Home > Uncategorized > McDonald’s Third Affirmative

McDonald’s Third Affirmative

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

 

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: