Please note: Based on some reactions I'd like to make it clear that this article does not support any violent rhetoric, is not making a tu quoque ("you do it too") argument, and was only written because someone claimed that only the right uses vitriolic language (and there was no way to respond within Twitter's limit of 140 characters).

When I started my blog on fahrner.us, I intended to avoid politics all together.  If my goal is to reach people for Christ then in a polarized nation any political comment I could make was likely to help build a wall between me an 50% of the "listening" audience.  Although this post will reveal some of my political leanings, it is not meant to be political–instead it is meant to be about philosophy and logic.

I am embarrassed to admit that when I first heard of the abominable shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, instead of immediately being overwhelmed with concern for her, the other victims, and their families–I cringed.  Why?  Because I knew that (a) conservatives would immediately be blamed and (b) out of it would come a call for further gun control.  With the former (at that point) I didn't know the lunatic's leanings and with the latter it has less to do with a personal desire to protect my weapons (we only own a couple of 22s) than the potential it would be leveraged to prevent people from having the God-given right to protect themselves (a right reiterated in the Constitution).

With both, I loathed the lack of logic we were about to be deluged with.  As many know, anecdotal evidence is the penny candy of demagogues and a cheap shot (veracity unimportant) is the addiction of those whose agendas are more important than the truth.

Overall Proposal

After our Twitter discussion about free will versus predestination, I thought it would be neat to have the three of us together for an "un-debate" about the subject.  The reason I say "un-debate" is that a debate can be "won" regardless of the truth of the "winning" argument–based on debating skills alone.  Additionally, a debate's format can be contrary to getting to the truth...I'd like our discussion to allow each of us to be given time to review the new information provided.  After digesting it we may have some good responses...or might actually decide the "opposition" is correct.

Obviously, we each think we are correct in our understanding...but I also believe we are all equally committed to the truth as in infallibly shared in Scripture.  I don't view this gathering as a debate–instead I see it as three brothers in Christ trying to more clearly understand biblical truth.

Format

I would suggest the three sessions, sixty to ninety minutes each.  Maybe one on a Friday night and two on a Saturday?

Session 1:

• Definition of terms
• Discussion of associated doctrines we agree on (e.g. sola fide, sola scriptura)...basically establishing a common groundwork
• Daniel presents his understanding of free will (and how it fits his system of belief overall) – up to 20 minutes
• Les presents his understanding of predestination (and how it fits his system of belief overall) – up to 20 minutes
• Alan presents his understanding of free will (and how it fits his system of belief overall) – up to 20 minutes
• Discussion and answer session between Daniel, Les, and Alan

I defer to you two on the order we present (in this session and the other two)...I just figured it might be good to have Les in the middle since Daniel and I are likely to be a bit redundant :-)

Break 1:

Maybe get a meal...but also give us each at least an hour to mentally digest the first session and come back with questions and thoughts.

Session 2:

• Alan presents a "rebuttal" – up to 10 minutes
• Les presents a "rebuttal" – up to 10 minutes
• Daniel presents a "rebuttal" – up to 10 minutes
• Free-form question-and-answer (and study) session between Daniel, Les, and Alan – 60 minutes

Break 2:

A time to gather final thoughts before the third session...at least an hour.

Session 3:

• Les presents his final thoughts – up to 10 minutes
• Daniel presents his final thoughts – up to 10 minutes
• Alan presents his final thoughts – up to 10 minutes
• Free-from question-and-answer (and study) session between Les, Alan, and Les and any audience – 60 minutes

Location

Les, I was figuring the most likely location would be down your way–from your tweets I assume you might have a room at your church that might lend itself to our discussion.  My intent would be to save up enough miles and points to pay for travel and Marriott hotel rooms for two of us...and I am game to head either direction.  I'm also glad to have you in my humble town of Antrim, NH...but my great little church is a little short on amenities beyond heat, light, and running water. :-)

I would like to be able to record this...so a location that makes that easy would be handy too.  I do have portable recording equipment, although I'd need to figure out a way to mic all three of us.

Final Thoughts

These are all just suggestions on a format...I am open to wholesale changes...and to the chance both of you will be disinterested.  If we do go forward, there are a lot of other things we should work out–for instance, do we advertise it?  I've imagined an audience...do we go with that or keep it just a personal discussion?  (I am of two minds when it comes to that.)  My guess is that I'll have plenty of miles and points to do this early next year...would that work for your schedules?  And so on...

P.S.

One final note...in case it matters. Although I believe in the Trinity, salvation by faith, scriptural authority, etcetera–I do have some "heretical" views...for instance, I am an annihilationist and an inclusivist. I will not take it personally if either of you see this as a show-stopper...and also realize that even if you personally could look past it it might be a stumbling block for your brothers and sisters. However, just as I can guarantee you that I can be convinced of predestination if the Bible teaches it clearly, I am not wed to those views either (it is just what I've concluded based on weighing the evidence). Who knows...if the predestination sessions work out well, maybe we can touch on those for follow-ups :-) (although I'd recommend we try to do it remotely over Skype instead of always traveling).