Written Debates

McDonald -V- Preston Debate: McDonald's First Affirmative

McDonald’s First Affirmative

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Brother Preston, and reading audience:

Some time before Jesus left this earth, he had his apostles with him, and he said “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also” (Joh 14:1-3).  Shortly after he rose from the dead, he ascended into heaven to begin preparations for that abode.  Luke tells us “And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Act 1:10-11).  Notice what the angels said to them “why stand ye gazing up into heaven?  This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven shall come again in LIKE MANNER as ye have seen him go into heaven.”  Now the question comes to mind:  “How did the apostles see Jesus go up into heaven?”  If you look at Acts 1:9 you see “And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.” He was taken up from them in a cloud.  The second question that comes to mind is:  “Was this a literal ascension, or a spiritual one?”  Judging by what the angels told the apostles, as well as by what Luke wrote, it was a literal one.

Now the real issue is that if the ascension was literal, and if the angels said that Christ would return, in like manner as they had seen him go” then it stands to reason that the return would be just as literal.  My opponent in this debate will not deny the literal ascension any more than he would deny the literal resurrection of Christ, but the problem comes in when he tries to make the literal resurrection a symbol of some kind of spiritual resurrection for all Christians.  On the same note, he is going to have to say that the literal ascension typified a spiritual return.  However, a spiritual return doesn’t match what the angels said “this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven shall come AGAIN in LIKE MANNER as ye have seen him go into heaven.”

If words have any meaning at all then my opponent is going to have admit that the angels, at least, thought that Christ’s resurrection was going to be a literal resurrection.  There is no escaping that conclusion!  If words have any meaning at all!  If they don’t, then we are wasting our time on this.

Hebrews 9:27,28 states:  “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (Heb 9:27-28).  The writer, here, states that it is appointed unto men, to die one time after which he will face the judgment.  He used this example to show that Christ was offered one time to bear men’s sins, and that those who obey him would look for him to appear again so as to be able to be taken to their promised heavenly abode.  What this tells us is that the second coming of Christ is so important to us, that our very spiritual existence depends upon it.

The problem with my opponent’s doctrine is that it demands that the second coming has already happened, and if that is the case, then we cannot look for him to appear the second time without sin unto salvation.  Look at the chart to see the logic of it.  If we can’t look forward to that, to what can we look forward?  Everything we do in service to God is tied into the second coming, so if the second coming has already occurred then we really have nothing to look forward to.  The Hebrew writer also said “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries” (Heb 10:26-27).  Now, if Christ has already returned then the judgment has already taken place, and if the judgment has already taken place then those who do evil don’t have the judgment to look forward to.  This doctrine effectively makes the Bible of none effect for us today.  Therefore it is my task, in this part of the debate, to show the truth of the matter on the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

THE PROPOSITION:

Resolved: The Bible teaches that the Second Coming of Christ, the resurrection and the Judgment will occur at the end of the current Christian age.

THE PROPOSITION DEFINED

  • ·
  • · “The Bible” refers to the 66 books (the established canon as in versions such as the KJV or ASV) of the Bible (Genesis through Revelation).
  • ·
  • ·
    ·
  • ·
  • ·
  • ·
  • ·
  • ·

So the proposition states that it is determined that the 66 books of the Bible (as a whole) imparts the knowledge to us that the return of our Lord Jesus Christ as promised in Acts 1:11, the literal resurrection of the body from the grave and the final judgment of mankind will happen at the point that the existing Christian dispensation of time ceases to exist.

It is my obligation in this part of the debate to make at least one logically valid and sound argument and to give the elements which will prove this argument to be true.  I shall make one “main” argument called “the Constituent Element” argument:

Major Premise: All total situations, the constituent elements of which are factual are total situations which are true.

Minor Premise: The total situation described by my proposition is a total situation the constituent elements of which are factual.

Conclusion: Therefore, the total situation described by my proposition is a total situation which is true.

The argument is logically valid by both schools of logical thought:  It is valid according to Classical Logic because it is in the correct form, and it is valid according to Modern logic because the consequent follows from the antecedent and thus the conclusion is unquestionably forced.  It is axiomatic!  If all the constituent elements of my argument are factual, then the argument is true.

