Archive

Archive for July, 2011

Preston’s Third Affirmative

July 27, 2011 3 comments

McDonald- V – Preston Debate

Legend:

(Caps for emphasis)

I-B-J = Ignored By Jerry

You will seldom find a more confused, confusing, desperate and self contradictory presentation than Jerry’s last. I was stunned at the illogic of many of his claims.

ATTENTION, DEBATE CONVERSION!

Don K. Preston’s Third Affirmative

 

I proved that Deuteronomy 32 foretold the events of the first century including the vindication of the martyrs in the fall of “Babylon.” See the chart I-B-J!

Jerry originally said that the Song had nothing to do with Israel’ last days, but was about MOSES’ DAY. Now, IN A RADICAL DEBATE CONVERSION, he sustains my position! He says, “The word “latter end” in Deut. 32:29 comes from a word: “meaning the end, last time, latter time.” He says, “What Moses is saying is that he wishes that Israel would look at their latter end, or the destruction that they would be headed for and avoid their destruction. The “latter end” does not have reference to A.D. 70.” Jerry, are you saying that Israel did not experience “latter end destruction” in AD 70? REALLY?

JERRY FINALLY ADMITTED THAT THE SONG FORETOLD ISRAEL’S LAST END!

He says the Song was sung in John’s day by spiritual Israel. It was sung by the righteous remnant (The 144K- Revelation14 :1f)– that was in the process of being restored / saved, but they were awaiting the consummation of their salvation at the harvest– THE FULFILLMENT OF ISRAEL’S FESTAL SABBATHS!

So, Jerry abandoned his initial claim that the Song was strictly about Moses’ day. If it was being fulfilled in Revelation, THEN IT FORETOLD THE DAYS OF REVELATION– and that means that the Song was fulfilled in the vindication of the martyrs in the fall of “Babylon.” It means it is about Israel’s last days– not Rome’s last days. Jerry has surrendered his theology. He is hopelessly entangled in self-contradiction.

Israel’s latter end was not at the cross. HER LATTER END WOULD BE WHEN THE POWER OF THE HOLY PEOPLE WAS COMPLETELY SHATTERED– AT THE RESURRECTION!

I argued that the Song foretold the conversion of the Gentiles in Israel’s last days. Since the Song is an integral part of the Mosaic Covenant, this means that Torah would remain valid until the conversion of the Gentiles. Paul quotes Deuteronomy 32:19-21 as justification for his Gentile ministry. What was Jerry’s response? In TOTAL DESPERATION, Jerry says: “I don’t know if Moses ever stated this or not.”

REALLY, JERRY?

You don’t know if the Song foretold the conversion of the Gentiles, WHEN PAUL QUOTES FROM IT TWICE TO JUSTIFY HIS GENTILE MINISTRY?

Let me help you out. BARNES– upon whom you rely– ON ROMANS 10:19– “These words are taken from Deuteronomy 32:21” (in loc).

The Song of Moses was fundamentally part of God’s covenant with Israel.

The Song predicted the calling of the Gentiles in Israel’s last days.

Paul’s ministry was fulfilling the Song– AFTER THE CROSS.

Thus, Torah did not pass at the cross.

Paul said he had one hope, and that was “nothing but the hope of Israel” found in “the law, Moses and the prophets” (Acts 24:14f; 26:21, etc.). Jerry’s fomentations cannot falsify this, and it is fatal to his eschatology.

I noted that Jerry claimed that had Jesus and Paul truly preached the hope of Israel that they would have been accepted. Jerry denied saying this, and challenged me to produce it. Well, Jerry said: “If Jesus’ intent was to come and marry Israel and Judah, why did the Israelites want him dead?”

ROMANS 11 AND ISRAEL’S SALVATION

Unbelievably, Jerry says resurrection was not Israel’s salvation.

REALLY, JERRY?

Jerry, have you never read Isaiah 25:6-9 (the source of Paul’s resurrection hope in 1 Corinthians 15:54f)?

“And in this mountain The LORD of hosts will make for all people A feast of choice pieces, A feast of wines on the lees, …And He will destroy on this mountain The surface of the covering cast over all people, …He will swallow up death forever, And the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces… And it will be said IN THAT DAY: “Behold, this is our God; We have waited for Him, and He will save us. This is the LORD; We have waited for Him; We will be glad and rejoice in His salvation.” (Chart – Messianic Banquet.).

Notice, “in that day” God would destroy death (v. 8). And, “in that day” Israel would rejoice in her salvation (v. 9)! Clearly, resurrection was Israel’s salvation.

Here is the fulfillment of the covenantal promise of the resurrection contained in the Festal Sabbaths. Thus, God’s covenant with Israel remains valid until the resurrection. If the resurrection has not occurred, God’s covenant with Israel– expressed in the Festal Sabbaths– remains valid. This is Romans 11.

The salvation of “all Israel” in 11:25-26 would BE THE CONSUMMATION OF THE SALVATION OF THE REMNANT THAT WAS ON-GOING WHEN PAUL WROTE. Jerry admits this initially, but then, being entrapped by Paul’s declaration that the work of the salvation of the remnant would be completed shortly, he makes another brash claim. He claims that the word (sun-temnon) rendered “short”: “Does not mean shortly under any circumstance.”

REALLY, JERRY?

Let’s see:

Thayers on suntemnon (p. 606)– “To cut short, briefly, execute or finish quickly…to bring aprophecy or decree speedily to accomplishment, Romans 9:28).”

A check of 36 translations reveals that it is translated “with speed”, “without hesitation or delay”, “swiftly” “with speed,” “short” (twelve times), quickly (nine times), “soon.”

So, suntemnon, means without delay, quickly, soon, short, without hesitation, “to bring to accomplishment speedily.”

Lamentably, these translators did not have Jerry to supply their linguistic shortcomings. They patently did see suntemnon as meaning without delay and soon!

Isaiah predicted that when the salvation of the remnant began it would be consummated without delay. See Isaiah 60:22– When the appointed time for fulfillment of God’s promises came, He would hasten fulfillment.

The time for the salvation of the remnant had arrived and was on-going in Paul’s day. It would not be delayed 2000 + years. The salvation of the remnant had not been consummated when Paul wrote, but was to be completed at the judgment coming of the Lord in fulfillment of Isaiah 27, 59. Thus, the coming of the Lord in Romans 11:26f was coming soon, without delay. That is what Hebrews 10:37 says: “And now, in a very, very little while (hosan, hosan, micron), the one who is coming will come, and will not delay.” Jerry has him delayed 2000 years!

Paul says the salvation of the remnant would be a short work: Jerry has it a long work. Jerry is wrong.

Jerry says: “Don wants to apply this marriage to all of Israel because of the word “all” in Romans 11:26.”

JERRY, I HAVE NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING, AND YOU KNOW IT. (CHART: Jerry’s misrepresentation)

Here is my consistent argument:

The salvation of “all Israel” (the consummation of the salvation of the righteous remnant that was to be completed “without delay” – Romans 9:28) would fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 59:20 (Romans 11:26-27).

THE COMING OF THE LORD OF ISAIAH 59:21 WAS TO BE THE COMING OF THE LORD IN JUDGMENT OF ISRAEL FOR SHEDDING INNOCENT BLOOD (ISAIAH 59:3-11).

But, the judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood was to be in the AD 70 judgment of Jerusalem (Matthew 23).

Therefore, the coming of the Lord of Romans was to be in the AD 70 judgment of Jerusalem.

Jerry ignored the contextual facts from Isaiah 59,simply saying my argument raises a question– he offered not one word of exegetical refutation. HOW ABOUT DEALING WITH THE TEXT, JERRY?

Again: CATCH THIS!: This coming of the lord, TO CONSUMMATE the salvation of the REMNANT WOULD BE IN FULFILLMENT OF GOD’S COVENANT WITH ISRAEL– “THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM.” Thus…

The coming of the Lord for the consummation of the salvation of the remnant WOULD BE IN FULFILLMENT OF GOD’S COVENANT WITH ISRAEL (Romans 11:26-27).

The coming of the Lord of Romans 11 would be the fulfillment of Isaiah 59– the prediction of the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.

The coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood was in AD 70.

THEREFORE, THE AD 70 COMING OF THE LORD IN JUDGMENT OF ISRAEL WAS IN FULFILLMENT OF GOD’S COVENANT PROMISES TO ISRAEL.

(Jerry did not touch this, top, side or bottom! But this argument alone falsifies Jerry’s theology)

Jerry denies that the parousia of Romans 11 is the second coming. Paul was supposedly looking back at the cross.

REALLY, JERRY?

Paul was anticipating fulfillment of Isaiah 59. Isaiah 59 foretold the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding blood, not the cross. What did Jerry offer us? Nothing!

Here is more:

In Romans 11:25-26 Paul anticipated the coming of the Lord foretold by Isaiah 27:10-13. Notice the constituent elements of those verses:

IT WOULD BE “IN THE DAY” WHEN GOD TURNED THE ALTAR TO CHALKSTONES (V. 9 ).

WHEN THE CITY WOULD BE FORSAKEN (V. 10 ).

When God would have no mercy on the people He had created (v. 11).

When the remnant would be saved (v. 13), when God would blow “the great trumpet” to gather the “dead” and re-gather His people.

This would be “in that day” when “Leviathan” (CHART– Satan– see Romans 16:20) would be destroyed (27:1), and would also be “in that day” when the Lord would come to avenge the blood of the martyrs (26:21)!

IT WOULD BE THE TIME OF THE RESURRECTION from “the dust of the earth.” (26:19– This is Daniel 12).

So:

The coming of the Lord in Romans 11:26-27 would be in fulfillment of Isaiah 27:10-13.

Isaiah foretold the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood– at the resurrection (26:19-21- 27:1-13).

Therefore, the coming of the Lord in Romans 11, in fulfillment of Isaiah 27, would be the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood at the resurrection.

Jesus said all of the blood of all the martyrs would be avenged at his coming in AD 70 (Matthew 23:33f; 24:29-34).

Therefore, Isaiah 27– thus, Romans 11:26-27– would be fulfilled in AD 70.

So, both Isaiah 27 and Isaiah 59 predicted the Lord’s coming in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.

Paul was anticipating the fulfillment of Isaiah 27 and 59.

If Paul was looking back at Jesus’ Incarnation / Passion, then the judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood was in the past.

Now CATCH THIS:

Romans 11:26-27 anticipated the fulfillment of Isaiah 27:9-13– the coming of the Lord for the salvation of Israel- (at the sounding of the Great Trumpet)- at the judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood (26:21).

