# Douglas Wilson Challenges R. Scott Clark to a Debate on FV



## C. M. Sheffield

[video=vimeo;18770377]http://vimeo.com/18770377[/video]

I'd pay to see that!


----------



## Notthemama1984

Me too.


----------



## SolaScriptura

I wouldn't pay to see a debate, but I'd cough over some cash to see a wrasslin' match!


----------



## greenbaggins

I don't think this will happen.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

I've never investigated FV very much so I don't know a whole lot about it. Watching a debate might really help to crystallize it for me.


----------



## greenbaggins

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I've never investigated FV very much so I don't know a whole lot about it. Watching a debate might really help to crystallize it for me.


 
I would actually doubt this to be true. You would be much better off just reading the Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros and Cons book. That's actually a written debate, and still the best entry level discussion in the debate.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

greenbaggins said:


> C. M. Sheffield said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never investigated FV very much so I don't know a whole lot about it. Watching a debate might really help to crystallize it for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would actually doubt this to be true.
Click to expand...

 
Reading the book may do a great deal of good. But that doesn't mean that watching a debate wouldn't.


----------



## Peairtach

"A venue of his choosing".... Is that just in case Douglas Wilson might have _an advantage_ at a venue of _his_ choosing? 

*Quote from C.M.*


> Reading the book may do a great deal of good. But that doesn't mean that watching a debate wouldn't.



We can't wait for debates everytime we wan't to decide whether something is herasaaay or not.


----------



## Marrow Man

Doug Wilson is very skilled debater. He debated James White (another very good debater) on a similar topic a few years ago and came across as winning the debate hands down. But "winning" a debate, of course, doesn't mean one is necessarily correct on the issue.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Richard Tallach said:


> We can't wait for debates everytime we wan't to decide whether something is herasaaay or not.



That's obviously not what I'm doing. To suggest that's what I meant is ludicrous.


----------



## TimV

The kind of people who admire Wilson admire cheap rhetoric. Wilson would do something like focus in on R2K and make it seem like all opponents of the FV hold to it. He'd force Clark to defend some of the extreme (extreme defined as only a small number of Reformed people hold to it, not that it's necessarily wrong) teachings of R2K and people would eat it up. I've seen it happen. "Those NAPARC churches claim what we teach isn't Reformed, but look at what they believe! Who's got history on their side?"


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Marrow Man said:


> Doug Wilson is very skilled debater. He debated James White (another very good debater) on a similar topic a few years ago and came across as winning the debate hands down. But "winning" a debate, of course, doesn't mean one is necessarily correct on the issue.



This is an excellent point. Sometimes we can do greater harm to the cause of truth by entering into such debates if we have not the faculties to competently contend with our challenger. Though I would't put Dr. Clark anywhere near that category. He can certainly handle himself.

---------- Post added at 11:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 AM ----------

Help me out Tim, "R2K"? Is that a Reformed computer virus?


----------



## Marrow Man

Not the Tim you asked (I'm the one who likes cheap rhetoric  ), but R2K is "Radical Two Kingdom" theology, a position attributed to Dr. Clark and Westminster Seminary California.


----------



## tcalbrecht

TimV said:


> The kind of people who admire Wilson admire cheap rhetoric.



Unfair ad hominem. 



TimV said:


> Wilson would do something like focus in on R2K and make it seem like all opponents of the FV hold to it. He'd force Clark to defend some of the extreme (extreme defined as only a small number of Reformed people hold to it, not that it's necessarily wrong) teachings of R2K and people would eat it up. I've seen it happen. "Those NAPARC churches claim what we teach isn't Reformed, but look at what they believe! Who's got history on their side?"



If his purpose was to show the breath of allowable positions within Reformedom, that would not be a bad thing.


----------



## TimV

> If his purpose was to show the breath of allowable positions within Reformedom, that would not be a bad thing.



That wouldn't be his purpose. His purpose would be to discredit any criticism of FV by pointing to an an historical school of thought held by a critic that is confessional and making it seem that the pot is calling the kettle black. And it works, for theologically ignorant conspiracy types, as well as those who long for the security of themselves and their children through works.