Let me say, briefly, that you can have different elements all factual and still not have the whole true if the elements don’t relate to each other.  Thus my reasoning for using the word “constituent” in front of “elements.”  By “constituent” I mean  “a structural unit of a definable syntactic, semantic, or phonological category that consists of one or more linguistic elements (as words, morphemes, or features) and that can occur as a component of a larger construction” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constituent).  Another definition would be “an essential part, component…” (Ibid).  So when I prove that all of my component or essential parts of my argument form a larger construction, then my argument will be proven.  When my argument is proven, my proposition is proven.  When my proposition is proven, then my opponent’s proposition is automatically disproven because it is exactly opposite of mine.

ELEMENT ONE

The second coming of christ will be a literal coming.

Both Biblically and logically, the second coming of Jesus Christ is understood to be a literal return.  From looking at the evidence below we can see that it was understood to be so by the early Christians.  The Bible clearly teaches that the second coming was to be literal.

1. It was promised to be a literal coming.

And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Act 1:10-11).

Notice that the angel said two things:

a. “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven.”  The apostles were literally standing and gazing up into heaven because they had seen Jesus literally taken from them into heaven.

b. Then they said “this same Jesus, which was taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner, as ye have seen him go into heaven.”

i. One of the words in “like manner” comes from “ὅς, ἥ, ὅ hos  hē ho hos, hay, ho  Probably a primary word (or perhaps a form of the article G3588); the relative (sometimes demonstrative) pronoun, who, which, what, that: – one, (an-, the) other, some, that, what, which, who (-m, -se), etc. See also G3757” (Strong’s Greek Dictionary, e-Sword).

ii. The other word is “οὕτω houtō hoo’-to Or, before a vowel, οὕτως houtōs hoo’-toce.  From G3778; in this way (referring to what precedes or follows): – after that, after (in) this manner, as, even (so), for all that, like (-wise), no more, on this fashion (-wise), so (in like manner), thus, what” (Ibid).

c. A.T. Robertson wrote:  “So in like manner (houtōs hon tropon). Same idea twice. “So in which manner” (incorporation of antecedent and accusative of general reference). The fact of his second coming and the manner of it also described by this emphatic repetition” (Word Pictures in the New Testament, e-Sword).

d. Johnson wrote:  “Acts 1:11 Ye men of Galilee. The apostles were mostly, if not all, Galileans.  This same Jesus . . . shall so come. The cloud received him from their sight. He shall come in the clouds of heaven (Dan_7:13; Mat_24:30; Mat_26:24)” (People’s New Testament With Notes, e-Sword).

2. Logic demands that it be a literal coming.

a. Logically stated Argument on Acts 1:11:

Major Premise:  If the angels, Acts 1:11, promised Jesus’ apostles that they would see him return as they had seen him go, and if they saw him go in a literal manner, then they will see him return in a literal manner.

Minor Premise:  The angels, Acts 1:11, promised Jesus’ apostles that they would see him return as they had seen him go, and they saw him go in a literal manner.

Conclusion:  Therefore, they will see him return in a literal manner.

b. The only logical way to deny that the second coming of Christ is going to be a literal one is to either (a) deny that “in like manner” means the “same kind of coming,” or (b) to deny that the angels knew what they were talking about.

3. Paul wrote:  “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (Heb 9:28).  Now notice, carefully, what he wrote:

a. Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.  This coming was a literal coming, not some kind of spiritual (figurative) one.

i. John wrote:  “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” (1Jn 4:2-3).

ii. Notice that he says that to deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, is to take the spirit of antichrist.

iii. Now if Christ literally came in the flesh, then why isn’t his second coming going to be as literal as the first.

iv. We do not know what we shall look like, but John tells us that when we see him we shall be as he is (1 Jn. 3:2).

b. While flesh and blood cannot inherit heaven (1 Cor. 15:50), we will have incorruptible bodies (1 Cor. 15:52).

4. Don Preston’s answer to my preliminary question on Acts 1:11:  “What did the angel mean when he said “Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven”  (Act 1:11)?