But, Jesus said Isaiah 27:13– (Israel’s judgment / salvation at the sounding of the Great Trumpet)- would be fulfilled at his coming in AD 70 (Matthew 24:31). (SEE THIS CHART)

JERRY APPLIES MATTHEW 24:31 TO AD 70!

Therefore, Romans 11:26-27 would be fulfilled at Jesus’ coming in the AD 70 judgment of Israel.

Jesus and Paul had one eschatological hope: The fulfillment of God’s OT promises made to Israel. Jerry wants to deny this prophetic background, but he has not given us one reason why we should ignore it. His denial is not proof.

Jerry makes another stunning claim: “Israel was not going to be punished in A.D. 70 for the sins committed in Isaiah’s day.”

REALLY, JERRY?

HAVE YOU NEVER READ MATTHEW 23:31-35?

“Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt… How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah….”

Jerry, give us your authority for denying Jesus’ words!

HOW FAR BACK WAS THE AD 70 JUDGMENT TO GO, JERRY?

Matthew 23 also includes Paul’s day: “Behold, I send to you, apostles and prophets.” Jerry, what is your textual authority for excluding the martyrs of Isaiah’s time from that judgment? Give us your textual proof.

RESURRECTION AND TORAH

Jerry made the ill-informed claim that although the OT predicted the resurrection, thatthose things had nothing to do with the law of Moses. He said: “Was it (the promise of the resurrection, DKP) made as part of the Law? No, it wasn’t! It was a prophecy that was made during the time that the law was in effect. Don doesn’t seem to realize that a prophecy uttered during the Law of Moses doesn’t necessitate it being the Law of Moses.”

REALLY, JERRY?

WHAT SCRIPTURE DID JERRY GIVE TO PROVE HIS CLAIM? NOT ONE.

I asked Jerry:

<1.) Scripture said that the New Moons, Feast Days and Sabbaths of Israel’s festal calendar

were “shadows of good things to come” (Colossians 2:14-17; Hebrews 9:6f; 10:1-3). What did

the following feast days foreshadow and typify:

Feast of Trumpets (Rosh Ha Shanah)– Jerry’s Answer: The Final Judgment.

Day of Atonement– Answer: The Day of Salvation.

Feast of Harvest / Booths — Answer: The Resurrection.

2.) What did the seventh day Sabbath and the other festal Sabbaths foreshadow, and has that which the Sabbath (Sabbaths) foreshadowed been completely fulfilled? Answer: Heaven (Heb. 4:9-11).>

READERS: CATCH THE POWER OF THIS!

Jerry said the resurrection had “nothing to do with the law of Moses,” but then admits that resurrection is an inherent element of the Festal Sabbaths.

The Festal Sabbaths were undeniably

THE LAW OF MOSES– right, Jerry?

The Sabbaths were fundamentally part of GOD’S COVENANT WITH ISRAEL, right, Jerry?

The resurrection was inextricably part of those Festal Sabbaths.

Thus, the resurrection was a fundamental element of “The Law” and God’s covenant with Israel.

IF THE RESURRECTION WAS NOT A PART OF THE LAW OF MOSES, THEN NEITHER WERE THE FEAST DAYS. The resurrection and the Sabbaths are inseparable. Jerry’s brash, desperate claim is patently false.

So, if God’s covenant with Israel was terminated at the cross, then the resurrection covenant itself failed. (Note: Jerry continues to ignore the indisputable fact that Paul said the saints entering Christ and his death had died to Torah. Jerry just repeats his mantra– “the law of Moses died at the cross.” He refuses to acknowledge the difference between dying to Torah and Torah dying. But, every reader of this debate knows the difference!)

Let’s look again at Matthew 5:17-18.

Jesus said he came to fulfill (pleroma) the Law (v. 17). He then said, “not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law until it is all fulfilled.” This second “fulfilled” is better translated as “till all things be accomplished.” (ASV, NASV, etc.). The word in v. 18 is fromgenetai, which means “come to pass”, “be accomplished,” etc.

So, Jesus said that until all that was in the law was ACCOMPLISHED, came to pass, not one iota of Torah would pass.

Look at Colossians 2:16-17. Paul wrote that the Festal Sabbaths remained as “shadows of good things about to come” THEY HAD NOT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. Jerry admits this! He says the resurrection foreshadowed in those Sabbaths has not been accomplished.

Jerry says Israel and Torah died covenantally at the cross. Yet, we are still awaiting fulfillment of the resurrection, AN INTRINSIC ELEMENT OF GOD’S COVENANT PROMISES MADE TO ISRAEL. Jerry needs to explain how DEAD PROMISES, in a DEAD COVENANT, made to a COVENANTALLY DEAD PEOPLE, have any remaining validity. Paul said his resurrection hope was nothing but that found in the law and the prophets– that D-E-A-D covenant, per Jerry. But, a dead covenant is D-E-A-D. All of its provisions are D-E-A-D! (Chart–Why was it necessary for Paul to preach to the Jews first?)

God’s covenant with Israel– inclusive of the Festal Sabbaths which foretold final salvation– would remain valid until the resurrection. We are still waiting for some verses from Jerry to support his wild claim that Torah could pass, but the promises of Torah remain valid.

So, Jesus said not one iota would pass from Torah until it was all ACCOMPLISHED.

Torah foreshadowed the resurrection.

The resurrection has not been accomplished (JM).

Therefore, not one iota has passed from Torah.

This is incontrovertible. And let me remind you that Jerry agreed with this! Yes, he did!

Remember: I asked Jerry: Please define “the law” that Paul called “the strength of sin” and give scriptural support for your answer. Jerry responded: “The Law of Moses (1 Corinthians 15:56).”

Oh, Jerry said he answered all of my arguments, right? Well, try to find what he said in response to this. Well, never mind, he said NOTHING!

Notice:

The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be when the law that was the strength of sin was removed (1 Corinthians 15:55-56).

THE LAW THAT WAS THE STRENGTH OF SIN WAS THE LAW OF MOSES (JM).

Therefore, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 was (or will be!!) when the law of Moses was removed.

Here is more.

Remember, Jesus said not one iota would pass from Torah until it was all accomplished(genetai).

Read 1 Corinthians 15:54– “When this corruptible has put on incorruption… THEN SHALL BE BROUGHT TO PASS (genesetai– future of genetai ) the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

Paul is quoting from Isaiah 25:8 and said the resurrection would be when Isaiah 25 was “brought to pass” i.e. accomplished (genesetai).

But, Isaiah was “the law” and the resurrection was fundamentally part of the Mosaic Law (via the Festal Sabbaths)– the strength of sin. So…

Not one iota of “the Mosaic Law” would pass until it was all accomplished (genetai).

The resurrection was an intrinsic part of “the Mosaic law.”

The resurrection is when all that was foreshadowed and contained in the law of Moses would be accomplished (genetai, 1 Corinthians 15:54f).

Therefore, not one iota of “the Mosaic Law” would pass until the resurrection was accomplished.

Note further:

Jesus said “not one jot or one tittle shall pass until it is all accomplished.”

Indisputably, “not one jot or one tittle” is comprehensive, it refers to the minutia of Torah. NOT ONE IOTA OF THE LAW OF MOSES WOULD PASS UNTIL THE MINUTIA OF TORAH WAS ALL ACCOMPLISHED.

Well, Jerry tells us that the Law of Moses passed WITHOUT A LOT OF THE JOTS AND TITTLES OF THE LAW OF MOSES BEING ACCOMPLISHED!

He says the New Moons, feast days and Sabbaths – a lot of jots and tittles– foretold the resurrection which is not ACCOMPLISHED. We are still waiting on the fulfillment of all those now D-E-A-D jots and tittles foretold in that D-E-A-D covenant. Jerry tells us that the OT has passed except the promises of the end. This is patently illogical and in direct violation of our Lord’s words. If the promises of the eschaton are still valid, THEN THE SACRIFICES AND FEAST DAYS ARE ALL STILL SHADOWS OF THE GOOD THINGS TO COME, AND STILL VALID.

NONE WOULD PASS until ALL was accomplished. Jerry has ALL PASSING when SOME was fulfilled – Jerry is wrong. He can chant his mantra all he wants, but it will not refute this.

NOW NOTE HEBREWS 9:6- 10:1-4:

The High Priest’s actions on the Day of Atonement were typological of Christ’s High Priestly actions. (Chart)

The OT cultus could not bring man into the Most Holy Place, God’s presence, because it could not provide forgiveness (v. 8-9).

As long as that cultus stood valid there could be no access to the MHP, i.e. heaven.

The OC cultus would remain valid until the time of reformation– when man could enter the MHP.

Christ, in fulfillment of the typology, had appeared to put away sin (the barrier to the MHP)- v. 26).

He had entered the MHP to prepare it (v. 24).

He would come again to bring salvation– to bring man into the MHP– this is the time of reformation!

Christ was to come again, “FOR, the law, having (present active indicative) a shadow of good things about to come (10:1– mello with the infinitive).

Jerry claims:”The day of Atonement was taken out of the way at the cross (Heb. 10:1-4).” False!

Christ had to come again to fulfill the shadows of the law, the Day of Atonement functions of the High Priest. He had to come “FOR” (Hebrews 10:1– Greek, gar, giving the reason why Christ had to come again) the Law was still a shadow of good things about to come. Jerry destroys the typology of Hebrews 9.

He also destroys the order of fulfillment of the Feast days. Atonement falls after Trumpets, SYMBOLIC OF THE JUDGMENT, and BEFORE THE RESURRECTION. Jerry says the judgment and resurrection have not occurred– yet the Atonement has! This is patently anachronistic and violates the typology of the feast days.

I asked Jerry what happens to the child of God when they die. His answer: “Abraham’s bosom...the hadean realm Luke 16:22.” Let’s see:

The covenantal setting of Abraham’s bosom was patently “they have Moses and the prophets.” Under Torah there was no forgiveness, thus, no entrance into the MHP, per Hebrews 9.

Jerry claims that we have today, everything that the Mosaic Law could not give.

Well, if Torah, which barred man from the MHP, was removed at the cross: WHY DOES THE CHILD OF GOD GO TO HADES LIKE THEY DID UNDER TORAH?

Jerry Versus Hebrews

Hebrews– Man could not enter the MHP AS LONG AS TORAH WAS VALID.

Jerry– Man cannot enter the MHP until THE END OF THE GOSPEL AGE– NOT THE END OF TORAH.

Jerry has the gospel as the barrier between man and the MHP!

If Torah ended at the cross– MAN SHOULD NOW HAVE DIRECT ENTRANCE INTO THE MHP. But, Jerry says there is still no entrance into the MHP UNTIL THE END OF THE CHRISTIAN AGE!

