The Instigator
VocMusTcrMaloy
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
ReformedArsenal
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Resolved: Supernatural phenomena as the primary method of evangelization is God's intention for the

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
VocMusTcrMaloy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,545 times Debate No: 17472
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (53)
Votes (2)

 

VocMusTcrMaloy

Pro

Resolved:
Supernatural phenomena as the primary method of evangelization is God's intention for the Church.

I ask that my opponent:
1) Be a Christian
2) Accept the 66 book Bible as authority for this debate. �No particular translation will be preferred as being "more authoritative."

I also would like to impose the following rules for the debate:

1) Scriptural references should be copied and pasted into the text of the debate so that the reader is readily aware of what the text says.
2) Being that the Bible is the primary source for this debate, the only outside sources should be original language dictionaries or lexicons. �After quoting a dictionary, it would be helpful to the debate to include the defined word in the text of the scripture verse.

Definitions:

Supernatural Phenomena- Any occurrence that is not possible for a human to perform without the aid of the Holy Spirit. �These include miracles of healing and resurrection, exorcism, supernatural knowledge, prophesy, speaking languages unknown to the speaker and any other humanly impossible phenomena. �Of course, supernatural phenomena can be performed through the power of Satan; however, that type of phenomena is not a concern of this debate. �For the sake of this debate all references to supernatural phenomena will imply that the phenomena originated from the Holy Spirit. This will be a "signs a wonders" definition, not a "my spiritual gift is sending get-well card"definition.

Evangelization- Leading the unsaved to a born again, salvation experience/status.

God's intention- The will of God whether expressed through the words of Jesus or through inspired writing.

Church- All born-again believers. �

My definitions can be adjusted to allow for doctrinal disparities about the wordings. �The only definition that will not be altered will be the definition of supernatural phenomena originating from the Holy Spirit.

Debate Structure

First Round: Acceptance�

Second Round: Introductory Arguments

Third Round: Rebuttal

Fourth Round: Response to rebuttals

Fifth Round: Conclusion

The contrary position will defend the position that "witnessing" and preaching without any manifestations of the Supernatural is pleasing to God as a primary form of evangelization.
ReformedArsenal

Con

I accept and look foward to this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
VocMusTcrMaloy

Pro

First of all, I would like to thank ReformedArsenal for accepting this debate. �My opponent is certainly well qualified to answer this debate challenge. �I look forward to an intriguing exchange.

1. The Great Commission

The Great Commission was Jesus's final message to his disciples. �After three years of "school," the Great Commission was the "commencement address" for the "graduates" of Jesus's three and one half ministry years
on Earth. � The following is the Great �Commission in the Gospel settings:

Matthew 28:18-20
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Mark 16:15-16
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Luke 24:46-48
And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

John doesn't give us a Great Commission account similar to the above accounts; however, the following could pass for an individualized version of Jesus's final command:

John 21:15
So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

The Mark account places the element of �urgency to the commission:
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (16:16)

Conclusion: �
1) Evangelizing the world is high on God's priority list, if not TOP of the list.

2) There is an urgency to carry out this commission, as souls will be damned otherwise.

2. The Prerequisite to the Great Commission

Although there was urgency in the Great Commission, Jesus's immediate command for his disciples following his departure was not to begin sharing the Gospel, nor to study the scriptures to prepare to share the Gospel. �The following was his command to them:

Luke 24:49
And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

This was His command IMMEDIATELY following the Great Commission in Luke. �

This command was the ending of the Gospel account and the beginning of the Book of Acts:

Acts 1:4
And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

Conclusion: Although there is an urgency to evangelize; Jesus's prerequisite to evangelism was "wait[ing]" or "tarry[ing]" for the Promise from the Father, the "endue[ment] with power from on high."�

What was this "power from on high" to which Jesus referred? �The best way to answer to this question is to read the account of what happened following their period of waiting:

Acts 2:1-8

1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. 5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. 6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

What was the result of this miracle? It opened an opportunity for Peter to preach the Gospel, and:

Acts 2:41
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Then in the very next chapter,
Acts 3:1-8
1 Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour. 2 And a certain man lame from his mother's womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple; 3 Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms. 4 And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us. 5 And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them. 6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. 7 And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. 8 And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.

What was the result of this miracle? First, another opportunity to share the gospel, and:

Acts 4:4
Howbeit, many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.

Throughout the Book of Acts, there was a pattern:

1) The disciples tarried in prayer
2) Supernatural phenomena occurred
3) The phenomena opened the door for the sharing of the Gospel
4) Large numbers of souls were added to the Church.�

Of course, there may be slight variation on this pattern; but, most, if not all of the accounts of evangelism in the Early Church as recorded in the New Testament followed most of the steps of this pattern and involved supernatural phenomena. �I included the first two examples of evangelism via supernatural phenomena from the Book of Acts. �I could continue posting examples from Acts; however, we have a character limit.

3. A key element for the Great Commission

Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Acts 16:30-31
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Faith is an essential element in salvation; so producing faith is necessary to carrying out the Great Commission. �Paul tells us how faith should be produced:

��1 Corinthians 2:4-5
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

As I mentioned in reference to the enduement of power, in the context of the New Testament "demonstration of the Spirit" and "power of God" are associated with supernatural phenomena. �

This is my contention:

Enticing words of man's wisdom is not enough to produce faith. �(Try this method with an Atheist and you will not get far). �A Church that operates in demonstration of the Spirit with supernatural signs following believers is necessary to producing faith that will stand up to persecution and martyrdom and that will reach the morally declining American society. �Supernatural phenomena should not be a doctrine that Christians believe; they should be the modus operandi of the Church. �Supernatural phenomena as the primary method of evangelization is God's intention for the Church.
ReformedArsenal

Con

I would lke to thank my opponent for his well organized and well reasoned argument. I will be at a premium for space, so lets get to it.

