The Feast
by Justin Eastwood, who graciously refrained from giving his opinion that Rob's view held the day

For the past several months, the folks at the Highlands Study Center told the readers of this publication about the approaching Feast of Pentecost slated for the 2nd of June. I must say that I looked forward to this event with great anticipation, mainly on account of the great exhibition billed as an Apologetics Gabfest. Of course, I am speaking of the oft mentioned and long awaited debate on the topic of apologetic methodology between Rob McCurley and R.C. Sproul, Jr., each a Scotsman and minister of the gospel. Lest you think this event was a no-holds barred battle between two men of opposing armies, as some might construe, let me provide the context of this clash by giving my recollections of the gathering. For those of you who could not attend, you missed something great, and hopefully I can paint an accurate picture of this wonderful time. Many of you reading may have attended, so I hope this narrative will recall fond memories for you.

As people gathered at the Sproul manor in Meadowview to enjoy a feast, R.C. explained why we were remembering Pentecost on this occasion. R.C. remarked that the group gathered together that evening descended from the line of God's true Church throughout history, from the saints in Israel to the first Christians gathered at Pentecost to the Reformers and onward to this day. One could recognize the true Christian fellowship at this event as folk from many local Reformed churches were in attendance. There were some among the large gathering that I did not know, but it was great to see a representation of the Church in this area assembling together for fellowship. This should remind us of the glorious Body of Christ, drawn from people of all eras and nations, that will commune with their Lord in that great eternal feast.

As I waited for the meal to start, I noticed the range in age of those at the event. Adults, college students, teenagers, children, and infants alike attended the gathering. Children played together while friends greeted each other and talked amongst themselves. It was easy to see that this was a gathering of families as well, while also clearly seeing God's blessings to his people in granting them an abundance of children. There was a noteworthy contingent of parents who were expecting children, among them R.C. and Denise, Rob and Jeannette McCurley, and my good friends, Chris and Rachel Horton. Indeed, a demonstration of Reformed church growth at its best!

We then proceeded to feast on the large meal before us, another example of God's gracious providence for us. Hamburgers and hot dogs, along with a variety of side dishes, were offered for supper. Without a doubt, great food is a trademark at events of the HSC. The wonderful weather allowed for an enjoyable outdoor supper and provided a pleasant setting for the open-air debate.

The esteemed Laurence Windham served as a not-so-neutral moderator (but hey, we established that evening that complete neutrality is impossible!). Just kidding Laurence, I know you provided for a fair contest, because you, hopefully as with everyone else, wanted to see the truth prevail first and foremost. Rob, arguing for the presuppositional position, gave some opening remarks that expressed thankfulness for the blessings God has provided for His people by way of the HSC. He also explained the context of this debate by describing it as an "in-house" matter. In other words, this was an issue that was being debated within the Reformed community and it should be settled in that sphere only. It was remarked that both men agreed on most issues and that both were on the same side of the struggle against the forces of unbelief. This was a disagreement on a relatively small matter in the scope of things, but nevertheless, it was an important issue that needed discussing.

After his introductory remarks, Rob stated his critique of the classical position and summarization of the presuppositional method. R.C. went right to constructing his argument for the classical method and addressing some misconceptions of the classical position. Following the opening round of constructive arguments was a cross-examination round in which each man asked questions of his opponent and answered questions asked by his opponent. The final round allowed each man the opportunity to rebut the other's argument and restate his case. Both men were kind in the presentation of their arguments, but they did not compromise their position at all, as Rob and R.C. each presented well-argued cases to support their respective positions.

There was a time for allowed for questions from the audience following the formal conclusion of the debate. A number of insightful questions were asked by the audience, showing some people followed the debate well (though I found myself scratching my head a bit afterwards). After Laurence officially dismissed the audience, scores of eager inquirers swarmed around the debaters to ask questions that they did not get an opportunity to present. This caucus went on well after dark and into the evening. I eavesdropped on this debate, which was much less organized and quite a bit more heated than the first debate.

If you were hoping for a comprehensive essay on apologetic methodology, you will be disappointed. If you weren't present for the debate and wanted to know exactly what they said and who had the superior argument, I'm afraid I can't help you. What you should do is get a recording of the debate (which should be available in audio and video format) and judge the outcome for yourself.

You could get a recording of the debate, but nothing could replace actually being there and enjoying the fellowship of the brethren and rejoicing in God's goodness to each family that was represented. I hope everyone appreciated the friendly struggle between two warriors of the same army, each testing each other's resolve, but with mutual respect, as both are subject to the Captain of the army, the Lord Jesus Christ.