This violates Hebrews:

Hebrews–> Entrance into the MHP AT THE END OF TORAH. This agrees with 1 Corinthians 15 that resurrection / salvation would be when, “the law that is the strength of sin” (THE LAW OF MOSES PER JERRY!) was removed. Perfect harmony.

Jerry –> Entrance into the MHP AT THE END OF THE CHRISTIAN AGE!

Jerry’s eschatology turns Hebrews (and scripture) on its head. Jerry is wrong.

Notice the harmony between Hebrews 9 and Revelation.

Hebrews 9– No entrance into the MHP while Torah remained valid– entrance into MHP at Christ’s second coming.

Revelation 11:15: 15:8– No entrance into the MHP until the wrath of God would be finished in the destruction of Babylon.

So:

Hebrews– no entrance into the MHP as long as Torah remained valid.

Revelation– no entrance into the MHP until the wrath of God was consummated in the judgment of Babylon (Revelation 15:8 – 16:17).

Therefore, Torah would remain valid until the judgment of Babylon.

But, Babylon– per Jerry– was Rome!

Thus, the destruction of Rome brought man into the MHP!

According to Paul, Torah– not Rome– prevented man from entering the MHP. Jerry denies Paul and says that Rome, a pagan city having nothing to do with God’s covenant or forgiveness stood as the barrier between man and the MHP. For more, see the<current document>http://www.eschatology.org/all-articles-articles-211/96-salvation/939-entrance-into-the-mhp-and-the-end-of-to Charthttp://www.eschatology.org/all-articles-articles-211/96-salvation/939-entrance-into-the-mhp-and-the-end-of-torah http://www.eschatology.orgon the MHP.

Now, notice:

There would be no entrance into the MHP as long as Torah was valid.

The Festal Sabbaths foreshadowed the time when man could enter the MHP (Jerry). This is “the time of reformation.”

Thus, until what the Festal Sabbaths anticipated is ACCOMPLISHED man cannot enter the MHP– the time of reformation will not have arrived. Jerry says we still cannot enter the MHP. Thus, the time of reformation has not arrived.

This nullifies Jerry’s almost unbelievable (desperation) “argument” that Jesus did not have to historically fulfill the types of Torah; he just somehow mystically embodies fulfillment, therefore they passed. This is sophistry. Oh, and did Jerry give a single verse to support his wild claim? Not one.

Jerry’s claim denies what Paul said: That cultus- with its Festal Sabbaths, would remain “IMPOSED UNTIL THE TIME OF REFORMATION” – when man could enter the MHP.

If Jesus did not have to historically accomplish the Festal Sabbaths then he did not have to historically accomplish the typology of Passover-Pentecost for Torah to pass! Since he embodies fulfillment– he did not even have to historically die on the cross! But of course, Jesus said that until they were all ACCOMPLISHED, none of them would pass.

Israel’s salvation– and our’s– would come when all that Israel’s Festal Sabbaths foreshadowed was accomplished AT THE TIME OF REFORMATION.

But, TORAH WOULD REMAIN IMPOSED UNTIL THE TIME OF THE REFORMATION.

Therefore, if, per Jerry, all that the Festal Sabbaths typified has not beenACCOMPLISHED, then without any controversy– Torah remains valid.

2 THESSALONIANS 1

Jerry’s incredible desperation grows: JERRY MCDONALD HAS CALLED PAUL THE APOSTLE A FALSE PROPHET! Now, Jerry will say “Not True!”; but it is true. (CHART– TEST OF PROPHET)

Paul wrote to living Thessalonian Christians, being persecuted. Paul promised those Thessalonian Christians that Christ would give them relief from that on-going persecution: “When the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven.”

Christ could not give the Thessalonians relief from that persecution, if the Thessalonians are not alive, under persecution, at the time of Christ’s coming! This is undeniable. Jerry ignored it because it falsifies his eschatology.

The language could not be clearer. I asked Jerry if Christ came in the lifetime of the Thessalonians and gave them the promised relief. And Jerry said “No.” Thus, Paul’s inspired promise failed.

He admitted that only the Jews ever dwelt in the presence of God and were to be cast out for persecuting the church! CATCH THAT! The Jews did not, and could not, persecute the church prior to the cross– where Jerry says they were cast out! Jerry just abdicated! (I-B-J)

Paul said “those who are troubling you” would be cast out of the presence of the Lord, “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven.” Jerry admits that only the Jews dwelt in the presence of the Lord, and would be cast out for persecuting the church. Yet, he denies that this has anything to do with Thessalonians.

Jerry says that “those who are troubling you” in Thessalonica, could not be the Jews, because Paul was speaking of those “who do not obey the gospel.” Well, Jerry, had the Jewish persecutors in Acts 17 and 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 obeyed the gospel?

Acts 17 and 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16 proves how desperate and false Jerry’s claim is. Now watch this:

IN ONE SENSE, it matters not who the persecutors of the Thessalonians were. The fact remains that Paul said Christ was coming in judgment of “those who are troubling you,” and HE WAS COMING IN THE LIFETIME OF THE THESSALONIANS: “to you who are troubled, rest, WHEN THE LORD JESUS IS REVEALED.”

Jerry says Paul’s promise was not fulfilled. Thus, Jerry says Paul was a false prophet.

I documented that Isaiah 2-4 is a prophecy of the last days coming of the Lord in judgment of Jerusalem for shedding innocent blood (I-B-J). (CHART)

JERRY, WHEN, IN THE LAST DAYS, DID THE LORD COME, AND PURGE THE BLOOD GUILT OF JERUSALEM BY THE SPIRIT OF JUDGMENT?

Jesus applied Isaiah 2 to AD 70– (I-B-J).

I demonstrated that Paul quoted from the same verses that Jesus applied to AD 70, to speak of the judgment of the Jews who were persecuting the Thessalonians. Jerry exhibited his desperation again by denying that Paul was quoting Isaiah. (CHART).

Paul was undeniably citing Isaiah. Jerry is wrong, and that means that Paul’s eschatology was the anticipation of God’s Old Covenant promises made to Israel, in her last days.

Now let me reiterate one of my arguments (I-B-J!):

The coming of the Lord of 2 Thessalonians 1 is the same coming of the Lord as 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18- (And, Acts 1 and all other NT predictions of the Second coming–Jerry agrees).

But, the coming of the Lord of 2 Thessalonians 1 would be at Christ’s coming in judgment of Israel for persecuting the saints– to cast them out of his presence (Isaiah 2-4; Matthew 23; Galatians 4; 2 Thessalonians 1:5-9)– in AD 70.

Therefore, the coming of the Lord of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 (And Acts 1 and all other NT predictions of the Second coming) was at Christ’s coming in judgment of Israel to cast them out of His presence. for persecuting the saints.

Jerry has not touched this, top, side, or bottom.

SOME GREEK ISSUES

I noted that Hebrews 7:12 is in the present tense, indicating the then on-going change of the priesthood. Jerry gave a BASIC FORM of the word there, that is not in the present, and boldly claimed that Hebrews 7 is not in the present tense. The problem is HE DID NOT GIVE THE CONJUGATION THAT IS IN HEBREWS 7! The conjugation in question ismetatithentes: PRESENT PASSIVE INDICATIVE. Jerry, is metatithentes present passive indicative, Yes, or No? Jerry, did you purposefully misrepresent the Greek?

I stated that en taxei is used seven times in the NT. Jerry says this is wrong. No, it is not. Jerry even felt compelled to write an entire additional article in an attempt to refute the meaning of en tachei, but all he did was embarrass himself. He insists that taxu must mean rapidity and not soon. He gave us a chart with numerous verses, intimating that en tachei was in these verses. Totally false.

Jerry can’t produce a committee translation to support him that tachu means rapidly and not soon.

En tachei is not the simple form “tachu.” For Jerry to intimate that it is exhibits a poor grasp of Greek It is a distinctive form – he even admits as much below!

Jerry contradicts his own desperate claims by admitting: “Now if you notice the primary meaning is ‘prompt, swift, quickness, swiftness, speed,’ and ONLY WITH THE PREPOSITION “EN” DOES IT DEMAND SOON OR SHORTLY.” (My emphasis, DKP) Hang onto this.

How many times does tachu appear with the preposition “en”? Seven times! CHART. AND IT NEVER INDICATES RAPIDITY OVER IMMINENCE. Remember, simple tachu is not en tachei!

Now, let’s apply Jerry’s own statement:

Tachu with the preposition “en” (en tachei) DEMANDS soon or shortly.” (JM).

(CHART- Rm 16:20)

But, en tachei – which DEMANDS the meaning of soon or shortly, appears in Revelation 1:1; 22:6.

Therefore, it is DEMANDED that the events foretold in Revelation 1:1– 22:6–the destruction of Satan, the resurrection at Christ’s second coming– were to occur soon and shortly.

Jerry has falsified his own theology.

Jerry says I have not answered him on Acts 1. I have not specifically mentioned the verse, but the argument on Thessalonians answers it. But, here is more:

All NT predictions of the second coming and resurrection are the anticipation of the fulfillment of the resurrection of Daniel 12:2f, e.g. (John 5, 11; 12, Acts 1;17; 24; 1 Cor. 15; 2 Cor. 5; 1 Thess. 4:13f; Rev. 20– ALL OF THEM).

The resurrection of Daniel 12:2 would be fulfilled: “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered.”

Therefore, all NT predictions of the second coming and resurrection would be fulfilled, “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered.” Now watch:

JERRY REFUSED TO DEFINE THE POWER OF THE HOLY PEOPLE.

He initially said: “Don talks about Israel’s power being the Torah! No! Israel’s power is the same power that any of us have: The Gospel of Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:16).” Entrapped by his admission he now denies that Israel’s power (in Daniel 12) is the gospel.

So, Israel’s power (Daniel 12:7) is not the gospel / church. The church / gospel will never be shattered (Jerry). Catch this! This proves that the resurrection CANNOT BE AT THE END OF THE CHRISTIAN AGE. Jerry has inadvertently admitted this!

But, THE RESURRECTION WOULD BE WHEN ISRAEL’S POWER WAS COMPLETELY SHATTERED.

QUESTION FOR JERRY: TELL US, WITH SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT: WHAT IS THE POWER OF OLD COVENANT ISRAEL, THAT SHE WILL CONTINUE TO POSSESS UNTIL THE TIME OF THE RESURRECTION, WHEN THAT POWER WILL BE SHATTERED?

If the resurrection has not occurred– no matter your concept of the nature of the resurrection– then Israel’s “power” remains valid. (This “shatters” his argument on John 12; 1 Corinthians 15).

Don’t miss this: I noted that the resurrection of Daniel 12 is directly linked with the Great Tribulation (12:1- I-B-J), and the Abomination of Desolation (v. 9f). Jerry believes those things occurred in the War of the Jews 66-70!