My oponent's primary argument is that we see a pattern in the book of Acts. Supernatural phenomena occurred, this caused an opportunity to evangelize, then persons entered the Church. He then states:

Of course, there may be slight variation on this pattern; but, most, if not all of the accounts of evangelism in the Early Church as recorded in the New Testament followed most of the steps of this pattern and involved supernatural phenomena. I included the first two examples of evangelism via supernatural phenomena from the Book of Acts. I could continue posting examples from Acts; however, we have a character limit.

However, when we actually do continue through the book of Acts, we see quite a different picture begin to shine through. Below are listed every example I could find of evangelism in the book of acts. Starting with chapter 2, and continuing through chapter 18 (After chapter 18 there is limited examples, as the text shifts to Paul's progress towards Rome for trial/execution). Listed in Yellow are examples where Miracles are explicitly the cause for conversion. In Green are instances where both preaching and Signs were instrumental. And listed in Red are examples where Signs were either absent or dentremental.

Acts 2:1-37 (Pentecost) – Involved supernatural phenomena, however when the text indicates what causes the conversion it was “when they heard this”

Acts 3:1-4:22 (Lame Begger) – Involved supernatural phenomena, but again the text indicates that what impressed them was “the boldness of Peter and John”

Acts 5:12-16 (Signs and wonders in Solomon’s Portico) – The text indicates that they did many signs and wonders, however it indicates that this actually caused people NOT to join them.

Acts 8:4-8 (Philip in Samaria) – The text indicates that the people paid attention because they heard him and saw the signs he did (the two are hand in hand).

Acts 8:9-25 (Simon the Magician) – Says he was amazed by the signs, but says “They believed Philip as he preached good news” and the amazement comes after.

Acts 8:26-40 (Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch) – There is no mention of anything supernatural.

Acts 9:19-20 (Saul in the Synagogue) – Those in the Synagogue are amazed by nothing other than his words and changed life

Acts 9:32 (Healing of Aeneas) – Conversion is exclusively because of healing

Acts 9:36-43 (Healing of Dorcas) – Exclusively because of healing

Acts 10:34-48 (Peter preaches to the Gentiles) – In this passage, the Holy Spirit falls on the Gentiles (indicating conversion) prior to any supernatural phenomena

Acts 11:19-30 (The Church at Antioch) – The Church at Antioch was converted because of the preaching, there is no mention of any supernatural phenomena prior to the conversion

Acts 13:4-12 (The Proconsul at Cyprus) – Although there is supernatural phenomena mentioned, it is the teaching of the Lord that converts that proconsul

Acts 13:13-52 (Paul’s first major sermon, Antioch in Pisidia) – There is no mention of any supernatural phenomena. This is exclusively a sermon.

Acts 14:1-6 (Paul &Barnabas at Iconium) – No Supernatural Phenomena

Acts 14:8-19 (P&B at Lystra) – In this account, the people actually misunderstand the supernatural phenomena and began to view Paul as a God. He was then stoned.

Acts 16:11-15 (The Conversion of Lydia) – No Supernatural Phenomena mentioned.

Acts 16:25-40 (The Philippian Jailer) – Supernatural phenomena, but it was the integrity of Paul and Silas that impacted the Jailer

Acts 17:1-9 (Paul & Silas in Thessolonica) – No supernatural phenomena

Acts 17:10-15 (P&S In Berea) – No Supernatural phenomena

Acts 17:16-234 (Paul in Athens) – No supernatural Phenomena

Acts 18:3-16 (Paul in Corinth) – No supernatural Phenomena

If we observe this and add it up, we have 13 instances where signs were either absent, or actually hindered the sharing of the Gospel. This compared to 8 where signs were either a part of the evangelism, or exclusively used (3 "Pure", and 5 "Blended").

To break that down into percentages 61% of evangelism stories recorded in the book of Acts involve no recorded miraculous activity, compared to 39% including.

I find it difficult to accept that if the Bible was teaching us that supernatural activity was the modus operandi, that less than half of the evangelism accounts it records would include them. Furthermore, 23% of all evangelism accounts indicate that preaching was an aspect of the conversion. That means that 85% of all evangelism accounts in the book of Acts involved Preaching. It is only reasonable to conclude that Preaching is the modus operandi presented in the Bible.

Finally, I would like to leave you with a quote from Jesus himself regarding signs.

"When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so will the Son of Man be to this generation."

We must ask ourselves, what is the sign of Jonah? Jonah did no signs in Ninevah. The people of Ninevah were not converted because Jonah healed a young man, caused the sun not to shine, or spoke in a language he did not know. Rather, Jonah preached a simple message of the sinfulness of the Ninevites, warned them of the judgement to come, and urged the to repent. THIS is the modus operandi that Christ puts forward, and it is the modus operadi of the Early Church, and so also it should be our modus operandi.

Thank you and God bless.