> Unfair ad hominem.



I can only guess you haven't followed any of the PCA's court cases against these people.


----------



## tcalbrecht

TimV said:


> That wouldn't be his purpose.



Know this you do?



TimV said:


> conspiracy types



Speaking of conspiracy types …



TimV said:


> I can only guess you haven't followed any of the PCA's court cases against these people.



Now we’re equivocating. First it was Wilson, now it’s “these people.” Are “these people” the same ones who “admire Wilson” per your earlier post?

And, yes, I have been watching the court cases and I have not seen any instance of “cheap rhetoric” in cases as they have been reported. 

To the extent there has been “cheap rhetoric,” seems there’s been enough on both sides to go around.


----------



## TimV

tcalbrecht said:


> And, yes, I have been watching the court cases and I have not seen any instance of “cheap rhetoric” in cases as they have been reported.



And in Siouxlands whining about thinking they've woken up in the OPC? Or claiming historical continuity since Bullinger said we shouldn't distinguish between the sign and the thing signified? Could you please tell me say, two of the PCA court cases you've been watching? That way we can both be specific.


----------



## MarieP

Marrow Man said:


> Doug Wilson is very skilled debater. He debated James White (another very good debater) on a similar topic a few years ago and came across as winning the debate hands down. But "winning" a debate, of course, doesn't mean one is necessarily correct on the issue.


 
I found it interesting that they ended up debating infant baptism rather than the question at hand, whether or not Roman Catholics are members of the New Covenant because of Trinitarian baptism. But then. little wonder, since they didn't agree on the nature of the New Covenant.

---------- Post added at 03:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------




Marrow Man said:


> Not the Tim you asked (I'm the one who likes cheap rhetoric  ), but R2K is "Radical Two Kingdom" theology, a position attributed to Dr. Clark and Westminster Seminary California.


 
A debate between Wilson and one of the R2K guys! Now THAT would be interesting...

---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------

I'd ove to see a debate between Doug Wilson and Lane Keister...I read Reformed is Not Enough and Greenbaggins' commentary after each chapter...


----------



## greenbaggins

MarieP said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doug Wilson is very skilled debater. He debated James White (another very good debater) on a similar topic a few years ago and came across as winning the debate hands down. But "winning" a debate, of course, doesn't mean one is necessarily correct on the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I found it interesting that they ended up debating infant baptism rather than the question at hand, whether or not Roman Catholics are members of the New Covenant because of Trinitarian baptism. But then. little wonder, since they didn't agree on the nature of the New Covenant.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 03:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the Tim you asked (I'm the one who likes cheap rhetoric  ), but R2K is "Radical Two Kingdom" theology, a position attributed to Dr. Clark and Westminster Seminary California.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A debate between Wilson and one of the R2K guys! Now THAT would be interesting...
> 
> ---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------
> 
> I'd ove to see a debate between Doug Wilson and Lane Keister...I read Reformed is Not Enough and Greenbaggins' commentary after each chapter...
Click to expand...

 
Thank you for your vote of confidence, Marie! I did debate Douglas Wilson on a variety of topics, blog to blog. I would not be comfortable debating Douglas Wilson in person.


----------



## DMcFadden

Wilson is a VERY skilled debater and a quick on-the-spot thinker. My money would still go on the extravagantly gifted Rev. Keister.

If the debate involved Dr. Clark (vs. Doug Wilson), I would NEVER bet against a man of Clark's intellect and badgeresque tenacity combined with such a keen sense of going for the jugular.


----------



## greenbaggins

DMcFadden said:


> Wilson is a VERY skilled debater and a quick on-the-spot thinker. My money would still go on the extravagantly gifted Rev. Keister.
> 
> If the debate involved Dr. Clark, I would NEVER bet against a man with his intellect and badgeresque tenacity and keen sense of going for the jugular.


 
Uh-oh. Now I'm really embarrassed!


----------



## SolaScriptura

In my humble and insignificant opinion, there have been enough talks, enough debates, enough reports, enough deliberations, enough decisions... what is needed now is the resolve and tenacity to take action by implementing the ruling(s) of the church courts.