THE TRIBULATION, ABOMINATION, AND THE RESURRECTION ARE TEMPORALLY INSEPARABLE. JERRY POSITS FULFILLMENT OF THE TRIBULATION AND ABOMINATION IN THE JEWISH WAR OF 66-70! Jerry has surrendered his theology.

Note again Daniel 12:

v. 1– Tribulation.

v. 2– Resurrection.

v. 3- The Kingdom

v. 4– Time of the end.

v. 9– Abomination

v. 7– “When the power of the holy people has been completely shattered ALL OF THESE THINGS shall be fulfilled.” (My emphasis). Note– ALL – not part or even most– ALL would be fulfilled, “When the power of the holy people has been completely shattered.”

AND, CATCH THIS:

IT MATTERS NOT WHAT ELSE JERRY MIGHT ARGUE, ON ANY TEXT: he admitted that “the law that is the strength of sin” in 1 Corinthians 15:54-56 is “the Law of Moses.” Do you catch that? Here is the argument again (I-B-J):

The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 is the time of Christ’s coming predicted in Acts 1, and all other NT prophecies of the resurrection and Second Coming.

The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be when the law that was the strength of sin was removed (1 Corinthians 15:55-56).

THE LAW THAT WAS THE STRENGTH OF SIN WAS THE LAW OF MOSES (JERRY MCDONALD).

Therefore, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15– and all other NT prophecies of the resurrection and Second Coming– WOULD BE WHEN THE LAW OF MOSES WAS REMOVED.

This is unanswerable: If the resurrection has not occurred, then the law that is the strength of sin– the Law of Moses– remains valid.

Notice again the correlation between Daniel and 1 Corinthians 15.

The resurrection to eternal life (v. 2). —> Paul: resurrection to eternal life (v. 54f).

The end of the age (v. 4)—> Paul: “then comes the end” (v. 24).

Daniel was told it was far off. He would die before fulfillment (v. 4)– Paul said: “We shall not all sleep” (v. 51).

Daniel was told fulfillment would be when the power of the holy people (Torah) was shattered—> Paul said the resurrection would be when “the law” (the Law of Moses, Jerry agrees) was removed (v. 55-56)!

Jerry’s response? Silence.

Jerry, it matters not what else you may say, you have surrendered your eschatology. I challenge you to deal with this.

BACK TO THE MARRIAGE– ATTENTION! DEBATE CONVERSION!!

In Jerry’s First neg. he said– “Old Covenant Israel was not promised to be invited to the wedding.”

Now in his Second Neg. he says, “Remember, the Jews (those who were bidden to the wedding) rejected Christ and God had the apostles turn to the Gentiles (those who were in the highways).”

Jerry has no exegetical basis for divorcing Matthew 22 from chapter 25 or Revelation 19. His “arguments” are specious. (Oh, B. W. Johnson, in. loc., says Matthew 22 is, “the day named in Revelation 19”).

Matthew 22 is a parable just like Matthew 25– Jerry admits Matthew 25 is the wedding at the parousia.

Matthew 22 has the declaration– “All things are ready, come to the feast”– Matthew 25 has “Behold, the bridegroom comes!”

Matthew 22– “All things are ready”– Revelation 22:17- “The Spirit and the Bride say Come!”

The promise of the wedding– Jerry’s protestations notwithstanding– was an OT promise made to Old Covenant Israel, that in the last days God would remarry her.

Matthew 22 is about the judgment of the persecutors of God’s martyrs. Jesus said all of the blood, of all the martyrs would be vindicated in AD 70. Yet, Jerry says Matthew 22 has nothing to do with AD 70!

Folks, the wedding is mentioned eight times in Matthew 22! THE WEDDING IS THE DOMINANT SUBJECT. (CHART)

Jerry knows that if the wedding of Matthew 22 is the wedding of chapter 25 then his entire theology is falsified. Matthew firmly posits the wedding at the destruction of the city in 22:7. Thus, the second coming / resurrection was in AD 70. This is why Jerry is so desperate to divorce the wedding in Matthew 22 from Israel and from chapter 25. But he is wrong.

Jerry claimed: “It is Don’s assumption that the wedding takes place during the judgment of Babylon.”

REALLY, JERRY?

Look at Revelation 19:

“For true and righteous are His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication; and He has avenged on her the blood of His servants shed by her.”… 6 And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, …saying, “Alleluia!… Let us be glad and rejoice…, FOR THE MARRIAGE OF THE LAMB HAS COME.”

I did not ASSUME anything. I accept the inspired text instead of citing Barnes, or whoever. You should give it a try, Jerry, it would improve your theology.

THE WEDDING IS INEXTRICABLY TIED TO THE JUDGMENT OF BABYLON, who killed the prophets sent to her– just as the wedding is tied to the destruction of the city that killed the servants sent to her (Matthew 22). (See the CHART)

Barnes, Johnson, et. al. were as wrong as Jerry. And to restate the case: Jerry’s position demands two weddings. Revelation 19 says it would be at the judgment of Babylon (I.e. Rome, per JM). And Jerry says Revelation 21 is the wedding at the end of the Christian age. And, he does this, all the while ripping the promise of the wedding away from Israel, to whom the promise was made.

Jerry and Revelation

Jerry’s desperation reached new heights (lows): DID YOU NOTICE THAT JERRY SAYS SCRIPTURE DOES NOT MATTER IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE DATE OF REVELATION? After all, it does not matter what scripture either one of us introduces, the date has be settled BEFORE WE DISCUSS THE SCRIPTURES! THAT IS AN ABANDONMENT OF THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE. Jerry appealed solely to external sources as the final authority on the date of Revelation. This is desperation magnified.

Jerry has given us NO BIBLICAL EVIDENCE to support the late date of Revelation. All he has given us is Barnes, Vincent, Johnson, etc..

Jerry claims that I have given only external evidence. That is patently false. (CHART) I have given repeated syllogisms BASED ON THE TEXT OF REVELATION– which Jerry admits he has ignored.

PETER AND THE DATING OF REVELATION

John and Peter both wrote to the churches of Asia.

They both wrote of the impending fulfillment of OT prophecy (1 Peter 1:10-12; Revelation 10:6-7).

They both wrote about and to suffering saints (1 Peter 1:5f; Rev. 1:9f; 6:9f).

John said the martyrs had to wait only a little while for vindication at the day of the Lord (6:9-11– Remember, this is the Day of the Lord promised in Isaiah 2, that Jesus applied to AD 70, Luke 23- I-B-J). Peter told the living saints they only had to suffer for a short time (1 Peter 1:5-7). The Day of the Lord (the end) had drawn near (eggeken, perfect tense, 4:7– I-B-J!).

John said that an hour of trial (peirasmos) was “about to come” (mello in the infinitive– 3:10).

Peter said: “Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial (peirasmos) THAT IS AMONG YOU (en humin).

SO, JOHN SAID THE FIERY TRIAL WAS ABOUT TO COME; Peter, writing to the same believers, said THE FIERY TRIAL WAS PRESENT, and they were not to be surprised by it. They had been told it was coming! Who had warned them? John, in Revelation.

This is prima facie demonstration of the early date of Revelation.

More:

Revelation 11:18 predicted the judgment of the dead– and it was “the time (ho kairosthe divinely appointed time) of the dead that they should be judged.”

Peter said Christ was, “ready to judge the living and the dead” (1 Peter 4:5), “the end of all things has drawn near,” (4:7) and, “the appointed (kairos- the divinely appointed time) has come for THE judgment” (to krino, 1 Peter 4:17).

Note Peter’s statement that THE TIME HAD COME for “THE judgment” (to krino). Peter uses the anaphoric article. The anaphoric article is the preponderant use of the definite article: “The anaphoric article has, by nature, a pointing back force to it, reminding the reader of who or what was mentioned previously.” (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the NT; pg. 218-19). See the article for more. What does this mean in 1 Peter 4:17?

In 1 Peter 4:5 Peter said Jesus was ready to “judge the living and the dead.” THIS IS THE PREVIOUS MENTION OF THE JUDGMENT THAT V. 17 POINTS BACK TO. The anaphoric article in v. 17 points directly back to v. 5. Thus, Peter was saying “the (divinely appointed) time has come for the judgment- THE JUDGMENT OF THE LIVING AND THE DEAD.” The imminence of the resurrection is undeniable. Oh, Jerry cannot manipulate this into a discussion of rapidity over imminence: “the time has come” or “has drawn near” cannot be distorted into rapidity.

Jerry is utterly desperate to divorce Revelation from Jesus’ discussion of martyr vindication in Matthew 23. So what did he do? He offered a chart on Revelation 6 claiming that the recipients of the Apocalypse were Gentiles being persecuted and they, “had little interest in OT history” or in what took place in Jerusalem. Therefore, he concluded, the martyrs under the altar were Gentiles. THIS IS INCREDIBLY BAD LOGIC.

Fact: Revelation 6 quotes from Isaiah 2– the very verses that Jesus applied to AD 70. (I-B-J!)

Fact: Jews were persecutors in Revelation (Revelation 2:9; 3:9f). This is indisputable.

Fact: Revelation is about the fulfillment of OT prophecies made to OT Israel (10:6-7).

Fact: The eschatology of Revelation is the reiteration of OT promises-just like in Paul!

Note: In Luke 18 the martyrs cry out, and the promise is given that the Lord would avenge them speedily ( en tachei). In Revelation 6 the martyrs cry out for vengeance and are told to rest for a little while.

Remember that Jerry himself says that when tachu is coupled with the preposition “en” it DEMANDS the meaning of shortly.

Luke 18 and Matthew 23 are patently speaking of the same vindication of the martyrs– in Jesus’ generation. Jerry knows that if Revelation 6 is the same vindication as in Matthew 23 and Luke 18 that his eschatology is falsified. (CHART)

I challenge Jerry to give us textual proof that these texts are not parallel. The constituent elements are identical. Will he do it?

Per Jerry, if it was an OT promise to Israel, being fulfilled in Jerusalem, Gentiles would not care about it.

REALLY, JERRY?

JESUS’ MINISTRY, DEATH AND RESURRECTION, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH, ETC. WERE IN JERUSALEM IN FULFILLMENT OF OT PROMISES TO ISRAEL. Did Gentiles in Asia– OR AMERICA– have any interest in that “Jewish history,” Jerry?

The Resurrection was a fundamental part of Torah itself– in the Sabbaths, remember? So, per Jerry’s “logic” we “Gentiles” today have no concern with the resurrection, right, Jerry? See where Jerry’s desperation has led him?

Folks, Jerry’s desperation– and illogic– is palpable and manifest.

Jerry betrays a lamentable ignorance– or denial– of the Biblical story of eschatology.