Response: Christ was coming in the clouds.”

a. Don says that the angels told the apostles that the same Jesus that they had (literally) seen go up into heaven in the clouds, would come again in like manner as they had seen him go and says that this means that “Christ was coming in the clouds.”

b. He has no alternative than to say this because of the words “in like manner.”  However, whether he realizes it or not “in like manner” dictates that as the cloud was literal that Christ was taken up in, the coming in the clouds will be literal also.  This is an inescapable position from which he cannot escape.  If “in like manner” dictates that “Christ was coming in the clouds,” because it was in the clouds that he was taken up, “in like manner” also refers to the literal clouds that Christ would return in because the clouds he left in were literal.  He cannot have “in like manner” meaning “Christ was coming in the clouds” and the clouds not be literal unless he wants to deny that Christ was taken up in literal clouds.

ELEMENT TWO

The second coming is yet to happen.

In looking at the first element we see that the second coming was to be a literal coming.  With this being the case we can see that the second coming is yet to happen.

1. Peter wrote:  “And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (2Pe 3:4)

a. Now notice that people doubted the 2nd coming because “since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”

b. If the second coming was not a literal coming, then the scoffers would have nothing to compare.  They were able to compare the present state with the way things had always been:  We are still here, and man has not been judged.

c. Peter says that these people are willingly ignorant.

i. He doesn’t say that these people are looking for the wrong kind of coming.

ii. He gives the same answer that we give people today who scoff about Christ not having returned.

1. John Loftus, a former believer now turned atheist wrote concerning the second coming, and stated that it “become such an embarrassment for Christians that there is now a new movement to embrace Preterism which is the belief that Jesus returned to earth to reign from Jerusalem to reign in a spiritual sense around 70 C.E.” (Why I Became An Atheist, A Former Preacher Rejects Christianityp.22).

2. Loftus made the same mistake that the scoffers of Peter’s day made and that was that God is not on our schedule:  “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2Pe 3:8).  When God gets ready, Christ will return, but we cannot set a date for that return.

3.
This is exactly what Peter wrote:  “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up” (2Pe 3:10).

2. Logic demands that the resurrection be future.

a. A logically stated argument on 2 Pet. 3:10

Major Premise:  If the world is going to melt with fervent heat and be dissolved when Christ returns, and if the world has not done this, then the second coming has yet to happen.

Minor Premise:  The world is going to melt with fervent heat and be dissolved when Christ returns, and the world has not done this.

Conclusion:  Therefore the second coming has yet to happen.

b. A logically stated Argument on Acts 1:11:

Major Premise:  If Jesus’ second coming was to be in a literal manner, and if he has not come again in a literal manner, then the second coming of Christ is yet to happen.

Minor Premise:  Jesus’ second coming was to be in a literal manner (see Element1, No. 2, a), and he has not come again in a literal manner.

Conclusion:  Therefore, the second coming of Christ is yet to happen.

Element Number Three

The resurrection of the dead is a literal resurrection of the body from the dead

In looking at the resurrection it is clearly seen that the Bible teaches that the resurrection would be a literal resurrection where the body would rise from the dead.

1. People of Jesus’ day understood it to be a literal resurrection.

a. “Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven” (Mar 12:19-25).

b. Notice that the Sadducees argued that “there is no resurrection.

i. Were they saying that there was not going to be a restoration of the spiritual life lost in Adam?

ii. Were they saying that the promises to fleshly Israel would never be fulfilled?

c. Notice also, that in trying to trap Jesus on the subject of the resurrection they brought up a hypothetical case of a woman married to seven brothers (from the oldest to the youngest) without ever giving birth to a child by any of these men.  They asked the following question:

i. In the resurrection (if there was going to be one) which one of the seven brothers wife would she be?

ii. In the resurrection when they (the woman and the seven brothers) shall rise who will she be married to since she had all of them as husbands.

d. Jesus’ answer to them was simple:  In the resurrection there would be no marriages, but they would be as the angels which are in heaven.

i. Angels do not marry, nor do they have the ability to have a sexual relationship.

ii. In the resurrection all men will be as the angels in heaven, they will be sex-less and they will not have marriages.

e. From all of this we can see the both Jesus and the Sadducees understood the resurrection of a biological dead body.

f. Note the argument in logical form.

Major Premise:  If the Sadducees held that there was no resurrection of the dead, and used an example of the woman married to seven brothers in an attempt showing the absurdity of the resurrection, then they obviously believed that the resurrection of the dead was a literal resurrection of the body from the dead.