----------



## Peairtach

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can't wait for debates everytime we wan't to decide whether something is herasaaay or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's obviously not what I'm doing. To suggest that's what I meant is ludicrous.
Click to expand...


Sorry. No offense meant.


----------



## Marrow Man

SolaScriptura said:


> In my humble and insignificant opinion, there have been enough talks, enough debates, enough reports, enough deliberations, enough decisions... what is needed now is the resolve and tenacity to take action by implementing the ruling(s) of the church courts.



Silly Ben; don't you realize that no one really understands the FV unless they actually are FV?

In the meantime, carry on with the scheduled programming:


----------



## TimV

Hopefully you all heard that audio clip of Jordan at their Moscow school commencement ceremony saying that the Holy Spirit has confused the thinking of all the rest of us.

Tom, I'd seriously like to hear which of those PCA trials you've followed.


----------



## VictorBravo

TimV said:


> Tom, I'd seriously like to hear which of those PCA trials you've followed.



Mod

But not on this thread, please. . . .

/Mod


----------



## tcalbrecht

TimV said:


> And in Siouxlands whining about thinking they've woken up in the OPC? Or claiming historical continuity since Bullinger said we shouldn't distinguish between the sign and the thing signified? Could you please tell me say, two of the PCA court cases you've been watching? That way we can both be specific.



Since I'm not presently a member of any PCA presbytery were an actual court case has been heard, I'm not privy to anything other than the official SJC or presbytery records where published. I can't recall seeing any “cheap rhetoric” in those records.


----------



## TimV

You don't have to recall anything. Just name the court cases. We can open up another thread.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

As far as I know this invitation was offered back in 2006. I hope Dr. Clark comes on to comment.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Silly Ben; don't you realize that no one really understands the FV unless they actually are FV?



It's kinda like they're Emergent; the "you don't understand my Jesus because you're not me, and He is real to me in a way you'll never understand - debate finished".


----------



## R. Scott Clark

A debate assumes that this the FV is an open question. That's a false premise. It's not an open question. 

In 2004, 2007, and 2010 synods of the URCs in NA rejected the FV doctrine extensively and substantially. 

In 2007 the PCA rejected the FV doctrine extensively and substantially. The OPC GA received a report on justification rejecting the FV. The RCUS has rejected the FV. The RPCNA has rejected the FV. 

Westminster Seminary California, GPTS, MARS have all rejected the FV.

The debate is over. The time for repentance is at hand.

If you're new to the question start at my FV/NPP resource page.

A debate also assumes that two positions are yet unclear and need to be clarified. That is a false premise. The Reformed confession is quite clear. The FV errors have been clearly diagnosed. They articulated those errors themselves in their 2007 statement. This is why Federal Visionists have fled orthodox churches or, as in the case Jeff Myers, repudiated them in order to remain within confessional churches (the Leithart case has yet to be adjudicated).

So, if the positions are clear and the assemblies and the courts of the churches have decided, what's the point? A stunt? Entertainment? A quest for credibility? 
You can decide for yourself. 

My view of Wilson and his sect is public enough. If you're not familiar with the CREC, start here.


----------



## KMK

Great point, Dr. Clark! Debates at this point are not simply pointless, but damaging.


----------



## Marrow Man

Nonsense. I think Athanasius and Arius should have gotten together after Nicaea for a series of protracted debates just so we can settle this deity of Christ thing once and for all. All positions have to be heard and all arguments (followed by counter arguments, followed by counter-counter-arguments) must be given the light of day. Such distractions are the meat and potatoes of Christ's church. After all, we all know of that passage in Scripture after Acts 15 where Paul and the Judaizers got together for a series of debates just so every conceivable position could be considered and defended and so the poor Judaizers would be misunderstood.

Right? That is in Scripture, isn't it? Isn't it?


----------



## DMcFadden

Marrow Man said:


> Nonsense. I think Athanasius and Arius should have gotten together after Nicaea for a series of protracted debates just so we can settle this deity of Christ thing once and for all. All positions have to be heard and all arguments (followed by counter arguments, followed by counter-counter-arguments) must be given the light of day. Such distractions are the meat and potatoes of Christ's church. After all, we all know of that passage in Scripture after Acts 15 where Paul and the Judaizers got together for a series of debates just so every conceivable position could be considered and defended and so the poor Judaizers would be misunderstood.
> 
> Right? That is in Scripture, isn't it? Isn't it?