CHART – Gentiles, Jerusalem and OT promises.

CHART– Gentiles and Torah– Jerry’s blatant misrepresentation of Preston.

Jerry says I am obligated to answer each of his arguments. Yet HE ADMITS HE IGNORED MY SYLLOGISMS. And why? Well, they were “interpretive.” Jerry, your responsibility is to respond, and refute if possible, my “interpretations” You can’t do that by ignoring them and then claiming that I am bound to respond to all of your “interpretive” arguments.

Jerry says I should go back to school and take logic 101 again. No, DOING JUST FINE, THANK YOU! If my logic is so bad, he should have no problem demonstrating the fallacy of any of my major or minor premises. Has he even tried? NO.

CHART– Israel married in Abraham’s day?

CHART– PAUL- ABOUT TO BE THE RESURRECTION

CHART– Jerry’s questions about Domitian.

CHART— Jerry’s “evidence” for Domitianic Persecution

CHART— on Sodom

CHART— When was Joel 2 Fulfilled.

CHARTS– Johnson on “the Great City.”

#1

#2

#3

#4

CHART— What About Hymenaeaus?

CHART – Let the wicked remain wicked.

I have buttressed my affirmative with additional irrefutable material.

I have responded to Jerry’s major arguments and nullified them.

My affirmative stands.

 McDonald’s Third Rebuttal

Back

Home

Categories: Uncategorized

Baty’s Third Rebuttal

July 25, 2011 1 comment

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

I went back and checked and found that Jerry, as I previously noted, wrote, 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.

Alas, it appears Jerry is now having a problem in understanding what he, himself, has very clearly stated, for he now proclaims:

> Robert only uses part of what
> I said.

> I said “For remission of sins.”

> He only wants “remission of sins,”
> there. He knows that if the word
> “for” is there, there is a dispute
> and he has nothing to complain
> about.

Jerry very clearly stated:

> If remission of sins was very
> clearly stated in Acts 2:38
> there would be no room for
> dispute.

Now Jerry very clearly states:

> I said “For remission of sins.”

Fortunately, we can have it either way and cannot rely on Jerry to faithfully represent the facts or their relevance.

My point, which Jerry with his evasions, fails to acknowledge, was that the text he brought up, Acts 2:38, that I am willing to use to help our readers identify Jerry’s failed effort to prove his proposition, very clearly states “remission of sins” and “for remission of sins” and such is not contested by any Baptists that I know.

As Jerry’s evasive comments go on to explain, the dispute he plays up is not about the text and what it very clearly states, it is about what it means.

That may be compared to the text of this present dispute where there is no equivalent very clear statement that Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism.

Not only is there no very clear statement (i.e., statements are the medium by which claims are stated) in Acts 11:15-17 that Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism.

So, Jerry has failed to measure up to showing that there is an Acts 2:38 “remission of sins” statement in Acts 11:15-17 whereby it is very clearly stated that Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism.

Jerry can try to claim he’s using generally accepted definitions to prove that there is a “remission of sins” or “for remission of sins” statement in Acts 11:15-17 proving his affirmative claim, but the evidence, and common sense, very clearly demonstrates he has failed in his effort; except one allows Jerry’s peculiar definitions and assumption that Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism.

What Jerry has done is to simply try to propose that his interpretation of the text is what the text very clearly states.

Were that not the case, Jerry would only have to quote the very clear statement from Acts 11:15-17, Acts 2:38-like, whereby the text declares Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism.

Jerry has spent considerable energy simply trying to defend his interpretation of the text as being equivalent to what the text very clearly states.

That he has to do such, consistent with Terry W. Benton’s “parable principle”, is evidence that the text DOES NOT very clearly state that Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism.

The very clear statement that Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism is simply and clearly NOT in the text.

My obligations are rather simple and have been clearly met. Jerry D. McDonald has not shown that the text very clearly states Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism.

Jerry can’t show it, except he be humored in allowing his peculiar definitions and assumptions regarding Cornelius and Holy Spirit baptism.

I’m somewhat familiar with the text, and if Jerry ever quotes where it very clearly states Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism, I’ll certainly reconsider my position.

Until then, Jerry is just demanding that this discussion continue it redundancy when I have already prophesied of its conclusion:

1.

Using genreally accepted definitions, it can be reasonably and properly concluded that Acts 11:15-17 DOES NOT very clearly state that Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism.

2.

Using the peculiar definitions preferred by Jerry D. McDonald, and accepting his assumptions regarding Cornelius and Holy Spirit baptism, Jerry may be allowed his fantasy that Acts 11:15-17 very clearly states that Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism.

I will make a few additional observations regarding some of Jerry’s other comments.

Jerry wrote:

> Did I use passages other than Acts
> 11:15-17 to prove that Cornelius
> received Holy Spirit baptism?

> Yes, I did…

Well, Jerry didn’t prove Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism, but that is irrelevant to this issue. That Cornelius may have received Holy Spirit baptism would not prove that such was very clearly stated in Acts 11:15-17.

Jerry’s claim admits to his failure to demonstrate that Acts 11:15-17, standing alone, contains any very clear statement, the means by which what is stated is conveyed, that Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism.

Jerry writes:

> Robert seems to be making himself
> clear that he doesn’t believe that you
> can use one passage of scripture to
> prove another.

That that might “seem” to be the case to Jerry is further evidence that Jerry is the one who cannot comprehend his failure to prove up proposition

Jerry’s resort to having to use some other passage to try and prove what he tries to deduce from Acts 11:15-17, where his conclusion IS NOT very clearly stated, amounts to Jerry’s admission of failure in this discussion

Jerry writes:

> There was nothing in the proposition
> or anywhere else that would forbid
> me from using any other passage in
> the Bible to prove my case.

Wasn’t there?

Inherent in the proposition, using generally accepted and quite reasonable definitions, is the implication that a very clearl statement, the means by which that which is stated is conveyed, does not allow for resort to other texts to prove an interpretation of the Acts 11:15-17 text in order to claim the interpretation is the same as what is very clearly stated.

Jerry writes:

> I wasn’t aware that I had to use
> Robert’s “generally accepted
> definitions. .”

Jerry doesn’t have to, and he hasn’t.

However, using peculiar definitions, assumptions, and interpretations as a substitute for proving and accepting what is very clearly stated in the text isn’t going to fool too many around here.

And so, as noted above, this discussion has really come to a reasonable end on the basis noted above, though we may humor Jerry further with the continued redundancy of noting the manner by which he has failed to prove his proposition using generally accepted definitions and common sense.

Jerry writes:

> So now maybe Robert will deal
> with my questions and arguments
> since my definitions have been
> made more to his likings.

By generally accepted definition, and given the undisputed statement of the text, Jerry cannot prove his proposition.

Jerry’s questions and arguments are not relevant to this discussion and need not be dealt with.

If Jerry wants to seriously consider negotiating mutually agreeable definitions that will convince him that he cannot prevail in this discussion, I will consider engaging in that discussion.

Otherwise, see above for the reasonable resolution of this discussion, except for necessary redundancies that may be called for should Jerry D. McDonald not accept such reasonable conclusion.

Jerry says I don’t like to debate.

Maybe not, I like to solve problems.

Jerry apparently is the one who likes to debate, regardless of the fact that he takes up losing propositions and simply refuses to respond to reason and concede his loses when they are clearly evident; such as in this case.

As in such cases, this discussion is not so much about convincing Jerry, but rather allowing him to demonstrate such problems as he and his kind suffer from when considering even the simplest of important, public, fundamental biblical issues of interest.

So, in the final analysis, it looks like I win another one against Jerry! :o)

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

 

Categories: Uncategorized

McDonald’s Third Affirmative

July 25, 2011 1 comment

Before I get into responding to Robert’s second rebuttal, I want to deal with something that was brought up on the One Heart In Christ list the statement was made:

To be baptized in the Spirit is to be overwhelmed/ completely empowered (submerged, immersed, etc.) but with what? The person of the Holy Spirit, or the power given of (from) the Spirit? The evidence clearly suggests power – miraculous power (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8; John 14,15,16; Acts 2). To be given the Spirit was to be given power. Again, metonymy is used.”

Now while we agree that the immersion in the Holy Spirit was miraculous power, there were those who received miraculous power (received the Holy Spirit) who did not receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. These people could not be said to have received the Holy Spirit AS the apostles had IN THE BEGINNING on the day of Pentecost. Why? Because these others always received the Holy Spirit by the laying on of an apostle’s hands. In the case of the Apostles, the Holy Spirit came directly from heaven. In the case of Cornelius the Holy Spirit came from heaven. The baptism of the Holy Spirit did not signify that the apostles would have all nine spiritual gifts; the baptism of the Holy Spirit was in fulfillment to the prophecy of the prophet Joel for both the Jew and Gentile. The Jewish part of this prophecy was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost of Acts 2 and the Gentile part was fulfilled when the Spirit was poured out on Cornelius and his house.

Now let’s get into Robert’s second rebuttal.

Baty

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”.

McDonald

I am not asking anyone to humor me; I am simply asking that Robert live up to his obligations as the rebuttal writer in this debate. Did I use passages other than Acts 11:15-17 to prove that Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism? Yes, I did, I used the prophecy of Joel in Joel 2:28-32. I used Acts 2:14-21. I then used Acts 10:44-46. Then I used Acts 11:15-17. I pointed out that Peter told the brethren in Jerusalem that as he began to speak the Holy Ghost fell on Cornelius and his household as (just like) he did on the apostles in the beginning (on the day of Pentecost). Robert seems to be making himself clear that he doesn’t believe that you can use one passage of scripture to prove another. Perhaps he thinks that each passage must stand on its own merit. This seems to be the idea that he is setting forth. I did show that Acts 11:15-17 very clearly stated that Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism. I was allowed to use all the evidence at my disposal to show that. There was nothing in the proposition or anywhere else that would forbid me from using any other passage in the Bible to prove my case.


Baty:

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.

McDonald

He continues to deny that I have provided evidence that proves my proposition. Now he wants me to use “generally accepted definitions.” Well, well, well. When did that rule sneak in there? I wasn’t aware that I had to use Robert’s “generally accepted definitions.” What was so wrong with the last set of definitions that I used? Hmm, let’s see…how about I go back and re-define “very clearly stated” according to the dictionary? You think that this would make Robert any difference? Nah, but we’ll do it anyway just so he won’t have anything further to complain about.

The Proposition: “It is very clearly stated in Acts 11:15-17 that Cornelius was baptized in the Holy Spirit.”

1. “It is very clearly stated….” The word “very” means “true or real” (Webster’s Dictionary, E-Sword). The word “clearly” means “in a clear manner” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, p. 230). The word “clear” means “free from obscurity or ambiguity” (Ibid, p. 229). The word “stated” means: “expressed, or told” (Webster’s Dictionary, E-Sword).