Debate Round No. 2
VocMusTcrMaloy

Pro

I would like to thank ReformedArsenal for his rebuttal.�� He began by continuing the list I had begun with the first two miracles of Acts.�� His list has some serious issues:
1. He stops at chapter 18 (of 28) so his list is not comprehensive.�� He then does a tally and presents statistics from a partial list.
2. His list has a number of errors which I have corrected below:
3. The list (though it is not complete) is long on work and short on logic.�� This is a tit for tat argument based on events that were recorded in the Book of Acts. John 21:25 says,
"25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." Obviously, not all supernatural phenomena were recorded. ��This verse indicates that supernatural phenomena were a normal part of Peter's life: � Acts 5:15 says, "Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them." Also, Paul indicated (as I quoted earlier) "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: (1 Corinthians 2:4). Also, Mark had his own "Book of Acts" summed up in one verse, "And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen." (Mark 16:20)

Acts 2:1-37 (Pentecost)
Acts 3:1-4:22 (Lame Begger)
Acts 5:12-16 (Signs and wonders in Solomon's Portico) The text indicates that they did many signs and wonders, however it indicates that this actually caused people NOT to join them.
Acts 5:14
14 And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)

Acts 8:4-8 (Philip in Samaria)
Acts 8:9-25 (Simon the Magician.
Acts 8:26-40 (Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch) There is no mention of anything supernatural?
Acts 8:26, 29
26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.
29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

This is certainly supernatural knowledge �that Philip would not have had otherwise and was key to the Eunuch receiving salvation.
Acts 8:39-40
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

Just a little supernatural icing on the cake to assure the Eunuch that Philip was indeed a messenger from God!

Acts 9:19-20 (Saul in the Synagogue)
Acts 9:32 (Healing of Aeneas)
Acts 9:36-43 (Healing of Dorcas)
Acts 10:34-48 (Peter preaches to the Gentiles) In this passage, the Holy Spirit falls on the Gentiles (indicating conversion) prior to any supernatural phenomena

"The Holy Spirit falls(indicating conversion)" This is speculation.� If this is true, Peter and John were saved twice- once in Acts 2:4 and again in Acts 4:31
This WAS an event involving supernatural phenomena:
Acts 10:46
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

Acts 11:19-30 (The Church at Antioch
Acts 13:4-12 (The Proconsul at Cyprus)
Acts 13:13-52 (Paul's first major sermon, Antioch in Pisidia)
Acts 14:1-6 (Paul &Barnabas at Iconium)
Acts 14:8-19 (P&B at Lystra) – In this account, the people actually misunderstand the supernatural phenomena and began to view Paul as a God. He was then stoned.

I am assuming this is what you meant by, "we have… instances where signs…actually hindered the sharing of the Gospel."� This is speculation.� Could have been: 25 … Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, 26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: (Acts 28:25-26)

Acts 16:11-15 (The Conversion of Lydia)
Acts 16:25-40 (The Philippian Jailer)
Acts 17:1-9 (Paul & Silas in Thessolonica)
Acts 17:10-15 (P&S In Berea)
Acts 17:16-234 (Paul in Athens)
Acts 18:3-16 (Paul in Corinth)

I would also like to address:
"Finally, I would like to leave you with a quote from Jesus himself regarding signs.
"When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, "This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so will the Son of Man be to this generation."
We must ask ourselves, what is the sign of Jonah? Jonah did no signs in Ninevah. The people of Ninevah were not converted because Jonah healed a young man, caused the sun not to shine, or spoke in a language he did not know. Rather, Jonah preached a simple message of the sinfulness of the Ninevites, warned them of the judgement to come, and urged the[m] to repent. THIS is the modus operandi that Christ puts forward, and it is the modus operadi of the Early Church, and so also it should be our modus operandi."

1. Jesus was speaking to Pharisees in Matthew 12:39. �Jesus had just healed the man with a withered hand (12:13). As a matter of fact prior to this: "…Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people."(9:35) In the 11th chapter, John the Baptist asked a similar question (11:3). But unlike the reply to the Pharisees, "Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: 5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them." (11:4-5) Jesus responded to the Pharisees differently because they had SEEN the supernatural and STILL wanted a sign-thus they WERE WICKED!
2. �The sign of Jonas is clarified in Matthew 12:40: "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
3. Prior to preaching to Ninevah, Jonah had just been spit out of the mouth of a big fish? �Do you see this everyday where you live? �This was certainly supernatural!
4. Repent? �Why should I repent? �Because the Bible says so? �What if I don't believe in God or that the Bible is the Word of God?

"Word of God"…"Word of God"…hmm
How do I know it is the Word of God? �Is it because my mom told me it was the Word of God? �How do I know it is not a book of Hebrew mythology?

How did Moses know the voice from the bush was giving him the Word of God?�
-He had experienced the supernatural!

What caused Pharaoh to go from: �"Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go?" to, "Rise up, and get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, serve the Lord, as ye have said."? �
-He had experienced the supernatural!

How did the Children of Israel know The Law given to them by Moses was indeed the Word of God?
-They had experienced the supernatural!

How did Saul know that Samuel was truly a prophet of God?
-He experienced the supernatural!

How did Elijah convince the Israelites on Mount Carmel that the prophets of Baal were wrong and that the LORD, he is God?
-Through a manifestation of the supernatural!

How did the Children of Israel know that Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel were prophets of God?
-The prophets supernaturally told the future!

How did Jesus show Himself to be the Son of God who was teaching the Word of God?
-Through the supernatural!
ReformedArsenal

Con

I thank my opponent for his work in this debate.

Issue 1) As I noted, from the second half of Chapter 18 through the end of the book, Paul is interacting with the Church (Which is not Evangelism), or the book contains accounts of Paul's progress toward his trial and execution in Rome. There are no accounts of evangelism that lead to conversion in these chapter.

Issue 2) It is possible that I have made mistakes. I shall assume that the references my opponent does not address, he agrees with the interpretation of.

Acts 5:14 - This is difficult, because the immediately preceding verse says that no one dared join them. I am inclined to interpret this passage to indicate that people were simply gathering around hoping to be healed, but this is hardly a sign of conversion. Many gathered around Jesus simply to be fed, but walked away at difficult teaching. However, this is a somewhat weak debating point, so I will concede to my opponent that this verse should become Green according to the color schema above.

