current debate

[DaveW]

This statement by Covenantor has rendered the current debate useless. 

"No. I do not recognise the validity of your complex grammatical analysis. I believe the Scriptures, & the straightforward grammar we actually read there."

This statement implies that Pastor Markle has changed the meaning of the passage by his grammatical analysis.

This is not the case - in fact the reason that he gave an in depth - not complex - explanation, is because Covenantor denied the simple reading of the passage, thereby necessitating a more complete explanation.

 

Covenantor's statement is a bald misrepresentation which is designed to discredit Pastor Markle personally, and not within the spirit of the debate.

 

Pastor Markle's explanation has in no way changed the meaning of the passage - it says what it says, which is precisely what he proved with his in depth and complete examination of the language.

Simply put, Covenantor can not deal with the truths of the passage exposed by Pastor Markle's discourse and has returned to his standard form of ignoring the arguments and trying to change the focus, which is not how a debate is run.

[1Timothy115]

I have seen excerpts from many theologians working in Biblical exegesis. They all use, to varying degrees, breakdown of sentence structure to determine the full meaning of a text under examination. It is essential to Biblical hermeneutics. If I were to blindly accept Covenant Theology, i.e. replacement theology, I would have to throw away my Strongs, my dictionaries, and any Greek or Hebrew Lexicons (not happening). 

What good would all the English sentence structure learned in school be if I would never have to use it? I suppose Noah Webster wasted a major portion of his life compiling an English Language dictionary with Biblical examples and defining noun and verb, etc. The Bible would then become a one and done book. More importantly, Jesus must have wasted his time stressing the importance of every jot and tittle. No thanks, I'll remain a Fundamental Independent Premillennial Dispensationalist Militant Baptist in doctrine and practice of faith.

[Alan]

Amen and amen.

[Salyan]

Feel free to discuss points brought up by the debate, but any personal comments made about either participant will lock this thread. Please and thank you. 

[Alimantado]

Gotta say I'm usually quite sympathetic to Covenantor's plight in these discussions, not because I agree with his arguments but because he's usually the only one with any manners. But this time it's Pastor Markle who seems to be getting a raw deal--he's spending a lot of time defining terms, laying out his method, explaining his arguments, putting his questions clearly and carefully, yet he's not getting the responses he deserves.

[1Timothy115]

I for one will not be attacking the individuals. They are my brothers in the Lord. That doesn't mean I have to accept what they have to say if I have determined otherwise from scripture through the Holy Spirit and prayer. I may however debate their argument from my own understanding. I believe my comment above was directed toward the argument; if not, please let me know (here or PM) in advance of any further statements I may make. Thanks.

[HappyChristian]

I disagree that the debate is useless - I think even when one participant rejects what the other says, readers can still see the truth. 

[DaveW]

I disagree that the debate is useless - I think even when one participant rejects what the other says, readers can still see the truth. 

I don't think it is useless at all, but if one party is not going to abide by the rules and spirit of the debate, there seems to be little point continuing from here.

What has been put up till now has been very good, and my request to BroMatt still stands - that it be packaged up into a downloadable form if it is possible without that being a burden on him.

 

I simply don't  see further progress being made if it continues in the same manner as the post I quoted above.

[Genevanpreacher]

Done.

 

Edited April 26, 2015 by Genevanpreacher

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Brother DaveW,

I must disagree with the sentiment that the discussion-debate can have "no further progress."  A discussion-debate such as this is not simply for the sake of the debaters, but also for the sake of the audience.  In relation to the audience, each member of the audience has the ability to observe the specific evidence and support that each debater is able to present for his particular position.  As such, each member of the audience is then able to consider which particular position is able to provide more substantial, Biblical evidence and support; and thereby each member of the audience is influenced to move toward one position or the other.  (That is -- unless neither position is able to provide substantial, Biblical evidence and support; in which case the members of the audience would likely reject both positions and go looking for another position altogether.)

