Why film this hectoring between two brothers. Why poke fun at the fat bald guy with a tie who is cast as the square versus the hip unshaven guy with workshirt? Is this an apple commercial? In reality I regard these two positions as re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Most emergents and conservative baptists are identical in doctrine, it's just that one is superficially hip and the other is not. Both are dispensationalists who are trying to figure out what to do till Jesus comes back. When in actuality, His last words were "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." That is pretty radical. And that is what Paul and the early church exactly did. And it is what millions today do. Instead of having theological arguments in Minnesota. These are both great guys and our brothers but we have a more important job to do.

@rickd
Right on!

Nice comment RickD. I'm thinking your comments should be sent to Tony and John so they could move on as well. :O)

Greg the youth pastor at my church says this about this and I totally agree:

We all know there's no easy answer here...reason being, every theological particular (our stand on head-coverings for instance) partakes of a whole system, a universal cohesion that leads one contingency to the conclusion of another. I honestly feel like this conversation would need to back the question up to be fruitful, that is, the bigger systematic issues must be dealt with first (hermeneutical principals, inspiration, exegetical method, ect) before we can have a healthy discussion about nuances. WHY? Well, because these type of discussions need to be dealt with on exegetical grounds. But how does one do exegesis? Exactly. And that's why I would be very careful not to step into the lions den with TJones without first defining terms.

Allow me to also say that it is certainly easier to be in TJs seat, the seat of critique, than it is ito provide positive/constructive answers for what one believes. Why does TJ not carry the burden of proof. Well, he's pomo, he's the interviewer, he doesn't have to, and he's already arrived at his conclusions from the standpoint of his worldview. This may sound harsh, but if the one providing critique is to feel the weight of their own conclusions, then the starting point must be reversed. Why do we assume, for instance, that TJ and MAC-Boy are on the same page at all? They most certainly are not. If they are on to achieve any balance here, they must FIRST agree on how these debates will be settled and this requires going backwards a few steps to find out what both men believe about God, the Bible, knowledge, how you get it, and how you correct yourself if you're found lacking in your views.

Hmm...we dealt with this "is there anything God cannot do" question back in Philosophy 101, starting with "can God make a rock too big for himself to lift". You can't answer it, because it's a logically contradictory question. And so you follow the rest of the train of thought through "can God lie" and "can God sin" and "how can you say God must be just", and the logical answer to all of it is simply that God cannot do anything that is logically inconsistent with His nature. It's like asking if a light source (light bulb, flame, what have you) can generate light all around except in one spot, and generate darkness instead there. Of course not! It is, after all, a light source, not a darkness source. And so God is by His inherent nature just, but he is also by his inherent nature merciful. How do you reconcile the two? Well, that's the whole point -- that's where Jesus comes in.