Minor Premise:  The Sadducees held that there was no resurrection of the dead, and used an example of the woman married to seven brothers in an attempt to show the absurdity of the resurrection (Mk. 12:18-23).

Conclusion:  Therefore they obviously believed that the resurrection of the dead was a literal resurrection of the body from the dead.

Major Premise: If Jesus’ response to the Sadducees was a rebuke for their lack of understanding about there not being any marriages in the resurrection, then we can see that Jesus also believed in a literal resurrection.

Minor Premise:  Jesus’ response to the Sadducees was a rebuke for their lack of understanding about there not being any marriages in the resurrection (Mk. 12:24,25).

Conclusion:  Therefore we can see that Jesus also believed in a literal resurrection.

Major Premise:  If Jesus’ statement “when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriages, but are as  the angels in heaven,” referred to the resurrection of the dead, and if people in the church today do marry and are given in marriage then the resurrection of the dead has not yet happened..

Minor Premise:  Jesus’ statement “when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven,” refers to the resurrection of the dead,  and people in the church today do marry and are given in marriage.

Conclusion:  Therefore the resurrection of the dead has not yet happened.

2. When Paul was taken before the Council (made up one half of Sadducees and one half of Pharisees) “there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both” (Act 23:7-8).

a. Notice that the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection of the dead.

b. Notice that the Pharisees accept the resurrection of the dead.

c. So what were the Pharisees accepting what were the Sadducees refusing to accept?

3. When Paul was preaching to the citizens of Athens he spoke of the resurrection of the dead, and some of the citizens of Athens scoffed at him:  “And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter” (Act 17:32).  Why did they mock Paul?  Did they mock him because it was absurd for them to think that there was going to be a resurrection of the spiritual life lost in Adam?  This would not be so absurd for the natural man to think of, but a literal resurrection of the biologically dead bodies would be hard for the natural man to swallow.

ELEMENT NUMBER FOUR

Aspects of Christianity that depend upon the second coming.

There are many aspects of Christianity that depend upon the second coming of Christ and if the second coming has already happened then those things don’t apply to us any longer.  I asked Don a series of questions in my preliminary questions for this proposition and Don has refused to answer them based upon his claim that they don’t have anything to do with either proving or disproving the proposition under discussion.

1. I asked him a question about repentance:

“Are we obligated to repent today?  Yes or No.  Response:   This question is not directly relevant to either proving or disproving your proposition or mine.  It is a: “If the doctrine is true, what now?” type of question, but does not prove or disprove the propositions.  Unless you can prove that this is directly relevant to proving or disproving the propositions, I will not allow you to use it to poison the well.

Hedges’ Rule #3To which you signed your name says:

Rule 3d. All expressions, which are unmeaning, or without effect in regard to the subject in debate, should be strictly avoided. All expressions may be considered as unmeaning, which contribute nothing to the proof or the question; such as desultory remarks and declamatory expressions (My emphasis).”

a. If you look at Acts 17:30,31 Paul said “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead” (Act 17:30-31).

b. Don says that this questions is “a ‘If the doctrine is true, what now?”  And of course he is wrong.  This question is a “If the doctrine is true, then it will be consistent with all of Biblical teaching on the matter.”   Why?  Because truth is never inconsistent.  I am not poisoning the well by showing the false implications of Don’s position here.

c. Paul said that God, now, demands that all repent because “διότι dioti dee-ot’-ee From G1223 and G3754; on the very account that, or inasmuch as: – because (that), for, therefore” (Strong’s Greek Dictionary, e-Sword) God has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained.

i. Now notice “they were to repent on the very account that God has chosen a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by Jesus Christ.

ii. If Christ has already come back and judged the world, then we no longer have an obligation to repent.

iii. This is a conclusion from which Don cannot escape.

d. Now notice the following argument:

Major Premise:  If Paul told those in Athens to repent because (or on the very account) that God had chosen a day in which he would judge the world, and if the judgment has already taken place, then we have no obligation to repent.

Minor Premise:  Paul told those in Athens to repent because (or on the very account) that God had chosen a day in which he would judge the world, and Don says that the judgment has already taken place.