 


Tim, you have a VERY wicked sense of wit!


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

R. Scott Clark said:


> A debate assumes that this the FV is an open question. That's a false premise. It's not an open question.



I respectfully disagree Dr. Clark. There are many debates that Reformed and Evangelical scholars engage in with Atheists, Roman Catholics, Mormons, Evolutionists and the list goes on. Certainly no one would say that these issues are "open questions" for Evangelicalism. However, these issues do represent very vocal challenges to the faith we hold dear. While the FV has indeed been addressed through the various courts of the different Reformed churches, it remains a thriving and developing movement. I would view participation in a debate on the matter as not only appropriate, but commendable.


----------



## KMK

Marrow Man said:


> Nonsense. I think Athanasius and Arius should have gotten together after Nicaea for a series of protracted debates just so we can settle this deity of Christ thing once and for all. All positions have to be heard and all arguments (followed by counter arguments, followed by counter-counter-arguments) must be given the light of day. Such distractions are the meat and potatoes of Christ's church. After all, we all know of that passage in Scripture after Acts 15 where Paul and the Judaizers got together for a series of debates just so every conceivable position could be considered and defended and so the poor Judaizers would be misunderstood.
> 
> Right? That is in Scripture, isn't it? Isn't it?


 
I think Tim has been taking lesson in McFaddenesque satire.


----------



## Curt

Marrow Man said:


> Silly Ben; don't you realize that no one really understands the FV unless they actually are FV?



Nobody understands Marxism, either.


----------



## Marrow Man

Curt said:


> Nobody understands Marxism, either.



And nobody understands me.

Except for DMac.


----------



## CharlieJ

C. M. Sheffield said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> A debate assumes that this the FV is an open question. That's a false premise. It's not an open question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I respectfully disagree Dr. Clark. There are many debates that Reformed and Evangelical scholars engage in with Atheists, Roman Catholics, Mormons, Evolutionists and the list goes on. Certainly no one would say that these issues are "open questions" for Evangelicalism. However, these issues do represent very vocal challenges to the faith we hold dear. While the FV has indeed been addressed through the various courts of the different Reformed churches, it remains a thriving and developing movement. I would view participation in a debate on the matter as not only appropriate, but commendable.
Click to expand...

 
I agree. Augustine debated Manichees and Ulfilian Arians publicly. They were not open issues to him. He hoped to gain those who were ignorant or wavering. Doug Wilson is huge in the "I'm leaving fundamentalism" camp. Many of them think he's the poster child of Reformed theology. They need to be exposed to the alternative.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

CharlieJ said:


> C. M. Sheffield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> A debate assumes that this the FV is an open question. That's a false premise. It's not an open question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I respectfully disagree Dr. Clark. There are many debates that Reformed and Evangelical scholars engage in with Atheists, Roman Catholics, Mormons, Evolutionists and the list goes on. Certainly no one would say that these issues are "open questions" for Evangelicalism. However, these issues do represent very vocal challenges to the faith we hold dear. While the FV has indeed been addressed through the various courts of the different Reformed churches, it remains a thriving and developing movement. I would view participation in a debate on the matter as not only appropriate, but commendable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Augustine debated Manichees and Ulfilian Arians publicly. They were not open issues to him. He hoped to gain those who were ignorant or wavering. Doug Wilson is huge in the "I'm leaving fundamentalism" camp. Many of them think he's the poster child of Reformed theology. They need to be exposed to the alternative.
Click to expand...

It looks like we have two volunteers who wish to challenge Doug Wilson in Scott's place.


----------



## Marrow Man

MarieP said:


> Doug Wilson is very skilled debater. He debated James White (another very good debater) on a similar topic a few years ago and came across as winning the debate hands down. But "winning" a debate, of course, doesn't mean one is necessarily correct on the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> I found it interesting that they ended up debating infant baptism rather than the question at hand, whether or not Roman Catholics are members of the New Covenant because of Trinitarian baptism. But then. little wonder, since they didn't agree on the nature of the New Covenant.
Click to expand...