Acts 8:26 and 29 - There is a qualitative difference between the leading of the Lord and supernatural words of knowledge. If my opponent defines simply receiving leading and instructions from God as supernatural phenomena then the very act of conversion itself is a supernatural phenomena. However, there is nothing supernatural about receiving directions simply because the direction giver is supernatural. This is an abuse of terms and this distinction should be discarded. The actual account of the evangelism (Philip's interaction with the Eunach) is entierly void of supernatural activity. It is entirely Philip's teaching that converts the man, at least according to the text. In addition Acts 8:39-40 is a disputed passage, the more Pentecostal Christians tend to see this as some sort of teleportation miracle. Where more conservative Christians tend to interpret this to mean that Philip left and his whereabouts were unknown until someone spotted him in Azotus.

Acts 10:46 - If my opponent wishes to challenge my assertion that the Holy Spirit falling on a person indicates conversion, and wishes to challenge using Peter and John... then he is left with the option that the Holy Spirit indicates conversion, or the Holy Spirit falls on Christians after conversion. We do not have any support for the Holy Spirit falling on people who are not A) Becoming Christians or B) Are already Christians. So my point either stands (A) or this is not a case of evangelism (B) as you cannot evangelize persons who are already believers. As it stand in Acts 10:46, the tongues were heard AFTER conversion... not prior to it. Evangelism stops when a person converts.

Acts 14:8-9 - The detriment of the signs in this passage is that the persons seeing the signs believed Paul and Barnabas were gods and attempted to sacrifice to them. The Jews then stirred them up and they attempted to stone Paul. There is no indication here of any conversion taking place.

The only amendment to the list is the passage in Solomon's Portico. This makes our numbers 12 where signs are absent or hinder the Gospel (57%), 6 "Blended" (26%) and 3 "Pure" (14%)

Issue 3) My opponent is correct that there are almost certainly events that happened but were not recorded in the book of Acts. However, when Holy Spirit inspired Luke to select events to record He chose to record a majority of evangelism accounts that did not include supernatural signs at all. This is telling, for if God wanted to communicate to us that signs are a primary modus operandi for evangelism, we would expect the examples he chooses to give us to be more representative. This is something my opponent must still contend with. If signs are the primary means of evangelism, why did God give us more than half of the examples with no signs present. In reference to signs being simply an everyday part of Peter's life and ALWAYS being present. This is hearsay and, in my opinion, an imposition on the text. Regardless of if the signs were present, the Holy Spirit, through inspiring Luke, made the decision that when He would give us examples of evangelism he would not include signs in a majority of the examples presented to us.

Response to 1 Corinthians 2:4) This passage does not, exegetically speaking, mandate a reading of signs. The word "power" in this context is "dynamis" and while it may indicate miraculous powers, Paul uses it in various ways throughout his Epistles. He uses it as a synonym for authority (Romans 9:17), to describe supernatural beings (Romans 8:38), to denote God's power (Romans 14:11) and Lexically speaking may include moral purity, military power, and power which comes from wealth or position. [A] What is telling is that Paul most often uses this word in ways other than miraculous abilities, namely as a synonym for God given authority. While it is a matter of hermeneutical interpretation, this passage is not a silver bullet to say that Paul preached in a demonstration of the Spirit and of miraculous abilities. I find it more likely in fact that the demonstration of the Spirit and of power was his own changed life. We see in Romans 1:16 that the "power" of God for salvation is not His miraculous strength, his ability to do signs, or even his authority. The power of God for salvation is the Gospel.

Response to "Mark's Book of Acts") This section of Scripture is in dispute as to its authenticity and therefore its authority. The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20. It is unwise and unsafe to build an entire biblical theology based on a section that is in heavy dispute. However, this passage actually supports the idea that the miraculous signs in the New Testament Church were there to validate and confirm the authority of the Apostles. This idea is called cessationism, and teaches that the primary purpose of signs was to do just what Mark describes, to confirm the Apostle's authority. This is drawn from a biblical understanding that the primary purpose for Christ's miracles was to confirm his identity and authority, and by extension that the purpose carried over to the Apostles.

Response to the Sign of Jonah) It is true that Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees, however that does not mean that the principal does not apply to us as well. My opponent claims that it is because they had already seen the supernatural and still wanted a sign, and that made them wicked. However, we have seen the Resurrection of the Lord as well. If we are Christians we affirm them miracles of Jesus, yet signs ministries still seek signs. Does that not also make them wicked? God's very creation is a miracle (Romans 1) that is enough to hold people accountable to knowledge of God. Aren't we adding to their wickedness by seeking more signs for them, at least according to the principal my opponent has outlined? In regards to Jonah being spit out of the whale, and that being miraculous. It was indeed miraculous, but there is no indication in the text that the people of Ninevah had any awareness of that text. Jonah did not inform them of this, and none were there to witness it. In regards to repentance and if people will repent simply at the Gospel proclaimed... I have given 12 examples from Acts where people repented simply because the Gospel was explained to them, this is in addition to the entire city of Ninevah who had seen no sign.

In regard to the "Examples" given in the Old Testament) These are not examples of evangelism. These are examples of something different entirely. Being that they are not examples of evangelism, they are not analogous to the discussion at hand.

I will leave you with a quote from the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 13:1-2)

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."
Debate Round No. 3
VocMusTcrMaloy

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his timely response.

First I would like to address one issue in the 3rd round rebuttal:

"If my opponent wishes to challenge my assertion that the Holy Spirit falling on a person indicates conversion"

Well, let's look at this:
First of all there are five recorded accounts in the New Testament of the Holy Spirit being "recieved," having "fallen" or "filled", etc.: 1. Acts 2:4, 2. Acts 4:31, 3. Acts 8:17, 4. Acts 10:44-46 and 5. Acts 19:6. In 4 out of 5 times, the account records supernatural signs accompanied the occasion and in the Acts 8:17 account although there was not mention of a supernatural sign, Simon a former sorcerer was so intrigued by whatever happened to those who recieved the Holy Spirit that he offered money to buy the ability to lay hands on people and them recieve the Holy Spirit. So either 80% or 100% of the time when people recieved the Holy Spirit, something supernatural happened. Now if my opponent insists that the"Holy Spirit falling on a person indicates conversion" (although I would disagree with him), he will have conceded the debate.