Conclusion:  Therefore we have no obligation to repent.

e. This is why Don didn’t want to respond to the question, he knows the implications of his doctrine.

2. The Lord’s Supper is contingent upon the second coming.  I asked
Don the following question: 
Are we obligated to partake of the Lord’s Supper today?  Yes or No.”  his answer was:  “Response:   This question is not directly relevant to either proving or disproving your proposition or mine.  It is a “If the doctrine is true, what now?” type of question, but does not prove or disprove the propositions. Unless you can prove that this is directly relevant to proving or disproving the propositions, I will not allow you to use it to poison the well.  See Hedges’ Rules #3 above that you signed to follow.”

a. In my first set of preliminary questions, I asked Don “Does 1 Corinthians 11:26 “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come” directly apply to Christians today?  Answer: No.”  Now obviously Don sees the connection between the Lord’s Supper and the second coming because he says that 1 Cor. 11:26 which states:  For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come” (1Co 11:26) does not directly apply to us today.  Why?  Simply because if we are to proclaim the Lord’s death until he returns, and if he has already returned, how can we proclaim his death until he comes.

b. If we cannot proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes, then we cannot partake of the Lord’s Supper because that is an integral part of partaking.

c. Notice the following arguments:

Major Premise:  If proclaiming the Lord’s death until he comes, is an integral part of the Lord’s supper,  then we cannot scripturally partake of the Lord’s Supper without proclaiming the Lord’s death.

Minor Premise:  Proclaiming the Lord’s death until he comes is an integral part of the Lord’s supper (1 Cor. 11:26).

Conclusion:  Therefore we cannot scripturally partake of the Lord’s supper without proclaiming the Lord’s Death.

Major Premise:  If Paul told Corinth to proclaim the Lord’s death until he returned while partaking of the Lord’s Supper, and if Christ has already returned, then there is no obligation to partake of the Lord’s supper.

Minor Premise:  Paul told Corinth to proclaim the Lord’s death until he returned while they partook of the Lord’s supper, and Don says that Christ has already returned.

Conclusion:  Therefore, there is no obligation to partake of the Lord’s supper.

Major Premise:  If there is no obligation to partake of the Lord’s supper, then we cannot scripturally partake of the Lord’s supper.

Minor Premise:  There is no obligation to partake of the Lord’s supper (see above argument).

Conclusion:  Therefore we cannot scripturally partake of the Lord’s supper.

Don’s position on 1 Cor. 11;26 has done away with the scriptural observance of the Lord’s supper.

3. I asked Don the following question:  “What is the purpose of baptism?” and Don’s answer is:  “Response: This question is not directly relevant to either proving or disproving your proposition or mine.  It is a, “If the doctrine is true, what now?” type of question, but does not prove or disprove the propositions.If you can prove the direct relevance to proving or disproving the propositions I will give answer. Otherwise, I will not allow you to use it to poison the well. See Hedges’ Rules #3 above that you signed.”

a. In giving the great commission Jesus said “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching th
em to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen
” (Mat 28:19-20).

b. Notice that Jesus said to teach all nations, baptizing them…teaching them to observe all things “and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.”  The idea here is that they were to baptize people and teach them to observe all things commanded.  He then said that he was with them until the end of the world.

c. If the end of the world has already taken place, and Don says it has, then no one can baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and no one can teach them all things commanded because all that has been fulfilled.

d. The purpose of baptism was to put man into contact with the blood of Christ, which would wash away their sins, and this would prepare them for the second coming.  God’s people were to teach those who they baptized and Christ promised to be with them even to the end of the world.  All this is an integral part of the purpose of baptism.

e. Notice the following argument:

Major Premise:  If baptism was to put man into contact with the blood of Christ, which would wash away their sins, and if this prepared man for the second coming of Christ, then the second coming of Christ was an integral part of the purpose of baptism.

Minor Premise:  Baptism was to put man into contact with the blood of Christ, which would wash away their sins, and this did prepare man for the second coming of Christ.

Conclusion:  Therefore, the second coming of Christ was an integral part of the purpose of baptism.

f. From this we can see that my question regarding the purpose of baptism was not off topic.  Don doesn’t want to respond to this (and other questions) because he knows, full well, the damage that they do to his position.