Please understand -- As I engage in any given discussion-debate on a public forum, I fully recognize that I am not just engaging my "opponent" in the discussion-debate, but that I am also engaging the members of the audience, seeking for any and all to observe whether I am able to provide evidence and support for my position with Biblical substance.  Indeed, I fully expect that if I cannot provide evidence and support for my position with Biblical substance, then the members of the audience should reject my position.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Pastor Scott Markle

[1Timothy115]

 ​Instead of opposing men which is clarified by Bro. Markle above by quotes. I would make it clear they are opposing points of view. 

 

 

[DaveW]

I say this is a grand thing, and I think that it is neither 'soldier' that is getting a raw deal.

The debate is just that - a debate between two opposing men who have studied this similar subject in detail, from their own 'doctrinal' view points.

How about we let them at it and quit the opinions about whether it is a 'waste of time now that one believes different than the acceptable viewpoint' ?

Each one of us will always think our side has won, so let's just sit back and enjoy our side and our view.

 

[By the way Dave the first sentence in your posting above, does state - "This statement by Covenantor has rendered the current debate useless."] 

 

A. I was clarifying my point that it is useless to proceed further, not denying that I said it was useless.

B. From the very start BroMatt said that discussion of the debate outside the thread was acceptable.

C. The point I am making is that if one side refuses to debate the points, it is no longer a debate. This is what has happened in this case.

D. If you so deeply believe in your point that we should let them be, then I can only assume you are commenting here simply to oppose me, which you (wrongly) accused me of in another place.

 

Brother Scott, 

I  think that until the quote I put at the opening,  this has been very useful, however with the refusal to debate the points and instead simply reject the points with no real explanation, it ceases to be a debate.

If it proceeds in this manner, it will be simply a stating of views rather than a debate. This in itself will be of value, but it is no longer a debate.

I encourage you continue to try to participate, but I feel it will be increasingly difficult to "debate" when the other side just says "you are wrong".

Edited April 21, 2015 by DaveW

[ThePilgrim]

On a humorous note: This debate on the debate going on in the debate thread kinda' makes me think of this:

 

[2bLikeJesus]

I have been unable to view any of the debate at all.  The page is blank.  The only entry I see is Bro. Matt stating the debate has officially begun and asking for Pastor Markle to make his opening statements.

Never mind..I finally took a few more sips of coffee and figured it out.

Edited April 21, 2015 by 2bLikeJesus

[Covenanter]

How can I dispute Bro. Scott's grammar? 

My grammar credentials are - I attended King Edward VI School in Southampton, following the hymnwriter, theologian & logician, Isaac Watts, by about 40 "weeks." I upset the Classics master by opting for science, when he wanted me to concentrate on Greek & Latin. My degreee is B.Sc. in Chemistry, & I worked as a professional scientist in research & development, learnt computer programming as soon as computers became accessible. (1980) As a scientist I wrote many reports & drafted patents. My basic intent with reports was that the purpose & conclusions should be readily accessible to the reader - usually a senior manager or director - for specific action. My last 15 years until retirement were as a scientific consultant, with a laboratory set up in my home. 

I seek to be relatively brief, & precise. I look for main points to build on. 

As a Christian I was brought up in the Church of England, in my teens I attended an "independent" Bible class & trusted Christ as my Lord & Saviour in 1957, at 18. I was introduced to an independent Evangelical Church that September, just before I went to university, was baptised as a believer in December 1957. I never returned to the CofE. My wife to be, Ann was at the same university studying theology & history. Our church in Southall was from about 1980 a mixed race church, & preaching required translation. It was necessary therefore to prepare as simply as possible to make translation straightforward. I was deacon, & church secretary but never Pastor. The churches I have attended have been baptist, holding amillennial eschatology. 

I cannot compete with Bro. Scott with grammatical analysis, but I do read & understand. My replies may appear simplistic, but they are carefully considered & reasoned before writing. With a debate/discussion of this nature it is easy to make statements that I consider self-evident, but can be questioned as inaccurate by detailed analysis. e.g. When I wrote "the people of Israel are the descendants of Abraham" I was challenged, as other races were descended from Abraham. Would anyone be confused by what I wrote? Does the extra "the" change the reasoning? 

Other points may need to be considered within the debate.