Back to Business...

In the second round, my opponent responded with a response to ONE statement in my opening argument and up to this point, the debate has been a rebuttal of a rebuttal of a rebuttal on ONE point. At this point, I would like to guide this debate back on track and resume my argument.

First of all in the first round challenge, I stated:

"The contrary position will defend the position that "witnessing" and preaching without any manifestations of the Supernatural is pleasing to God as a primary form of evangelization."

I did not speak against the need for the preaching of the Gospel. I did not state that supernatural phenomena ALONE were all that was needed to lead someone to Jesus (although my opponent did find a couple of accounts where they were all that were used as indicated in the yellow highlighted section of his second round rebuttal.) The preaching of the Gospel is an absolute necessity in leading someone to salvation (otherwise how does one know HOW to get saved). I do not deny that someone can get saved without witnessing the supernatural. The problem of the Gospel without the Supernatural, is a problem of credibility. My opponent pointed out that creation is all the proof one needs to believe in God. How does one know that the God of the Bible is the creator? How does one know that Budda, Allah, Zeus or another deity is not the creator? Elijah settled that question on Mount Carmel! "...and the God that answereth by fire , let him be God." (1 Kings 18:24) That theme has been consistent throughout both the Old and New Testaments.

Rom 10:17-
So then faith cometh by hearing , and hearing by the word of God.

There are two ways people in Biblical times came to faith in the Word of God. First was by witnessing a supernatural sign and secondly by believing the report of someone who has witnessed a supernatural sign. The primary source of faith is then the supernarual sign, the secondary source being the report of a witness. Joshua and Caleb are an example of those who believed through the primary source, and Rahab the harlot is one who believed through the secondary source. The problem with focusing on faith via the secondary source is that after a long period of time without a primary source for faith, the witness becomes weak. A father may pass on his looks to his son, but after a fourth or fifth generation, the children look less and less like the great-grandfather. The longer the Church goes without a primary source of faith, the weaker its witness becomes!
Acts 1:8 says, "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me..." The first step he gave was recieving power through the Holy Spirit (as I pointed out above, when people recieved the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, something supernatural happened). After this, one would BECOME a witness. "Witness" is not a verb, it is a noun! One becomes a witness by experiencing the supernatural! If one hasn't seen credible proof, how can one be a witness? One's testimony is then hearsay! In Acts 19, the seven sons of Sceva tried to witness on a hearsay testimony...

The Church that does not have the power of a credible witness to the validity of the Bible through supernatural signs has a vacuum in its evangelism efforts. Churches attempt to fill this void with "Pack A Pew Sunday," "Volleyball and Pizza Night," or the myriad of other gimicks and tricks that churches use to solicit membership. Many churches are either filling their pews with members of other churches by offering more bells and whistles than the last church or they are dwindling. The efforts of these churches are like that of a telemarketer. A telemarketer will call someone and harrass them with an item for which the person does not see a need.

Jesus never needed to use gimicks to get people to come to Him! The word "mulitudes" is found quite frequently throughout the Gospel accounts! His evangelism was like a grocery store. There are no grocery stores calling my house to sell groceries to me! They don't have to. They know that I will eventually get hungry and come to them! This put Jesus in a position of power, rather than the weak position of American churches who practically beg people to come to church. How did Jesus gain this position of power over people? He did so THROUGH THE SUPERNATURAL! The Church in the Book of Acts didn't hold a weak position either. There was no shortage of mulitudes in Early Church evangelism! A big problem with my opponent's list is that in two of the accounts where there was a supernatural sign, 3000 and 5000 came to faith! An impact of that magnitude is not recorded in those accounts without a supernatural sign.

Why would God want his Church to operate without His supernatural power if He worked through supernatural power in the ministry of Jesus and encouraged Jesus's disciples through Jesus's final command to recieve power (which was manifest throughout the Book of Acts in supernatural signs)? Why would God want the Church to have a weak witness rather than a strong one? Why would God want "proselyter" churches or dying churches rather than churches that are having a powerful impact on the world around them?

Now to answer some of my opponents rebuttal:

"I will leave you with a quote from the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 13:1-2)

'If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.'"

I couldn't agree more. I am certainly not speaking against love just because I am defending the need for supernatural power. The Church needs EVERYTHING in the New Testament! I am not advocating GIFTS of the Spirit to the exclusion of FRUIT of the Spirit! It seems that my opponent is the one who is seeking to exclude. A combustion engine needs the big pistons and cylinders; but won't work without small distributor points (in a carburated engine). All parts are necessary! Why leave out something so vital to the Early Church and the ministry of Jesus as supernatural power?

"In regard to the "Examples" given in the Old Testament) These are not examples of evangelism. These are examples of something different entirely. Being that they are not examples of evangelism, they are not analogous to the discussion at hand."

No, they are not intended as examples of evangelism. They are examples of the validation of the Word of God. Without validation, the "Word of God" could just be a book of myths. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Without faith which comes from hearing the Word of God, one cannot get saved!





ReformedArsenal

Con

I don't think my opponent has presented anything in this round that gives pause to any of my arguments, so I shall be brief.