4. I asked Don the following question:

“What parts of the scriptures directly apply to us today?”  His response was:  “Response: This question is not directly relevant to either proving or disproving your proposition or mine.  It is a, “If the doctrine is true, what now?” type of question, but does not prove or disprove the propositions.  If you can prove the direct relevance to proving or disproving the propositions I will give answer. Otherwise, I will not allow you to use it to poison the well. See Hedges’ Rules #3 above that you signed.

Broadly speaking, however, those texts that speak of what life after the resurrection / in the New Creation was / is to be like, are those that direct us.  For instance, Paul called on the Romans to live as if the Day had already come, by turning away from ungodliness (Romans 13:11f). Thus, those moral paranetics apply today, since the Day has come.”

a. The question is directly relevant to the proving or disproving of my proposition because Don is on record as stating that 1 Cor. 11:26 does not directly apply to us today.  If this is the case, then we cannot partake of the Lord’s supper because 1 Cor. 11:26 is an integral part of the Lord’s supper.

b. Don needs to go back and take Logic 101 and see what is meant by “poisoning the well.”  He seems to think that my asking questions that are designed to point out the inconsistencies of his positions is some how “poisoning the well.”  This certainly is not the case.  Questions are supposed to point out the inconsistencies of a position; there is no other purpose for asking them.  In his book Introduction to Logic, Copi wrote:

Poisoning the well:  In informal fallacy; a variety of abusive ad hominem argument.  So named because by attacking the good faith or intellectual honesty of the opponent, it underminds continued rational exchange” (pp. 639,640).

My questions are not abusive ad hominem arguments designed to attack Don’s good faith or intellectual honesty.  My questions are designed to show the inconsistency of Don’s position by showing that he cannot hold to all of his position with surrendering what he believes about the church and its obligations.

c. His answer:  “those texts that speak of what life after the resurrection / in the New Creation was / is to be like, are those that direct us” does not answer the question that I asked because scriptures can indirectly apply to us and still direct us.  This is the very position that Paul took when he wrote:  “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope” (Rom 15:4).  However, the Old Testament does not directly apply to us today.  However they can and do indirectly apply to us and so doing they direct us.

d. I want to know what scriptures are directly applicable to us today.  Is Acts 17:11 directly applicable?  Is 1 Cor. 11:26 directly applicable?  Is Mt. 28:19,20 directly applicable?  If not then repentance is not mandatory, neither is the Lord’s supper, nor baptism.

I asked Don the following question:  “What is meant by “Day of the Lord” in Obadiah v: 15?”  His response was:  “Response: This was the destruction of Edom which occurred in BC 583 at the hands of the Chaldeans.”  Now while I agree with his interpretation of this it smacks him in the face on the following statement:

“Paul preached nothing but the hope of Israel found in the OT. Paul– per Vincent– uses “the precise phrase” from the LXX of Isaiah 2. Yet, Jerry says Paul was not quoting Isaiah! (McD-LXX-Ths)

That is like saying if Jerry were preaching and said, “Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus” – per Jerry, that would not mean he was quoting Acts 2.38!” (http://maeft.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/prestons-final-affirmative-summary/).

What is my point here?  In our discussion he has argued that Paul quoted Isaiah 2:19 verbatim from the LXX in 2 Thess. 1:9.  I published a chart on the  Greek in 2 Thess. 1:9 and the LXX in Isaiah 2:19 and showed that they were nothing alike.  Don argued that three words in Isaiah 2:19 were the same as 2 Thess. 1:9.  I countered by showing that although Paul used the same three words, this did not mean he was quoting Isaiah 2:19.  Don then countered in his summary what you see above, and claimed “This is like saying if Jerry were preaching and said, “Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus” – per Jerry, that would not mean he was quoting Acts 2:38.

Okay, let’s see if he will stay with this.  He says that the words “Day of the Lord” must refer to the destruction of Jerusalem:

“Now watch: 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is a verbatim quotation of the LXX of Isaiah 2:19 which described the last days Day of the Lord, when men would flee to the mountains, (19-21). Christ’s coming in 2 Thessalonians 1 would fulfill Isaiah 2!Thus, Paul’s eschatology in Thessalonians was nothing but the hope of Israel found in the OT.