2. “…in Acts 11:15-17 that Cornelius…” when one looks at Acts 11:15-17 there can be no doubt as to who Peter was talking about. He was not talking about some one other than Cornelius and his household from whence he had just come.

3. “…was baptized in the Holy Spirit.” Now Robert’s original proposition had the word “baptized” spelled “baptised” which I believe to be in error, so I changed the “s” to “z.” Being baptized in the Holy Spirit was equivalent to receiving Holy Spirit baptism. Robert can make a lot of noise if he pleases about the word “in” but when it comes right down to it, the whole thing has reference to receiving Holy Spirit baptism.

4. So what we have very simply put is that it is very clearly stated in Acts 11:15-17 that Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism. This is what I will be affirming.

Now this definition should please Robert just fine. I mean these are commonly used definitions. They came from the dictionary and the dictionary is made up of words that we commonly use and the definitions that are used are usually common definitions unless it is specified otherwise, an example might be “archaic.” So now maybe Robert will deal with my questions and arguments since my definitions have been made more to his likings.


Baty
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.

McDonald

I have conceded nothing. I have given in to Robert’s whims about the definitions so we can get this debate going. He says he has successfully rebutted my affirmative claim, but he hasn’t even begun to rebut my claim. Here it is my third affirmative and he hasn’t even answered my questions in my first affirmative yet. He says that I should have known that all of this would take place before by refusing to negotiate in mutually agreeable definitions. I don’t recall any invitation from him to discuss agreeable definitions. What I remember is that I had to agree to his proposition, and when I did that he said that he would be waiting for my first affirmative. Now he wants to talk about negotiating the definitions. One thing that I have found out about Robert is, that he likes to talk about debating and he likes to negotiate, but he doesn’t like to actually debate.

Robert said, “Jerry, despite previously claiming the issues weren’t worth debating…” as though I go around saying one thing and doing another. But let us recall why this debate is going on in the first place. I do believe it is because Robert started sending notices to Marion about posts that were being made on the Church of Christ Banned list on the subject of Cornelius’ reception of Holy Spirit baptism. I was trying to stay out of it, and had even told Robert good bye and removed myself from his list. I remember him saying “We’ll see.” I would love to get away from him, but he doesn’t want that. Anyway I set my email on the CoCBanned list to webmail and was doing just fine when I got the following email from Robert:

“I might add this by way of further explanation.

The preachers Terry W. Benton (Pine Lane church), David B. Willis (Indy church), Jerry D. McDonald (OABS student and Belle, MO church), George A. Jackson, and Max Burgin (Australia church) have recently talked tough as to their claim that Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism and just how wrong I am to think otherwise.

I’ve had considerable trouble getting them to all clearly state their agreement with me that the scriputes DO NOT “clearly state” such a thing as a preliminary to a serious discussion of whether the scriptures actually teach the Holy Spirit baptism of Cornelius.

In the course of those discussions, some of the above indicated their interest in “debating” the issue, though clearly indicating they weren’t up to dealing with my simple, preferred, step by step course for considering such an important, public, biblical issue.

So Marion has come to propose that he would welcome those fellows, and any others, who had a serious interest in considering the matter for a discussion here.

The above have been given Marion’s invitation.

Will they “come out”?

We will see!

My thanks to Marion for his willingness to engage in the discussion and extend his invitation to my adversaries regarding this issue.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

———— —Marion’ s Message—– ——-

To: One Heart
From: Marion Fox
Subject: [OneheartinChrist] Cornelius and the baptismin the Holy Spirit
Date: Friday, December 19, 2008 7:23 PM

There has been a request by e-mail that we discuss the question of whether or not Cornelius received the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

You will all remember that the 2005 Lectures at the Soutside church in Lubbock, Texas had two different men speaking on this question.

Jerry Brewer was trying to defend the truth, but he did a terrible job in defending the truth. Go to the following link to see their arguments:

http://www.oabs. org/Archives/ Lectures/ Lubbock2005. htm

You might also note that I debated this matter more than 20 years ago (Fox-Rogers Debate). I have also written on it extensively in my two volumes: The Work of the Holy Spirit, Vols. I & II.

Did Cornelius receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit or not?

Yours in His service,
Marion R. Fox”

As hard as I try to stay away from Robert, he just keeps finding ways to reel me back in. So, I came on to the One Heart In Christ list and Marion and I started discussing the possibility of a debate between us. However, I was not going to let it rest that Robert had had trouble getting me to debate him on this issue. So I sent the following email to him.

Robert you know that you have never had any problem getting me to debate you on anything. The problem you have is getting me to play your silly mind games. All anyone has to do is to go to my website at http://www.challeng e2.org and click on current exchanges to see that you and I have debated and are still engaged in a written debate. As far my not participating on the CoCbanned list on the Cornelius HSBaptism subject is concerned is because it has come down to “you said this” and “I did not.” You and Max are doing nothing but going back and forth with each other and are not getting anywhere on this. If you truly want to debate me on it sign a proposition and debate me on THIS list and let Marion moderate. We will see just how unwilling I am to debate!

And so we see, this is how Robert wants to debate. He won’t deal with questions. He won’t deal with arguments. He won’t deal with what his opponent actually says. He only wants to talk about debating. He likes to negotiate and argue about things, but he doesn’t actually want to do any real debating.


Baty

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

McDonald

Anything I have to say is going to be considered as irrelevant as far as Robert is concerned because he cannot deal with what I have brought before him. Well, I have used commonly used definitions. So let us wait and see if he will now deal with the arguments and questions as I have given them. I predict that he will find some other excuse for not dealing with them.

Robert did go back and respond to something that I wrote in my second affirmative so we will look at it now.

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”.

McDonald

Most of the Baptists that I have ever known have denied that baptism was for the remission of sins and that Acts 2:38 clearly states that. In the Jackson Ross debate in 1991, in Austin, TX Ross spent night after night denying that baptism was for the remission of sins and when Bill compared the greek phrase “eis aphesis hamartia” (for the remission of sins — in English) in Acts 2:38, to that same Greek phrase in Mt. 26:28, Ross cried with tears in his eyes begging Brother Jackson not to compare the two together. Of course they deny that Acts 2:38 states that baptism is for the remission of sins. Many Baptists look at the word “eis” as being improperly translated in Acts 2:38 and would rather see the translation of “because of” remission of sins. Bob Ross has his own twist on the word “for” which is basically the English equivalent to the same argument they have been arguing for on the Greek “eis” all along. Again Robert only uses part of what I said. I said “For remission of sins.” He only wants “remission of sins,” there. He knows that if the word “for” is there, there is a dispute and he has nothing to complain about. This is Robert!

Baty:
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

McDonald

The Holy Spirit of baptism of Cornelius in Acts 11:15-17 is just as clearly stated as the remission of Sins in Acts 2:38, Robert just doesn’t want to see it. It is a matter of Robert will not admit error on a position. He just isn’t going to do that. He is big on putting Matthew 7:1,2 and James 3:1 up for brethren to read, but maybe he needs to read them himself.

Now I will await Robert’s response

In Christ Jesus

Jerry D. McDonald  

Baty’s Third Rebuttal

 

Categories: Uncategorized

Addendum To Baty’s Second Rebuttal

July 25, 2011 Leave a comment

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    

McDonald’s Third Affirmative

Categories: Uncategorized

Baty’s Second Rebuttal

July 10, 2011 Leave a comment

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

Addendum to Baty’s Second Rebuttal

McDonald’s Third Affirmative

Back

Categories: Uncategorized

McDonald’s Second Affirmative

July 10, 2011 1 comment

I want to thank Robert for responding to my first affirmative on this issue. Before I get into responding to his rebuttal, however, there are a few things that I want to bring up. Robert did nothing but attack what he thought was a flaw in my definition of the proposition. Now I can see the validity of that strategy, but to just let it stop there isn’t sufficient. I have always thought that if you believed that your opponent’s definition of his proposition is flawed you need to attack that, but you also need to go on and respond to the rest of the article or speech. If you notice, however, he did not deal with a single question; he did not deal with my main argument. He did not deal with any of the elements of the arguments. Did he deal with element number four where Peter said “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, AS ON US AT THE BEGINNING”? No, he did not even bother to deal with it. All he did was to attack what he thought he could handle and that was the definition of “very clearly stated” in the proposition. I told you in my first affirmative that he was going to do just that didn’t I? Didn’t I say:

“Now Robert will likely demand that I produce the specific words “Cornelius was baptized in the Holy Spirit” in those verse, but the proposition doesn’t demand that I use those specific words. The proposition does say: “It is specifically stated in Acts 11:15-17 that Cornelius was baptized in the Holy Spirit.” Had he wanted that proposition I would not have agreed to defend it. However “specifically stated” is not the same as “very clearly stated” because a thing can be very clearly stated without being specifically stated”?

And here he is doing exactly that! Robert needs to go back and deal with my questions and my entire article and when he does, he will see that I have proved my proposition beyond a reasonable doubt. He didn’t attack the questions because he couldn’t. He didn’t attack the argument because he couldn’t. He didn’t attack the elements of the argument because he couldn’t. The only thing he thought he could attack was the definition of the proposition, and he couldn’t even do that right. Now let’s notice his rebuttal.

Baty:

The proposition:

> It is very clearly stated in Acts 11:15-17
> that Cornelius was baptized in the Holy
> Spirit.

I, Robert Baty, have denied the above and will now demonstrate the failure of my
opponent to establish his affirmative claim regarding the above proposition.

My earlier prophesy regarding the “conclusion of the matter” is being fulfilled
as this discussion evolves.

My opponent claims that:

> “It is very clearly stated…” simply
> means that it is stated so clearly
> that it easily attainable by anyone
> who looks at it.

No, that is not what “very clearly stated” means.

Here are what some relevant terms actually mean as they apply to the question
under consideration:

State:

> to express the particulars of in words.

Statement:

> a single declaration; the act or
> process of stating.

Clear:

> all the way.

Very:

> in actual fact; being exactly as stated.

“Being easily attainable” is NOT what “very clearly stated” means.

If the best that my opponent can do is argue that the conclusion he desires is
“attainable”, easily or not, from what is “very clearly stated” in the passage
under consideration, then he has, in effect, conceded that his position has
failed.

McDonald

Now let us look at the proposition:

It is very clearly statement???? Where did the word statement come from? It wasn’t in the proposition that Robert demanded that I affirm. No, this was an addition that Robert has added since this debate has started. I told you that he would want a specific statement, but that was not going to be the case, and I was not going to play that game. The word “stated” is the word that is part of the proposition, and by definition the word means: “StatedSTATED, pp. 1. Expressed or represented; told; recited. 2. a. Settled; established; regular; occurring at regular times; not occasional; as stated hours of business. 3. Fixed; established; as a stated salary” (Webster, E-Sword). Now he wants to use only one definition and that is a statement, however, the word stated can be used as “settled,” “established,” and it can also be used as “represented” or “expressed,” “told,” or “recited.” Anyone of those definitions will fit my proposition without there having to be a specific written statement. It is very clearly represented, or it is very clearly expressed. We can say it is very clearly told, or it is very clearly recited. We can also say that it is very clearly settled, or it is very clearly established. Don’t play word games with me Robert, this isn’t my first debate.

The word “very” means:

“VeryVER’Y, a. [L. verus.] True; real. Whether thou be my very son Esau or not. Gen 27. He that repeateth a matter, separateth very friends. Prov 17. VER’Y, adv. As an adverb, or modifier of adjectives and adverbs, very denotes in a great degree, an eminent or high degree, but not generally the highest; as a very great mountain; a very bright sun; a very cold day; a very pernicious war; a very benevolent disposition; the river flows very rapidly” (Webster’s E-Sword).

So the word means true or real. And the word clearly means “in a clear manner” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, p.230). So in looking at the definition of my proposition it can be seen that my proposition was defined as follows:

“1. ‘It is very clearly stated…’ simply means that it is stated so clearly that it easily attainable by anyone who looks at it. It is not ambiguous. It is not hidden. There is no secret involved. One can look at what the text says and through the process of deduction see what it clearly has to say” (First Affirmative).

Robert says that “easily attainable” is not part of the definition as though the word “attainable” was meant as part of the words clearly stated. The word attainable was used to modify the fact that it was clear, so clear that anyone could look at it and see what it had to say. It was not ambiguous, it was not hidden, and there was no secret involved. Again, Robert, don’t play word games with me. I have had people tell me that I am easy to understand and I speak and write very plainly, and I guess that is true. The truth of the matter is that my proposition was so clearly defined that Robert would have to have helped to have misunderstood it. There is no way that anyone could have misunderstood what that definition had to say. The only reason that Robert spent his entire article picking on that part of the definition is because he had nothing to combat the rest of the article to which he was obligated to respond.


Baty:
That my opponent is aware that he is aware of his inability to establish his
case, using generally accepted definitions, is reflected in his following
comments:

> Now Robert will likely demand that
> I produce the specific words

>> “Cornelius was baptized in
>> the Holy Spirit”

> in those verses, but the proposition
> doesn’t demand that I use those
> specific words.

It is not my position in this discussion to make such demands, but rather simply
note the failure of my opponent to meet his obligation to prove that the text

> very clearly states that Cornelius
> was baptized in the Holy Spirit.

The issue does not involve whether Cornelius was baptized in the Holy Spirit or
whether such conclusion is simply “attainable” from the text.

The issue is whether or not the text

> very clearly states that Cornelius
> was baptized in the Holy Spirit.

McDonald

I wrote out five questions for Robert to answer, and we saw what he did with them. That’s right, he ignored them. He likes to talk about Thomas Warren a lot (as though has his back on everything), but Brother Warren always used questions as a matter of showing the weakness of his opponent’s position. He would then tell the audience to watch his opponent to see how he would handle those questions. Now I am glad to see brother Hightower on this list (a long time friend of mine), a man who Brother Warren mentored because he can affirm that this was Brother Warren’s position. So I gave Robert five questions. They were as follows:

Questions:

1. In Acts 11:15-17 was Peter discussing anyone other than Cornelius and his household?

2. In Acts 11:16 did Peter not say that he remembered how that the Lord had told them “John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost”?

3. In Acts 11:15 did Peter not say that while he spoke the Holy Ghost fell on those of the household of Cornelius?

4. In Acts 11:17 did Peter not say “For as much as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God”?

5. Was Peter not talking about the reception of the baptism of the Holy Spirit followed by the miraculous gift of speaking in tongues?

Now what did Robert do with these questions? Did he come out and answer them? No! Did he refer to them at all? No! Did he even promise to deal with them in future rebuttals? No! I remember attending the Warren-Barnhart debate in Denton, TX. I remember Brother Warren asking Dr. Barnhart question after question, and I remember Dr. Barnhart just ignoring those questions night after night, and on the third night, I went to the stage during one of the breaks and asked Dr. Barnhart why he was ignoring Brother Warren’s questions. His answer was: “How long have you been in the church of Christ?” I said, “I was raised in it.” He said “Man you have it hard don’t you.” I then replied “that doesn’t answer my question.” He then turned and walked away. I caught, out of the corner of my eye, Brother Warren grinning. He knew about Barnhart, what I know about Baty, for Baty to answer the questions that I have asked would cause him to have to surrender his position. Thus, he refuses to answer. However, to make it appear as if he is keeping up his end of the debate he will try to pick apart my definition of the proposition, but he hasn’t even done a decent job of that.

He said that I was aware of my inability to establish my case because I said that he would want a specific statement. No, I just know Robert! I have debated him before, and I know his tactics. Farrell Till and I have debated more than once and when I make prophecies about his tactics and they come true he often makes similar excuses to hide the fact that he has done exactly as I said he would. I have debated Robert in two other debates, both of which can be found at http://www.challenge2.org/current_exchanges and the second is, shall we say, still on going. (Now before anyone jumps to conclusion and blames Robert, it isn’t his fault. That is my fault. While he did decide to continue the exchanges after I thought we were going to stop after a specified number, I am the one who decided to give him a 100,000 word article, and then my health went very, very south. I ended up not being able to use my right hand for two months without a hand brace, and I wore a knee brace for three months because a migraine constricted the main artery in my head and shut off the blood supply to my brain long enough to shut down functions in the right side of my body. I am much better now, but it has taken a lot of therapy to get back to normal. I wasn’t able to type normally until about the end of October. I have spells and small strokes before, but when I heard the paramedic say that the pupil in my right eye was not responding to light, I knew that I was in trouble. So don’t blame Robert for that second debate continuing as long as it has. I will get around to finishing it as time allows.)

He says that it is not his job to make demands but to simply point out my failure to meet my obligation to prove the text. Well, he is right about that, it is not his job to make demands. It is his job to point out my failures to meet my obligations to prove my proposition from the text. However, he has not done that! How can he do that without dealing with the questions and arguments that I have given? There is no way that he is going to be able to prove that I have not met my obligations in proving my proposition from the text if he doesn’t deal with the arguments I made from the text. He rightly states what his obligation is and is not, but then goes contrary to what that obligation is and does exactly the opposite. He demands that I provide a specific statement that Cornelius was baptized in the Holy Spirit. Note what he has said:

“The issue does not involve whether Cornelius was baptized in the Holy Spirit or
whether such conclusion is simply “attainable” from the text.

The issue is whether or not the text

> very clearly states that Cornelius
> was baptized in the Holy Spirit” (Baty’s First Rebuttal).

Now when we go back and we look at how he has replaced the word “stated” with “statement” we can see that he wants a specific statement that says “Cornelius was baptized in the Holy Spirit.” This is why I asked the questions, and this is why Robert refused to answer those questions. Had Robert dealt with those questions, he would have had to have agreed that Cornelius was the subject under discussion here, and no one else. Robert will not deal with that, and this debate will close before you see him do so. Did questions 2 and 3 not deal with Peter telling how while he was speaking to Cornelius’ household the Holy Spirit fell on them and he remembered the words of Jesus who had said “John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost”? Did Robert deal with those questions? No! Did I not make arguments on the fact that the Holy Spirit fell on the household of Cornelius as (just like) he did on the Apostles at the beginning (on the day of Pentecost? We are agreed that at that point, on Pentecost, that this was Holy Spirit baptism, so what is different with Cornelius? In both cases the Holy Spirit came directly. In every other case the Spirit came through the laying on of an apostle’s hands; the miraculous endowment only. However, in these two instances, the Holy Spirit was given directly and it was directly accompanied by the miraculous gift of speaking in tongues. Did Robert deal with any of that? No, he didn’t!


Baty
Using generally accepted definitions as noted above, it is most reasonable to
conclude that the text

> DOES NOT very clearly state
> that Cornelius was baptized
> in the Holy Spirit.

One of Jerry’s preaching brethren recently published a principle dealing with
this very issue. I have labeled it the “parable principle”.

Following is the link and the relevant text, with authorship noted:

———————————-

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkingTinroad6g-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.pinelanechurchofchrist.com

————————————

My further comments:

The application of Benton’s “parable principle” to the present discussion is
that

> if the Holy Spirit baptism of
> Cornelius was very clearly
> stated in the text, there
> would be no room for dispute.

The testimony offered by my opponent is evidence itself that there is room for
dispute regarding the claim that Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism and,
more fundamentally, that there is room for dispute that

> it is very clearly stated in Acts 11:15-17
> that Cornelius was baptized in the Holy
> Spirit.

Were it very clearly stated in the text, we would not be having this discussion
and my opponent would not be priming himself to discuss the ensuing matter of
whether, in fact, Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism.

McDonald

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. Actually what should be stated is that if it is very clearly stated in Acts 11:15-17 that Cornelius was baptized in the Holy Spirit there is no legitimate room for dispute. I have found, however, that some people will argue in the face of evidence regardless. This is what Robert is doing. He has refused to deal with the questions that I have asked. He has refused to deal with my argument. He has refused to deal with the elements of that argument. He picked one little part of my proposition and thought he had knocked the props out of it. Sorry he hasn’t even begun. All he has done is to stub his big toe.


Baty

My opponent writes:

> One can look at what the text
> says and through the process
> of deduction see what it clearly
> has to say.

If one has to go through a process of deduction in order to infer such a
conclusion as desired by my opponent, it is an admission that what is desired
for the text to very clearly state is NOT very clearly stated by the text.

Note the following generally accepted definition:

> Inference:

>> the act of passing from one
>> statement considered as true
>> to another whose truth is
>> believed to follow from that
>> of the former.

That’s the kind of process my opponent is suggesting in order that readers of
the text might “attain” the same conclusion my opponent wishes to reach.

The problem is that such reliance on such process is, implicitly, an admission
that the text DOES NOT very clearly state what is alleged.

McDonald:

We all have to go through a process of deduction to see what anything has to say. We have to go through principles of interpretation to read and understand anything, even the newspaper. Can you imagine the confusion in this world if people didn’t go through the process of deduction to see what something, that was written, had to say. Robert seems to think that if something is learned by inference that it is not clear because it is the act of passing from one statement considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former. In other words, if something is implied, it is not clear. Ok, let us look at the following verses:

“For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood” (Heb 7:12-14).

Now one of the things that I learned from studying the works of Thomas B. Warren (and I didn’t have the opportunities to sit at his feet as brother Hightower did), was that those things that are taught implicitly are just as true, factual and binding as those things that are taught explicitly. And I am going to go out on a limb here and assume that clear go along with that. Is it not clearly stated that under the law of Moses Jesus Christ could not be the High Priest? Is that not a clear establishment? Is it not clearly settled here in the above verses?

Again, I did not promise a specific statement, I merely promised to provide evidence that clearly establishes the fact that Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism. I am sorry my opponent was not up to the job, but he shouldn’t have challenged me in this debate if he wasn’t ready to do the job. I was taught a long time ago to never challenge some one to a debate unless you were sure you could finish the job. Robert needs to remember that.


Baty
My opponent wrote:

> I will consider this debate a sort
> of pre-debate for the one with
> Brother Fox which will take place
> later on.

Should my opponent meet his obligation and prove his proposition, there will be
no need for a debate with Marion, for I am sure that Marion will accept the fact
of Cornelius’ Holy Spirit baptism should my opponent prove that the text very
clearly states such as the fact of the matter.

McDonald

I have met my obligation in this debate. I have asked questions to Robert to see how he would handle them, and we saw. He didn’t! I made an argument with elements and he didn’t even bother with them. Whether I meet my obligation with Robert or not has nothing to do with whether there will be a need for a debate with Marion. As I said, I am using this as a sort of pre-debate (or practice run) for a debate with Marion which is to take place at a later date. I know that Marion is going to give me much more of a challenge than Robert has or will.


Baty

While my opponent and others may conclude that I have failed to rebut my
opponent’s claim, as my opponent has already indicated, it is unlikely that my
more skilled brethren are going to be accepting my opponent’s unfounded,
unreasonable claim that the text itself “very clearly states” the conclusion he
proposes we should reach.

As prophesied before this discussion began, my opponent is, by definition,
guaranteed to failure.

My opponent did not disappoint the prophecy.

If my opponent wishes to now put this debate on hold, while we debate the
mutually acceptable definition of the terms relevant to the proposition, he is
welcome to do so.

McDonald

Now, he wants to put this debate on hold? I don’t think so! What is there to debate in terms of the proposition. This is the only proposition he said he said he would debate. I tried another proposition, but he wouldn’t have it. Other people have tried other propositions, and he wouldn’t have them. This was the only one he would have, and now he wants to do away with it and change to another one! Why? I say we go ahead and finish this one! I do not like changing propositions once we have begun, that just isn’t the way things are done. I am not changing my definitions one bit. They stay as written, so just live with it!

Baty
However, based on generally accepted definitions, such as I have provided, my
opponent has failed to prove his proposition and I have shown that his own,
misleading definitions, cannot and should not be accepted for purposes of
deciding the issue at hand.

My opponent’s definitions are, in effect, merely a way to evade the proposition
under consideration and force the issue to be decided by considering other
matters not pertinent to the actual proposition under consideration.

McDonald

I have not failed to prove anything. Robert has failed to deal with my arguments and questions. Let him deal with those things. My definitions are just fine, and I will allow them to stand just as they are. They are not in any way evading the proposition under consideration. They are not forcing the issue to be decided by considering other matters not pertinent to the actual proposition under consideration. As I said in one of my earlier posts, he isn’t Peter Ruckman, and I won’t allow him to tie me down to one verse. I will use all the verses at my disposal. Yes, I will use Joel’s prophecy, I will use Acts 2, and Acts 10. All of those are very clearly connected to the matter pertaining to the proposition. This is a trick that false teachers like to use, just tie the opposition down to one passage and don’t let him go to any other passage for an explanation. Well, you can’t do that with Acts chapter 11 otherwise it has no meaning, and Robert knows that, or at least he should know it. If he doesn’t know it, then this may explain why he is so wrong on so many other passages of scriptures. If Robert’s last statement really is the way he feels, then Robert has no idea about how to interpret the Bible, or anything else that is written.


Baty

My opponent indicates a desire to discuss whether, in fact, Cornelius was Holy
Spirit baptised.

That, however, is not the issue and would not be an issue if my opponent’s
proposition could be established.

My opponent’s proposition, based on his first affirmative, fails, by definition!

My rebuttal, bolstered by my opponents own admissions and analysis, demonstrates
that

> “It IS NOT very clearly stated in
> Acts 11:15-17 that Cornelius was
> baptized in the Holy Spirit.”

Now, I await my opponent’s decision on discontinuing the discussion while we
fuss about definitions or his decision to proceed as if he had anything new to
offer relating to the proposition other than a further showing that the problem
is with his failure to accept generally accepted and relevant definitions.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

McDonald

I have already presented a presentable case for Cornelius having received Holy Spirit baptism. My opponent, in this debate, however has not even scratched the surface by way of denying what I have presented. My affirmative has not failed, it still stands. I still continue the discussion. My definitions continue to stay as they are. If Robert plans on arguing over the definition of the words of my proposition that is his right, but he also is obligated to deal with the rest of my article just as surely as I would be if he was in the affirmative and I was in the negative. I have dealt with his article as he has given it, now surely, surely, he can see that he is obligated to deal with all of mine. He is way behind now because now instead of just having one article to which he has to respond, he now has two. So Robert, you need to get busy and quit playing around.

In Christ Jesus

Jerry D. McDonald

Baty’s Second Rebuttal

Back

Categories: Uncategorized

Baty’s First Rebuttal

July 10, 2011 2 comments

The proposition:

> It is very clearly stated in Acts 11:15-17
> that Cornelius was baptized in the Holy
> Spirit.

I, Robert Baty, have denied the above and will now demonstrate the failure of my opponent to establish his affirmative claim regarding the above proposition.

My earlier prophesy regarding the “conclusion of the matter” is being fulfilled as this discussion evolves.

My opponent claims that:

> “It is very clearly stated…” simply
> means that it is stated so clearly
> that it easily attainable by anyone
> who looks at it.

No, that is not what “very clearly stated” means.

Here are what some relevant terms actually mean as they apply to the question under consideration:

State:

> to express the particulars of in words.

Statement:

> a single declaration; the act or
> process of stating.

Clear:

> all the way.

Very:

> in actual fact; being exactly as stated.

“Being easily attainable” is NOT what “very clearly stated” means.

If the best that my opponent can do is argue that the conclusion he desires is “attainable” , easily or not, from what is “very clearly stated” in the passage under consideration, then he has, in effect, conceded that his position has failed.

That my opponent is aware that he is aware of his inability to establish his case, using generally accepted definitions, is reflected in his following comments:

> Now Robert will likely demand that
> I produce the specific words

>> “Cornelius was baptized in
>> the Holy Spirit”

> in those verses, but the proposition
> doesn’t demand that I use those
> specific words.

It is not my position in this discussion to make such demands, but rather simply note the failure of my opponent to meet his obligation to prove that the text

> very clearly states that Cornelius
> was baptized in the Holy Spirit.

The issue does not involve whether Cornelius was baptized in the Holy Spirit or whether such conclusion is simply “attainable” from the text.

The issue is whether or not the text

> very clearly states that Cornelius
> was baptized in the Holy Spirit.

Using generally accepted definitions as noted above, it is most reasonable to conclude that the text

> DOES NOT very clearly state
> that Cornelius was baptized
> in the Holy Spirit.

One of Jerry’s preaching brethren recently published a principle dealing with this very issue. I have labeled it the “parable principle”.

Following is the link and the relevant text, with authorship noted:

———— ——— ——— —-

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

———— ——— ——— ——

My further comments:

The application of Benton’s “parable principle” to the present discussion is that

> if the Holy Spirit baptism of
> Cornelius was very clearly
> stated in the text, there
> would be no room for dispute.

The testimony offered by my opponent is evidence itself that there is room for dispute regarding the claim that Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism and, more fundamentally, that there is room for dispute that

> it is very clearly stated in Acts 11:15-17
> that Cornelius was baptized in the Holy
> Spirit.

Were it very clearly stated in the text, we would not be having this discussion and my opponent would not be priming himself to discuss the ensuing matter of whether, in fact, Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism.

My opponent writes:

> One can look at what the text
> says and through the process
> of deduction see what it clearly
> has to say.

If one has to go through a process of deduction in order to infer such a conclusion as desired by my opponent, it is an admission that what is desired for the text to very clearly state is NOT very clearly stated by the text.

Note the following generally accepted definition:

> Inference:

>> the act of passing from one
>> statement considered as true
>> to another whose truth is
>> believed to follow from that
>> of the former.

That’s the kind of process my opponent is suggesting in order that readers of the text might “attain” the same conclusion my opponent wishes to reach.

The problem is that such reliance on such process is, implicitly, an admission that the text DOES NOT very clearly state what is alleged.

My opponent wrote:

> I will consider this debate a sort
> of pre-debate for the one with
> Brother Fox which will take place
> later on.

Should my opponent meet his obligation and prove his proposition, there will be no need for a debate with Marion, for I am sure that Marion will accept the fact of Cornelius’ Holy Spirit baptism should my opponent prove that the text very clearly states such as the fact of the matter.

While my opponent and others may conclude that I have failed to rebut my opponent’s claim, as my opponent has already indicated, it is unlikely that my more skilled brethren are going to be accepting my opponent’s unfounded, unreasonable claim that the text itself “very clearly states” the conclusion he proposes we should reach.

As prophesied before this discussion began, my opponent is, by definition, guaranteed to failure.

My opponent did not disappoint the prophecy.

If my opponent wishes to now put this debate on hold, while we debate the mutually acceptable definition of the terms relevant to the proposition, he is welcome to do so.

However, based on generally accepted definitions, such as I have provided, my opponent has failed to prove his proposition and I have shown that his own, misleading definitions, cannot and should not be accepted for purposes of deciding the issue at hand.

My opponent’s defintions are, in effect, merely a way to evade the proposition under consideration and force the issue to be decided by considering other matters not pertinent to the actual proposition under consideration.

My opponent indicates a desire to discuss whether, in fact, Cornelius was Holy Spirit baptised.

That, however, is not the issue and would not be an issue if my opponent’s proposition could be established.

My opponent’s proposition, based on his first affirmative, fails, by definition!

My rebuttal, bolstered by my opponents own admissions and analysis, demonstrates that

> t IS NOT very clearly stated in
> Acts 11:15-17 that Cornelius was
> baptized in the Holy Spirit.”

Now, I await my opponent’s decision on discontinuing the discussion while we fuss about definitions or his decision to proceed as if he had anything new to offer relating to the proposition other than a further showing that the problem is with his failure to accept generally accepted and relevant definitions.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

McDonald’s Second Affirmative

Back

Categories: Uncategorized