Addendum To Baty’s Second Rebuttal
It seems there are some malcontents around that are simply not able to be satisfied with the most reasonable conclusion proposed for the Cornelius debate between Jerry D. McDonald and myself.
For those who don’t think I’m doing enough to demonstrate the simple truth for which I stand regarding the proposition under consideration, I offer the following further analysis:
Regarding the Terry W. Benton “parable principle”, Jerry D. McDonald, in his second affirmative, writes, in relevant part:
> So let me throw a wrench into
> his little game plan: If remission
> of sins was very clearly stated in
> Acts 2:38 there would be no room
> for dispute.
> Now Robert, you take that and
> go debate the Baptists.
> I think you will find that they will
> find plenty of room for dispute.
So, let me return the favor and note that the monkey wrench has been thrown into Jerry’s own little game plan.
Let Jerry produce the “very clearly stated” statement, equivalent to the “remission of sins” statement of Acts 2:38, from Acts 11:15-17 that will prove that
> it is very clearly stated in
> Acts 11:15-17 that Cornelius
> received Holy Spirit baptism.
Jerry may know some very weird Baptists, but I don’t happen to know any that dispute that Acts 2:38 very clearly states “remission of sins”.
Jerry wants to use that example?
Using Jerry’s own equivalent example, we can confidently conclude that Jerry has failed in his effort and that
> it IS NOT very clearly stated in
> Acts 11:15-17, like “remission
> of sins” is very clearly stated
> in Acts 2:38, that Cornelius
> received Holy Spirit baptism.
Major Premise:
> If Acts 11:15-17 very clearly stated,
> as “remissions of sins” is very
> clearly stated in Acts 2:38,
> that Cornelius received Holy Spirit
> baptism, we would not be having
> this dispute.
Minor Premise:
> We are having this dispute.
Conclusion:
> It IS NOT the case that Acts 11:15-17
> very clearly states, as “remission of
> sins” is very clearly stated in Acts 2:38,
> that Cornelius received Holy Spirit
> baptism.
Matthew 7:1,2 & James 3:1!
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
Terry W. Benton’s “parable principle”:
———— ——— ——— —-
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/DebunkingT inroad6g- isms/message/ 234
Had Jesus said it was a parable, then there would be no room for dispute.
But, He did not say it was a parable…
Terry W. Benton
http://www.pinelane churchofchrist. com
———— ——— ——— ——
—–Previously posted 2nd rebuttal—- —-
From: Robert Baty
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:00 PM
To: OneheartinChrist@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: [OneheartinChrist] Baty’s Second Rebuttal — Cornelius!
?The proposition:
> It is very clearly stated in
> Acts 11:15-17 that Cornelius
> was baptised in the Holy Spirit.
> Affirm: Jerry D. McDonald
> Deny: Robert Baty
My prophecy is further confirmed that Jerry’s problem is his peculiar use of definitions.
If one chooses to humor Jerry with his preferred, peculiar definitions of relevant terms and concede to him that he has used other means, independent of the text, to prove that Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism, then one can quite easily reach the same conclusion regarding what the text “very clearly states”.
Jerry writes:
> I (Jerry D. McDonald) merely
> promised to provide
> evidence that clearly establishes
> the fact that Cornelius received
> Holy Spirit baptism.
Indeed, yet he has not done that and he has NOT provided evidence, using generally accepted definitions, that Acts 11:15-17 “very clearly states” the fact.
It is not necessary for me to deal with Jerry’s questions or arguments.
Jerry’s problems are with his definitions.
Jerry concedes this point and, effectively, admits that you have to allow him to make the words mean what he wants in order for him to “establish” his case.
So, by definition, since I do not grant Jerry his peculiar definitions or assumption that Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism, Jerry must concede that I have, using more appropriate definitions with no assumption that Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism, successfully rebutted his affirmative claim just as I prophesied before the debate began.
Jerry writes:
> Don’t play word games with me
> Robert…
Jerry, despite previously claiming the issues weren’t worth debating, knew, or should have known that before we started that he would, in refusing to negotiate mutually agreeable definitions before the debate, be found out to be the one playing the word games.
Using generally accepted, commonly understood definitions of the relevant terms, as previously noted, Jerry has been found to have failed in his effort to sustain the proposition that
> it is very clearly stated in
> Acts 11:15-17 that Cornelius
> was baptised in the Holy Spirit.
If you allow Jerry to use his peculiar definitions and assumption that Cornelius was Holy Spirit baptized, then Jerry may be humored as to his thinking that the text “very clearly states” that Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism.
Jerry cluttered up his second affirmative with many things irrelevant to the actual question under consideration.
Despite Jerry’s pleas to the contrary, I am under no obligation to humor him in further pursuing such irrelevancies.
So, again, the discussion may come to its reasonable end with the following conclusions noted for the record:
1. Using generally accepted, commonly understood definitions of the relevant terms, as previously noted, Jerry has been found to have failed in his effort to sustain the proposition that
> it is very clearly stated in
> Acts 11:15-17 that Cornelius
> was baptised in the Holy Spirit.
2. If you allow Jerry to use his peculiar definitions and assumption that Cornelius Holy Spirit baptized, then he may be humored into thinking that the text “very clearly states” that Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism.
If Jerry wishes to independently, and in good faith, negotiate for some mutually agreeable definitions of the relevant terms and then revisit his claim, such will be given serious consideration.
Sincerely,
Robert Baty