Isaiah 2-4 is a united prophecy of the last days ending in the day of the Lord. The repeated “in that Day” references tie the prophecy together. It is the time for the establishment of the kingdom (2:1-3). “In that day” would be a time of famine (3:1-3), God would arise to judge His people (3:13-24) the time of “the war” when the men of Israel would fall by the edge of the sword (cf. Luke 21:24). The “Branch of the Lord” would come and the remnant would be saved, “when the Lord shall purge the blood guilt from Jerusalem by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of fire” (4:4). YHVH would establish the Messianic Temple (v. 5-6).

So, in the last days the blood guilt of Jerusalem would be avenged at the Day of the Lord when men would run to the hills. (This hardly fits an “end of time, earth burning event)!

Revelation 6:12f, is the answer to the martyr’s prayer, the Day of the Lord. Catch the power of this: Revelation 6 – like 2 Thessalonians 1– anticipated the fulfillment of Isaiah 2:19-21- when men would flee from the presence of the Lord. So…

Isaiah predicted the last days Day of the Lord in vengeance on the persecutors of the saints- Jerusalem” ( http://maeft.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/prestons-second-affirmative/).

Now Don’s problem is that if “Day of the Lord” always has reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 it can’t possibly have reference to the destruction of Edom by the Canaanites.  No, you
have to allow the words to be used in context to determine the meaning, just as you have to allow the words “glory of his power” to be used in context.  Isaiah used them this way:  “And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth” (Isa. 2:19).  Who are “they”?  The worshippers of idols!  Paul uses these words to show that those who do not know God and obey not the gospel will be separated from the glory of his power for eternity.

So if we must allow the context to determine the meaning of the words “Day of the Lord,” then we must allow the context to determine the meaning of “glory of his power.”  The two either stand together or they fall together.   Notice the chart on the Square of Opposition:

Now here is the problem with Don’s answer to my question:

1. He says that the words “Day of the Lord” must have reference to the final judgment of man; which he says happened during the destruction of Jerusalem.  However, he also says that the words “Day of the Lord” in Obediah 15 have reference to the judgment brought upon Edom by the Canaanites.   Now notice:  If we take A (which is every S is P) or in our case every time the words “day of the Lord” appear, they must refer to the final judgment of man.” Then to find one place where “the day of the Lord” does not refer to the final judgment of man is to take O (which is some S is not P) or in our case sometimes when the words “day of the Lord” is used it does not refer to the final judgment of man.” But as we see from the chart O contradicts A.  If O contradicts A, then Obediah 15 contradicts verses such as 2 Peter 3:10.

2. If Obediah 15 contradicts 2 Peter 3:10, then the Bible is not inspired of God, thus it is not all sufficient (which Don refuses to take a stand one way or the other).

3. If a position involves self-contradiction then the position itself is false.  Don’s position involves self-contradiction, therefore his position is false.

In conclusion let me say that I have presented a logical,  valid and sound argument and have presented four elements to support that argument.  I will present further elements and arguments in the articles to come, but my word allotment is running out so it is time to quit.  I do have some questions for Don:

Questions:

1. If Jesus’ ascension was literal, and if the angels said that they would see him come in like manner as they had seen him go, doesn’t logic suggest that the return will also be literal?  Yes or No!

2. If the words “Day of the Lord” in Obediah 15 can refer to the judgment of Edom by the Canaanites and the same words in 2 Pet. 3:10 refer to the final judgment of man, then logically doesn’t this mean that the words “glory of his power” in 2 thess. 2:9 refer to the final judgment of man while the same words in Isa. 2:19 refer to the judgment of Israel for their sins in their day?  Yes or No!

3. Are we obligated to partake of the Lord’s Supper today?  Yes or No!

4. If the judgment has already past, then what will happen to men today who die?  Will they not face the judgment?  Yes or No!

5. Is 1 Cor. 11:26 an integral part of the Lord’s Supper?  Yes or No!

Note*  I earlier stated that “I contradicts A” but it is “O that contradicts A” and I said that I presented three elements, but I actually presented four.  So I have changed them.

In Christ Jesus

Jerry D. McDonald

__

.

__,_._,___

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *