own precise religious convictions. IF we choose to interact or minister to those outside our closest religious relatives using our degrees after our names in that interaction, then those outside have every right to question us about the degrees we opt to list. And those who minister, including IMO their degrees, need to have a good repute to those outside ( 1 Tim 3).
In the case of CES, unless things have recently changed, whether fair or not, a degree from that school on the Columbia cannot even be used in the neighboring state of Oregon on the other side of the river , in many contexts, because, as I understand it, that school does not meet the standards of the ODA. This is not clear evidence that a student may not do good work at CES and learn well.
But if CES enjoys sufficient substance and rigor to regularly produce scholars of White's caliber , then White could counter the Mormon attacks on the credibility of his alma mater by saying, "Oh yeah, well our grads have entered and completed RA doc programs because of the learnings at CES and CES grads with CES docs teach at RA schools--so there!" But I haven't seen that argument used, so I suppose, it would lack factual data to make it convincing. But then, the lack of that data is what makes White's doc the subject of attack.
It would seem to me that White contributes very much and very well to the Church. It would be interesting to know whether the coursework and dissertation at CES made him that scholar or whether White's reputation does more for CES than the CES learning did for White.
In regard to "debates" I wonder whether these are "mano y mano" or whether one such as White has a busy staff doing the bulk of the research.
Of course, good exegesis, cohesive theologizing , and convincing rhetoric should be the criteria for winning debates about Christian beliefs, but , the point is, putting a ThD after one's name opens up the more general discussion to the realm of academics. Then the question is raised, maybe unfairly,is the message credible if the messenger's degrees are not?
In addition to the soundness of his Gospel , Paul also had his credible signs to evidence his claim of being an Apostle of Christ; it also helps to have ,in addition to the soundness of rhetoric. a credible program of study to evidence a claim of being a Doctor of Theology.
The claims have been made that only Walston was White's committee and that White's CES degrees were granted merely for composing popular sort of books which White may have already much written prior to even beginning the degree program(s). I don't know that this is true, but I've not seen those attacks convinvcingly rebutted. It seems that counters could simply be made by naming the committee members and producing the dissertation.
As Nord says, this exemplifies one reason why our academics should be credible to those outside the Church not to just those who are of our own precise religious convictions. IF we choose to interact or minister to those outside our closest religious relatives using our degrees after our names in that interaction, then those outside have every right to question us about the degrees we opt to list. And those who minister, including IMO their degrees, need to have a good repute to those outside ( 1 Tim 3).
In the case of CES, unless things have recently changed, whether fair or not, a degree from that school on the Columbia cannot even be used in the neighboring state of Oregon on the other side of the river , in many contexts, because, as I understand it, that school does not meet the standards of the ODA. This is not clear evidence that a student may not do good work at CES and learn well.
But if CES enjoys sufficient substance and rigor to regularly produce scholars of White's caliber , then White could counter the Mormon attacks on the credibility of his alma mater by saying, "Oh yeah, well our grads have entered and completed RA doc programs because of the learnings at CES and CES grads with CES docs teach at RA schools--so there!" But I haven't seen that argument used, so I suppose, it would lack factual data to make it convincing. But then, the lack of that data is what makes White's doc the subject of attack.
It would seem to me that White contributes very much and very well to the Church. It would be interesting to know whether the coursework and dissertation at CES made him that scholar or whether White's reputation does more for CES than the CES learning did for White.
In regard to "debates" I wonder whether these are "mano y mano" or whether one such as White has a busy staff doing the bulk of the research.
Of course, good exegesis, cohesive theologizing , and convincing rhetoric should be the criteria for winning debates about Christian beliefs, but , the point is, putting a ThD after one's name opens up the more general discussion to the realm of academics. Then the question is raised, maybe unfairly,is the message credible if the messenger's degrees are not?
In addition to the soundness of his Gospel , Paul also had his credible signs to evidence his claim of being an Apostle of Christ; it also helps to have ,in addition to the soundness of rhetoric. a credible program of study to evidence a claim of being a Doctor of Theology.