Mark Jones has Challenged Scott Clark to a Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dr. Jones reply tells me this has escalated. I would like to see a discussion about this and I hope they could walk away reconciled and friends......

*embarrassing edit* I saw "Mark Jones", but pictured Peter Jones and thought "wow, he's pretty spunky for his age"........ I was hoping Peter and Scott weren't at odds.....
 
Last edited:
I am interacting w/ MJ on the issue. in my opinion, it looks as if Jones has issues w/ RSC's charge that there is a 'coup' of liberalism afoot. From what I know of Dr. Clark, he is spot on and is charging the nominals/normative (c)onfessionals-to which, I agree. The coup is subconsciously happening-especially in the PCA.
 
I am interacting w/ MJ on the issue. in my opinion, it looks as if Jones has issues w/ RSC's charge that there is a 'coup' of liberalism afoot. From what I know of Dr. Clark, he is spot on and is charging the nominals/normative (c)onfessionals-to which, I agree. The coup is subconsciously happening-especially in the PCA.

I agree that there is an attempted coup in the PCA, but I don't think it will be along FV lines. It will be along the lines of #gimmedat. Most FV guys, except perhaps some softies, are usually anti-SJW and anti-Marxist. But that might be more of the first generation guys.
 
Jacob,
How did you interpret RSC's statement about a 'coup'?

Was he referring to the racial tension issue or general nominism, theologically and confessionally?
 
I agree that there is an attempted coup in the PCA, but I don't think it will be along FV lines. It will be along the lines of #gimmedat. Most FV guys, except perhaps some softies, are usually anti-SJW and anti-Marxist. But that might be more of the first generation guys.
Whether the FV guys are SJWs or not, both are groups that the "big tent" folks will want to protect. It may well be that the "Can't we all just get along?" attitude is what kills the PCA; these are just two instantiations of it.
 
Is this private or online?
I am interacting w/ MJ on the issue. in my opinion, it looks as if Jones has issues w/ RSC's charge that there is a 'coup' of liberalism afoot. From what I know of Dr. Clark, he is spot on and is charging the nominals/normative (c)onfessionals-to which, I agree. The coup is subconsciously happening-especially in the PCA.
 
Jacob,
How did you interpret RSC's statement about a 'coup'?

Was he referring to the racial tension issue or general nominism, theologically and confessionally?

From what I saw of RSC on Twitter I think he is only talking about "FV". I haven't seem him really comment in regards to Jones (who is anti-Keller) about liberalism in the PCA.
 
Jacob,
How did you interpret RSC's statement about a 'coup'?

Was he referring to the racial tension issue or general nominism, theologically and confessionally?

It has to be along lines of nomism. If he is worried about race warriors, it isn't evident in this.
 
Ben,
One can easily see he has been arguing against Shepherdism and JBFA, on his twit feeds as of recently. I have no idea why this would incite MJ's, however? This is why I say it must be nominism in his regard.
 
Online-FB
okay; found that. I would like to see such a debate and it is too bad it is not going to happen, at least as of now; but calling RSC a bully after his refusal and saying one didn't think he'd accept because he is one, tends to take any virtue out of the original offer.
 
Yea, both are throwing particularly large stones at each other. I really don't see what the issue is that MJ's is upset about.
 
okay; found that. I would like to see such a debate and it is too bad it is not going to happen, at least as of now; but calling RSC a bully after his refusal and saying one didn't think he'd accept because he is one, tends to take any virtue out of the original offer.
Indeed. No one should take that sort of bait or attempting to poison the well beforehand.
 
Ben,
One can easily see he has been arguing against Shepherdism and JBFA, on his twit feeds as of recently. I have no idea why this would incite MJ's, however? This is why I say it must be nominism in his regard.

This whole thing started because of a Desiring God tweet/post. Mark Jones was pulled into it because he defended the DG post on FB and on Calvinist International. Jones is not on twitter, but that is where Clark has largely been critiquing Jones for defending Piper.
 
Imagine a world without FB, Twitter, Blogs, _______________ (fill in blank with with whatever ungoverned media you can think of) etc . . .

We've a pretty good tight-knit group here, but even it has its potential dangers, fueled by personal penchants toward focusing more on the goings-on without (not caused by anything inherent of the medium), rather than the stirrings-up within.

Imagine a world where one's best efforts were spent first personally, then locally, then presbyterially, then denominationally/general assembly-ly, then synodly, so on so forth.

I sometimes wonder if we're all too virtually "connected" for our own good. Distracted from our primary spheres of influence, and too mixed up/concerned with things outside, beyond, or irrelevant to our place, station, and circumstances, such that much inner man work, family work, local chapters of Zion work, are severely neglected. Of course, this might just be me recognizing my own proclivity toward such an infirmity.
 
I guess my concern is why is MJ's upset. I don't see anything on RSC's tweets that is concerning or that I disagree with.
 
Did MJ defend the actual terminology of our salvation depending on our good works? Or was it more like defending a young guy who is trying to say obedience matters and antinomianism is wrong? I can accept young people are trying to say something and saying it really badly, and need adjusting, but was it more than that?

Can you explain in a nutshell? Thanks.
 
Imagine a world without FB, Twitter, Blogs, _______________ (fill in blank with with whatever ungoverned media you can think of) etc . . .

We've a pretty good tight-knit group here, but even it has its potential dangers, fueled by personal penchants toward focusing more on the goings-on without (not caused by anything inherent of the medium), rather than the stirrings-up within.

Imagine a world where one's best efforts were spent first personally, then locally, then presbyterially, then denominationally/general assembly-ly, then synodly, so on so forth.

I sometimes wonder if we're all too virtually "connected" for our own good. Distracted from our primary spheres of influence, and too mixed up/concerned with things outside, beyond, or irrelevant to our place, station, and circumstances, such that much inner man work, family work, local chapters of Zion work, are severely neglected. Of course, this might just be me recognizing my own proclivity toward such an infirmity.
Wise insights, as always, brother.

We do need to be more focused in our little group. Of course, then we we must turn our attention to wondering why nicely made pulled pork must be accompanied by some sort of bean soup.
walking_tall.gif
 
I revere the ministry of RSC, but he does tend to see FV and nomism behind many things.

And MJ tends to excuse it in many things. He loves to take a few lines from carefully nuanced tomes by orthodox theologians about works and salvation (or worship, or other matters) and act as if someone who says something similar without the necessary caveats or nuance is doing the same thing. Desiring God's twitter account is not a Zanchius disputation.
 
I agree that there is an attempted coup in the PCA, but I don't think it will be along FV lines. It will be along the lines of #gimmedat. Most FV guys, except perhaps some softies, are usually anti-SJW and anti-Marxist. But that might be more of the first generation guys.

Hope I don't incur an auto de fe of this but... I'm good friends with a very prominent 1st Generation FV guy. This year at GA he bailed on a number of worship services due to the "propaganda angle" of the respective liturgies. He's also disgusted by what's going on at the Seminary with the SJW nonsense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top