"The problem of the Gospel without the Supernatural, is a problem of credibility. My opponent pointed out that creation is all the proof one needs to believe in God. How does one know that the God of the Bible is the creator? How does one know that Budda, Allah, Zeus or another deity is not the creator? Elijah settled that question on Mount Carmel! "...and the God that answereth by fire , let him be God." (1 Kings 18:24) That theme has been consistent throughout both the Old and New Testaments."

My opponent claims that preaching the Gospel without signs leads to a Gospel with no credibility. However, he ignores the fact that 57% of the instances of evangelism leading to conversion listed in the Book of Acts do not include an explicit mention of any form of signs or wonders. Apparently the Gospel was enough in those instances, and signs were not required.

My opponent is defending the argument that signs are the PRIMARY means of evangelism in the New Testament. Is it possible that God would intend us to use signs as the primary means, but then show us in his Word a majority of cases with no signs? I guess. Does that seem likely to you? It certainly doesn't to me. Rather, I find it more tenable that God gave us examples that represent his intended modus operandi.

Next, the New Testament records supernatural events happening when the Holy Spirit falls on them. I am not denying this. However, the Holy Spirit never falls on someone who is not a Christian. The person receiving the Holy Spirit is either already a Christian (the Disciples in Acts 2) or are converting. The Holy Spirit only falls on Christians after conversion, so the signs and wonders that accompany them are not a part of the evangelism process (which happens prior to conversion).

My opponent then proceeds to post a passage that is rather damaging to his case. Romans 10:17 simply states that faith comes by hearing. Not by miraculous signs, not by wondrous abilities or powers, by hearing. It then clarifies where this hearing comes from, and clearly articulates that it comes from the Word of God. The logical conclusion from this passage is that faith comes through hearing the Word of God preached.

He then states that there is a distinction between Primary and Secondary sources, and that " The problem with focusing on faith via the secondary source is that after a long period of time without a primary source for faith, the witness becomes weak" and continues to outline an entirely unfounded assertion about faith becoming weak over time. This is simply a matter of opinion until it has been given legs of some sort in the form of evidence.

He then notes that the Seven Sons of Sceva tried to witness (despite the fact that he made a specific point that witness is a noun and not a verb), when in reality this is not at all what happened in the text. The Seven Sons of Sceva were attempting to use Jesus' name as though it were a magical incantation. This incantation fooled some of the weaker demons who did not realize that they were merely invoking the name of Christ, but when a demon realized this is gave them what they deserved. This has absolutely nothing to do with evangelism, nor does it have to do with this argument.

My opponent then goes on a tirade against "Pack A Pew Sunday" type gimicks. While I am no fan of these methods, this is hardly the topic at hand. He claims that churches that do "not have the power of a credible witness to the validity of the Bible through supernatural signs has a vacuum in its evangelism efforts." However, reality does not prove this to be the case. The famous evangelist Billy Graham has preached to millions and seen hundreds of thousands of converts as a result of his ministry. And although Dr Graham is a believer in the power of God to do miracles, his ministry is hardly marked by signs. Rather, his ministry is marked by a humble preaching of Sin and Grace which people find compelling. Beyond Billy Graham, the famous American Puritan Jonathan Edwards preached a sermon in 1731 that would spark what was to be known as the Great Awakening, a revival that swept over the American colonies as well as through much of Britain and other parts of Europe. The Protestant Reformation itself was a great time of religious awakening, but rather than be marked by miraculous events confirming the validity of what the Reformers preached, it is marked by a time of intellectual and pietistic reform and revival. History simply does not support the claim that evangelism efforts that lack signs are doomed to failure.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
VocMusTcrMaloy

Pro

First of all, I would once again like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Then, I would like to thank those who have read this debate up to this point for your interest in this topic; and for your diligence in following the debate thus far. After reading this round, you will be given the opportunity to vote on the debate. As you know, the following will be your voting card:

ProTiedCon
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required

Before discussing the vote, I would like to address one statement in the fourth round:

"He then notes that the Seven Sons of Sceva tried to witness (despite the fact that he made a specific point that witness is a noun and not a verb), when in reality this is not at all what happened in the text. The Seven Sons of Sceva were attempting to use Jesus' name as though it were a magical incantation"

Of course, the sons of Sceva didn't LITERALLY "witness." Obviously if I was wasn't talking LITERALLY, I must have been speaking FIGURATIVELY! Re-read my statement with a figurative interpretation of that statement. My opponent made this statement late at night, so perhaps the reader might forgive him for this lapse in judgement...LOL!

1. Who did you agree with before the debate? -That will not be determined by this debate.

2. Who did you agree with after the debate? - I hope to have convinced you of my position.

3. Who had better conduct?

Well, there are a few things to look at here:

First of all
, one of the terms for the debate that my opponent accepted was:

" I ask that my opponent:

1) Be a Christian
2) Accept the 66 book Bible as authority for this debate."

My opponent accepted the debate:

"I accept and look foward to this debate"


Then in the fourth round my opponent stepped outside the parameters he accepted with the following:

" The famous evangelist Billy Graham has preached to millions and seen hundreds of thousands of converts as a result of his ministry. And although Dr Graham is a believer in the power of God to do miracles, his ministry is hardly marked by signs. Rather, his ministry is marked by a humble preaching of Sin and Grace which people find compelling. Beyond Billy Graham, the famous American Puritan Jonathan Edwards preached a sermon in 1731 that would spark what was to be known as the Great Awakening, a revival that swept over the American colonies as well as through much of Britain and other parts of Europe. The Protestant Reformation itself was a great time of religious awakening, but rather than be marked by miraculous events confirming the validity of what the Reformers preached, it is marked by a time of intellectual and pietistic reform and revival. History simply does not support the claim that evangelism efforts that lack signs are doomed to failure."

Not only does this statement step outside the parameters of this debate, it doesn't refute the resolution (which I shall review below).

Secondly, another parameter of the debate was:

"Debate Structure

First Round: Acceptance

Second Round: Introductory Arguments

Third Round: Rebuttal

Fourth Round: Response to rebuttals

Fifth Round: Conclusion"

My opponent did not give an introductory argument in the second round or in any other round; he simply proceeded to rebuttal one point in my introductory argument.

4. Who had better spelling and grammar? I haven't noticed any significant errors in this area from my opponent.

5. Who had more convincing arguments?

Let me remind you of the resolution:

"Resolved:
Supernatural phenomena as the primary method of evangelization is God's intention for the Church."

My opponent has not offered a refutation of the resolution, he spent this debate arguing with ONE point in my opening argument. His tally board in the second round had errors which were discussed in the third round, but most of all, it never addressed "God's intention for the Church." It was merely an accounting of what was recorded in the Book of Acts. If one did a similar tally in the books of I and II Kings to see whether the Children of Israel worshipped Jehovah God or that they worshipped idols- this tally would not have determined "God's intention" but rather history. My original point in using Acts 2, was to demonstrate what happened when the Church obeyed Jesus's command to tarry until being endued with power; thus establishing what was meant by "endued with power." My opponent then took off in a direction inconsistent with the resolution of the debate to make an irrelevant argument. In the fourth round, I steered the debate back onto the subject of the debate.

While my opponent has been offering arguments irrelevant to the resolution, I offered the following in my opening argument:

"Although there was urgency in the Great Commission, Jesus's immediate command for his disciples following his departure was not to begin sharing the Gospel, nor to study the scriptures to prepare to share the Gospel. The following was his command to them:

Luke 24:49
And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

This was His command IMMEDIATELY following the Great Commission in Luke.

This command was the ending of the Gospel account and the beginning of the Book of Acts:

Acts 1:4
And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

Conclusion: Although there is an urgency to evangelize; Jesus's prerequisite to evangelism was 'wait[ing]' or 'tarry[ing]' for the Promise from the Father, the 'endue[ment] with power from on high.'"

My opponent never offered an argument in the next three rounds of the debate against this statement which was key to establishing "God's intention" through the command of Jesus. The following statement also establishes "God's intention" through the words of Jesus:
"Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12 I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father." (John 14:11-12) This verse offers evidence to "God's intention" concerning "supernatural phenomena;" the verses from Luke and Acts establish that "God's intention" concerning a "primary method of evangelization" (because they were so closely tied in with the Great Commission) is "supernatural phenomena." I proved my resolution in my opening argument-my opponent has proved that he is good at making colorful posts and calculating statistics.

5. Who used the most reliable sources?

Obviously, the only source for this debate is the Bible as stated in the acceptance round. Both my opponent and myself have offered verses from the Bible as the source.

My opponent demonstrated his lack of knowledge of the source when he tried to say that the "sign of Jonas" that Jesus referred to in Matthew 12 was repentance although Matthew 12:40 says, "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Conclusion:

I have proven my resolution, so this debate has an obvious winner.


ReformedArsenal

Con

I would like to thank each person who reads this debate for their participation, as well as my opponent for his work.

I will respond to each of my opponent's points and then offer a closing statement.

I would like to make one point about the Seven Sons of Sceva. My opponent drew a comparison between the Secen Sons of Sceva and Non-Signs churches. He implied that just as the Secen Sons of Sceva used Gimmicks to draw people in, so also do non-signs Churches. I find the mockery of my response to be a bit disconcerting from a fellow Christian, especially when the whole purpose of his statement ws to degrade and deride fellow workers in the Gospel. Beyond that, his comparison was incredibly faulty and demonstrates a poor ability to draw logical analogies.

I agree fully with points 1 and 2. I hope to have convinced you regardless of teh position you held prior to the debate.

3) My opponent claims I have stepped outside of the boundaries by appealing to something outside of Scripture for authority in this debate. However, this is a double standard set by my opponent. My opponent sought to argue using something he sees in the modern Church, namely "Pack A Pew" type gimmicks. Why does my opponent get to appeal to something outside of the Canon, but I do not. Since my opponent sought to show that modern Churches that do not employ the miraculous are lacking power and effect, I simply refuted that assertion. I find it disconcerting that my opponent would employ such a double standard.

Furthermore, my opponent claims I did not make an introductory argument, however that is pattently false. In round two I made a very pointed argument. My argument wsa that the book of Acts serves as the primary historical exemplar for how Evangelism functioned in the New Testament Church. I demonstrated that by the rubric of this exemplar we see that the primary means of evangelism was NOT supernatural, or did the supernatural present itself in a majority of the instances we see. I then concluded my argument by shoing that Jesus discussed the sign of Jonah and infered that just as Jonah converted the entire city of Ninevah through a simple message of judgement and repentence, so also is the modus operandi of the Church. That sure seems like an affirmative argument to me... it contains all the components required. I most certianly fulfilled my burden to introduce my argument.

4) I agree with my opponent in regards to us being even in terms of spelling and grammar.

5) My opponent, as Pro and Instigator has the burden of proof to prove the resolution beyond reasonable doubt. My opponent primarily sought to do this in the opening round by demonstrating that in the book of Acts, that a pattern exists in which Supernatural phenomena opens the door to evangelism. He then drew from this pattern that this should be extrapolated into our modus operandi for evangelism. My opponent seeks to undermine the reality of the fact that this tally is legitimate. He makes the analogy to the book of 1 and 2 Kings and claims that my methodology is flawed. However, he neglects to realize that I simply followed the methodology that he prescribed. I observed the book of Acts, looked at the examples given, and drew a conclusion regarding the pattern. My opponent's entire argument begins by pointing out that there is a pattern in Acts that we should follow, yet when I show that the pattern he indicates is not as he presents it and rather shows the opposite, he claims that my methodology is incorrect.

My opponent then claims that there is an inexorable link between the Great Commission and the power to do miracles, however he has not satisfactorilly demonstrated this. My opponent claims that because Jesus told his disciples to wait for the Spirit to descend that this is irrefutable logic. However, there are many explanations for this occurance. Regardless, my opponent still needs to demonstrate that AFTER the Spirit descended that the primary means of evangelism is through supernatural phenomena. He has not done this, as the examples given to us in the book of Acts reflect otherwise. If we are only appealing to the Bible for our authority, I would ask (rhetorically of course) my opponent where else are we to draw our example? If the account of the earliest evangelism does not exemplify that signs are the primary mode of evangelism, where else may we look? The answer of course is no where.

6) My opponent claims that I have misunderstood and misused the Bible and therefore should not win the source vote. I would simply note that as a fellow Protestant, my opponent acknowledges that each Believer has an autonomous authority to interpret Scripture as he or she sees fit. This is a fundamental tenent of Protestant Theology. The fact is that Christ does indicate that the sign of Jonah was that he was in the belly of the whale, but anyone who knew or knows the story of Jonah is familiar with the whole story. His original audience would not only have thought of that aspect, but also of the fact that Jonah's mission was immensely successful and his message of repentence converted an entire City-State.

My opponent claims he has proven the resolution. He claims that I have not refuted it. However my opponent's terms in this debate were to prove using exculsively the Bible that signs are the modus operandi of evangelisim in the Church. However, we see clearly that the only biblical example we have of how evangelism functioned in the Church (the book of Acts) reveals a very different picture. Contrary to my opponent's argument, I have clearly shown that in a majority of instances in the Bible (Particularly with Paul) we see that evangelism takes the form of Preaching and prayer. Again and again we see Paul preach a message of repentence and mercy, and again and again we see people respond. Despite the lack of signs.

For this reason I urge you to place your vote in me.

Thank you and God Bless.
Debate Round No. 5
53 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by izbo10 6 years ago
izbo10
not to mention this is not I Spit on Your Grave, the woman does not have the right to go out and slaughter her rapist or assailant so nor does god have the right to eternally torment people for this.
Posted by izbo10 6 years ago
izbo10
Poor poor analogy, rejecting the sacrifice he inflicted on himself is completely different then protecting a woman from sexual attack
Posted by VocMusTcrMaloy 6 years ago
VocMusTcrMaloy
Every culture recognizes either 1. a woman's right or 2. (in less civilized cultures) a significant male's right to choose who touches a woman's vagina.

From a Biblical perspective, the difference in the elbow and the vagina is that the elbow is "common" and the vagina is "holy." The only person who is allowed to touch that which is holy is one who is "sanctified" to do so. The ultimate disrespect to someone is a violation of that which is holy to that person.

The reason God condemns and punishes people is because of their disrespect for that which is holy. Because God is holy and just, He must condemn those who violate His holiness and He must do so without discrimination. In Leviticus, there are so much information about the priests and their handling of sacrifices. The priests were required to sanctify themselves (with some very strict laws) to handle the sacrifice which is holy. The most holy sacrifice of course was the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Not only is the crucifixion the ultimate holy because it was the ultimate sacrifice, it is the ultimate holy because it is the ultimate love-the love that would sacrifice not only a perfect man, but the only Son of God. To reject this sacrifice is the ultimate disrespect for God.
Posted by izbo10 6 years ago
izbo10
it really has to do with cultural training actually. So not really all that much.
Posted by VocMusTcrMaloy 6 years ago
VocMusTcrMaloy
No, he IS molesting her. There is a difference in this stranger touching her elbow and his touching her vagina. What is the difference?
Posted by izbo10 6 years ago
izbo10
He most likely is emotionally hurting her and reaching down into a girls underwear is probably a very good sign of molestation or rape being about to occur.
Posted by izbo10 6 years ago
izbo10
well technically i would be upset because jealosy in a mating pair of social species is a evolutionary advantage to help raise children and be protective.
Posted by VocMusTcrMaloy 6 years ago
VocMusTcrMaloy
No, that wasn't where I was going with it.

You first said you would use profanity when you first confronted him (showing your anger), then you said you would get physical-any man would! Why would you get upset? He is only touching her, he is not killing her or breaking her limbs…?
Posted by izbo10 6 years ago
izbo10
But if the person was doing the right thing here in either case yours or my example that person will understand your reaction, that is the problem Jesus does things that demand repulsion of him and he never gives an answer, probably because its a 1st century fairy tale.
Posted by izbo10 6 years ago
izbo10
see a better analogy would be you see a guy raping a child, at that point i do what ever it takes to stop them from doing that. Even if it turned out that the person had to do this to save his entire family this person would understand my reaction and expect me to think low of them until they gave an actual valid reason, Jesus not so much.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 6 years ago
ApostateAbe
VocMusTcrMaloyReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Wonderful debate. Pro wins. Con failed to strike down Pro's most powerful argument, Great Commission. Con had creative interpretations of Acts 5:12-16 and Acts 14:1-28. “persons seeing the signs believed Paul and Barnabas were gods and attempted to sacrifice to them” -- no connection to the stoning of Paul. The "sign of Jonah" is very obviously about the 3-day burial and resurrection. Spelling: "dentremental."
Vote Placed by KRFournier 6 years ago
KRFournier
VocMusTcrMaloyReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I gave conduct to Con due to Pro's double standards. I gave argument to Con because, frankly, I found it more convincing. Both sides are appealing to patterns found in the book of Acts, and Con's pattern seemed more parsimonious than Pro's.