I meant this as no slight against James White. It was mildly frustrating, actually. But Wilson also "debated" (more of an on-air phone discussion) Michael Horton on the FV once as well, and Wilson came out smelling like a rose (you can listen to it here; unfortunately it appears to be no longer free). The man is smooth with his words. Giving him a platform is more likely to confuse and deceive others rather than put him in his place, In my humble opinion.


----------



## DMcFadden

Skilled debaters are valuable as persuasion tools. This should not be confused with "proving" the truth. Wilson is a bright and intellectually adroit fellow. I'm sure that Pelagius, Arminius, John Glas, Hitchens, and Dawkins could convince people too.


----------



## Marrow Man

I listened once to Wilson debate an atheist (Dan Barker, I believe) and he was quite good at exposing the silliness of the man's position. There was one classic moment during the debate -- Barker complained about "thou shalt not kill" in the Ten Commandments, Wilson pointing out that the Hebrew word was more akin to "murder," etc. Barker then complained that Moses didn't know Hebrew very well or something like that, and Wilson asked him, "Do you think Moses knew Hebrew?" It sort of stopped Barker in his tracks.


----------



## Covenant Joel

Marrow Man said:


> I listened once to Wilson debate an atheist (Dan Barker, I believe) and he was quite good at exposing the silliness of the man's position. There was one classic moment during the debate -- Barker complained about "thou shalt not kill" in the Ten Commandments, Wilson pointing out that the Hebrew word was more akin to "murder," etc. Barker then complained that Moses didn't know Hebrew very well or something like that, and Wilson asked him, "Do you think Moses knew Hebrew?" It sort of stopped Barker in his tracks.


 
I haven't heard him debate other than the more recent debates with Christopher Hitchens. To be honest, I thought Wilson came across as a bit weak in his debating skills. He made some points, but they weren't made well, and the force of them was largely missing. So I've been a little bit mystified when everybody talks about how great a debater he is.

Additionally, he participated in a round table/debate on eschatology a while ago, and honestly, while I felt like he did have some good points, I thought he was absolutely destroyed by Sam Storms and Jim Hamilton. He spent too much time trying to be cute or clever that he ended up sounding like someone who couldn't actually make a serious point.


----------



## Michael

Covenant Joel said:


> He spent too much time trying to be cute or clever that he ended up sounding like someone who couldn't actually make a serious point.



This is my beef with Wilson as a debator also. It doesn't seem like he really takes the opportunity seriously. But then again I have limited exposure to him so I could be missing the big picture.


----------



## jogri17

I would like to see Carl Trueman debate Doug Wilson... both have that personality thing going for them that you just can't help but like.


----------



## proregno

Dr. vanDrunen did debate dr. Schreiner on baptism (see here), but I do not think the baptism issue is an 'open' question for both gentleman. I therefore think a debate would be fine. If dr. Clark do not want to face 'Goliath', who will it be ? 

BTW, a debate between 2K vs R2K would also help to clarify this issue, except if WCF chapter 23 and BC art.36 already settled the issue ?


----------



## Reformed Musings

You don't have to read much of Wilson to see that he's all about entertainment and publicity. If you doubt that statement, try reading his stuff in Credenda Agenda or his blog posts during the Louisiana Presbytery trials. Yes, he's a smooth talker and fast thinker on his feet, but that doesn't mean that what he says concerning FV is even remotely true. The list of eloquent, smooth talking teachers of error runs long in history. Has theology been reduced to reality TV now? Should Snookie moderate?

Dr. Clark is absolutely right. FV has been written about from both sides ad nauseum. At least seven orthodox Reformed denominations as well as a bunch of seminaries and presbyteries have rejected Federal Vision theology and produced reports as a result. There's nothing left to debate, only church court cases to finish. Dr. Clark provides an excellent index of reports, papers, and books on the subject. I highly recommend them to anyone interested.

In the meantime, God expects us to redeem our time wisely. Dr. Clark and the rest of us have serious work to accomplish to advance the kingdom for God's glory. Let's be about His business and leave the entertainment and smooth talking to network TV and used car lots.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that Doug Wilson is all about entertainment and publicity but I do think that's what make him appealing to many. I used to enjoy reading him in Tabletalk and read some of his books when I was younger but I increasingly found his style to be sort of predictable. I think he relishes poking people in the eye using his wit. Where the Apostle Paul exhorts Christians to aspire to live quiet and peacable lives, Doug Wilson seems to encourage the opposite. When you read his books about education, for instance, he revels in the opportunities he has to point out to government officials how foolish they are. Whatever serious insights he has are always laced with an attempt to be witty and that wit is often very cutting in terms of criticism of others. Quiet, humble, preferring to honor others, and peaceable are not things that would immediately come to mind when you think of Doug Wilson. If he's like that in his personal life then it does not come out in his public interactions.


----------



## E Nomine

While the PCA and OPC have condemned FV and the theologians on the Puritanboard understand it is heretical, I, as a simple lay-person, don't understand the FV, can't articulate why it is heretical, and don't know to be cautious and/or discriminating when exposed to it. I'd love to see/hear a debate between experts.


----------



## Reformed Musings

E Nomine said:


> While the PCA and OPC have condemned FV and the theologians on the Puritanboard understand it is heretical, I, as a simple lay-person, don't understand the FV, can't articulate why it is heretical, and don't know to be cautious and/or discriminating when exposed to it. I'd love to see/hear a debate between experts.



I highly recommend The Auburn Avenue Theology Pros & Cons - Debating the Federal Vision edited by Dr. Cal Beisner. It takes the form of a debate where each participant on each side wrote a paper and someone on the other side critiqued it. Everyone writes their own words - direct from the source. You'll learn far more from that written exchange than from a reality-TV circus with or without Snookie.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

SW,

What have you read on the FV?

Have you read the stuff linked at the FV Resource page?

Westminster Seminary California

The churches have rejected the FV because it turns the good news (Christ's work FOR sinners, the benefits of which are received through resting in and receiving Christ) into bad news. They say that we are temporarily, conditionally united to Christ, elect, justified, etc by baptism. They say that we retain these baptism by grace AND cooperation with grace (works). R C Sproul Jr has rightly said that this doctrine is a denial of the perseverance of the saints. It's a denial of justification by grace alone through faith alone. It's a corruption of the gospel.

There it is in a paragraph. 

All this has been documented at great length in numerous publications.


----------



## E Nomine

Thank you Dr. Clark and Elder Mattes. I haven't read anything regarding the FV recently. I read several papers and pages from the Internet a couple of years ago. I will look into the Pros & Cons book edited by Dr. Beisner. I have not prioritized exploring the FV and NPP.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

The Pros and Cons book is a good starting point but the discussion has advanced. The key to the FV is their doctrine of conditional, temporary baptismal benefits. They have set up an essentially Arminian covenant theology:

http://www.cpjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/CPJ2-RSClark.pdf


----------



## ServantsHeart

Marrow Man said:


> But "winning" a debate, of course, doesn't mean one is necessarily correct on the issue.


I most surely agree Tim, I heard a Debate between a Reformed Baptist Pastor and a professional Church Of Christ Debater,this is all this man does is Debate around the world. He was polished,skilled and had an Army of support personel. I was so discusted after it I swore I would never go to another one which concerned the Church Of Christ and its Doctrine of Salvation or Baptism if you will. My Brother was Humble and showed great respect for the issue and his fellow Debater. The opposit was true of this fellow, my flesh nearly got the best of me sitting there as I mused how I might do harm to this fellow like trip him when he walks by and watch him land on his pride & arrogance. But I decided to pray for the poor soul instead.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

I would make it a priority for anyone who wants to debate Doug Wilson on this subject to require Mr. Wilson to clearly define what he means by "Federal Vision"? And, what is specifically "Federal" about it.

Both would be necessary in order to have a rational debate on the subject. Until this happens debate on the subject would be vain at best.

Blessings,

Rob


----------

