Comment On Current Debate

[Pastor Scott Markle]

*No such thought, we were discussing, or I was anyway, verse 24. Not verse 25. And verse 24 has 70 weeks not 69.

 

​So then, was it your intention and desire that we should consider Daniel 9:24 in a manner that is completely separated from the context of Daniel 9:25-ff?

That's funny, you know I was not quoting scripture. 

Indeed, I did know that you were not quoting Scripture, since that quote cannot be found anywhere in the passage.  That is the very reason that I expressed my point -- in order to reveal the contrast between your statement (which was not a quote of Scripture, and thus did not possess Biblical authority) and my statement (which was a quote of Scripture, and thus did possess Biblical authority, that is -- as long as my quote was not wrested out of its context).

I was in reference to the 'announcement' of these verses from the messenger from God to Daniel, and what followed his 'announcement', not that the timing occurred right after the angel spoke them, but what historical thing/things occurred that those verses covered, after the angel spoke to Daniel, IF anything.

Could I ask why it at all matters what may have happened in the 70 literal weeks that followed (that began from) the angel's announcement unto Daniel, since the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24 were not to begin from that announcement, but were to begin "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem" (as per the context of Daniel 9:25)?

As far as anything that happened historically around that time period, that may have had an impact upon the children of Israel -- According to Daniel 9:1 the events of this chapter occurred "in the first year of Darius the son of Ahasueres, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans."  In relation to this Daniel 6:28 seems to indicate either that this reign of Darius the Median over the realm of the Chaldeans was concurrent with the reign of Cyrus the Persian over the whole kingdom of Persia, or that this reign of Darius the Median (since he was 62 years old when he began to reign, as per Daniel 5:31) lasted only a short time and was quickly transferred to the reign of Cyrus the Persian.  Now, according to Ezra 1 it was in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia that he made the decree for the temple in Jerusalem to be rebuilt.  For me, the most interesting aspect of this historical information is that Daniel himself would have lived long enough to know of Cyrus decree to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, since Daniel himself was still alive at least until the third year of Cyrus king of Persia (as per Daniel 10:1).

 

[Genevanpreacher]

 

Could I ask why it at all matters what may have happened in the 70 literal weeks that followed (that began from) the angel's announcement unto Daniel, since the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24 were not to begin from that announcement, but were to begin "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem" (as per the context of Daniel 9:25)?

​Uh, its called 'discussion'. And Daniel was studying about Jeremiahs prophesy, and I think he was clearly looking at the 70 years getting to a finish.

So when I read this following verse or two, I assume when the Angel came and said he was there to explain to him his concerns, he did.

So Daniel says:

2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

3 And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes:

And when the angel Gabriel comes on the scene he says:

21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.

22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.

[Genevanpreacher]

Found this of interest for Scofield lovers about Daniel 9 -

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/scofield-reference-notes/daniel/daniel-9.html

[Pastor Scott Markle]

To all as a side note for the sake of information,

I myself am not a Schofield "lover."  In fact, I do not use a Schofield reference Bible (although I do own one, which I received as a gift); and I do not ever read or reference Schofield's notes.

[MountainChristian]

​​Brother Ken,

First, I would thank you for the graciousness wherein you have asked your questions.

Second, concerning your question -- "Is the list of verse 24 out of order?"  I myself believe that the flow of thought for the six-fold purpose and result statements in Daniel 9:24 presents them in a logical order, such that each of the six-fold purpose and result statements is founded upon the previous purpose-result statement, and such that the entire list reaches its climax with the anointing of "the most Holy."

Third, concerning your question -- "The anointing occurs at the beginning of the 1000 years?"  This would indeed be my present position on the matter.

Fourth, concerning your statements and your question -- "​​But we know after the 1000 years the Devil is released and people join him in a final rebellion. That is sin. It is the same problem teacher Ian had and you rebutted. Why is sin occurring after the 490 years and the 1000 reign?​"  This appears to reveal a misunderstanding on your part concerning my position.  I do not believe that the six-fold purpose and result statements of Daniel 9:24 are intended to be applied "upon" all of the people groups of the world at that time.  Rather, I believe that the six-fold purpose and result statements of Daniel 9:24 are intended to communicate only that which will occur "upon" Daniel's people, the children of Israel as a specific national group.  Indeed, this is part of the reason that I placed such emphasis and engaged with such effort concerning the meaning of the phrase, "thy people," as employed in Daniel 9:24.  This is also part of the reason that I have presented Isaiah 1:24-27, Jeremiah 3:15-19, 31:31-37, 32:36-42, Ezekiel 36:24-38, and Ezekiel 37:21-28 as corresponding passages to the purpose-result statements of Daniel 9:24.  As such, I do not believe that at the beginning of the 1,000 year reign, all the gentile people groups of the world will enter into a spiritual condition of "finished transgression," "ended sins," "reconciliation with God," and "everlasting righteousness."  Rather, I believe only that at the beginning of the 1,000 year reign, the children of Israel as a national group will enter into this spiritual condition.  Thus in accord with my position there remains the allowance for many among the gentile people groups of the world to rebel against the Lord Jesus Christ's reign at the end of the 1,000 years after the devil is released from the bottomless pit in order to stir them up and lead them unto rebellion.  So then, concerning the matter of this rebellion specifically, I would only contend that none of the children of Israel will depart from the Lord Jesus Christ's rule and will join with this rebellion against Him.

I pray that my above answers will have been helpful to answer your questions, at least concerning my position on the matter (and how it works together).

​Pastor Scott while in the flesh thy people are in a state of everlasting righteousness? Before Jesus is anointed King, you hold God will bring in everlasting righteousness upon thy people? While thy people are under the beasts' rule? Also do you see these thy people as being born again before Jesus returns? And thy people will have children born of the flesh in a state of everlasting righteousness? 

Sorry Ian, I was saving my questions and posted too soon. 

Edited May 13, 2015 by MountainChristian
apology

[Genevanpreacher]

So Bro. Scott, what exactly do you mean by this?

"Finally, with verse 27 we come to the concluding verse of this prophetic utterance and to the specific reference to the seventieth and final “week” (7 years) of these “seventy weeks.”  The opening line of this verse indicates that some “he” will “confirm” some “covenant with many” (apparently among the Israelites, since that is the focus of this prophetic utterance as per the opening statement of verse 24). "

Specifically " this verse indicates that some “he” will “confirm” some “covenant with many".

Just curious if you mean "some" here. 

[Covenanter]

I'm posting this here to illustrate a problem I have with Pastor Scott's approach to the debate. In this fragment of a post in the debate, he employs 800 words to respond to 100 of mine, & misquotes me so refuting at length a point I didn't make.

FYI a 30 minute sermon of mine takes about 2,000 words to explain the Scripture in context & apply it's teaching. The following, apart from the [ ... ] is a selection from Pastor Markle's post. 

Posted 17 April  by Pastor Markle

Now, in your most previous posting, you did present an opposition to the grammatical and contextual evidences and support that I have provided for my position on Daniel 9:24.  Indeed, your presented opposition appears to be delivered with the following statements:

​​I'm not convinced that your grammatical analysis leads to a proper understanding of the prophecy, or whether it actually obscures the clear meaning of the prophecy. 

Reference to Scripture, rather than grammar . . .

We should judge prophecy both by its faithfulness to the Word, & by its fulfilment, not by grammatical analysis. There is a danger of being Pharisaical. Also, we have the mind of Christ - 1 Cor. 2:16 - so we can look at prophecy with an new covenant, spiritual, Spirit-aided understanding. 

I think in this case, the 70 weeks is so clearly specific that simple arithmetic overrules complicated grammar. 

However we analyse the grammar . . . 

[Note that I referred to "your grammatical analysis" & "complicated grammar" with no suggestion that grammatical analysis per se "of a passage is not really a help, but is actually a hindrance in Bible study, especially in relation to prophetic utterance." And I did NOT "deny the grammatical construction of any statement in God’s Holy Word." I hope it goes without saying that understanding grammar is necessary to understanding both the written word & speech. ]

Pastor Markle:

Herein you appear to reveal another premise against which I will have significant contention and opposition.  It is the premise that grammatical analysis of a passage is not really a help, but is actually a hindrance in Bible study, especially in relation to prophetic utterance.  In opposition to this premise, I would contend that grammatical analysis is the arithmetic of communication.  By definition, grammar deals with the meaning of individual words, the meaning of grouped words by phrases and sentences, and the meaning of contextual statements within paragraphs.  Grammar is the very means by which words, phrases, and sentences have precise meaning in communication.  

For example, can we discern any real meaning from the following set of words –

“world whosoever Son life him he God the only his everlasting begotten should perish loved have gave believeth that that so not for but in”

On the other hand, can we discern real meaning from the following set and structuring of words –

 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

No, in the first presentation for this set of words, we cannot discern any real meaning.  On the other hand, in the second presentation for this set of words, we can indeed discern real meaning, and that a very precise meaning.  The reason that we can do this in the second presentation is specifically due to the grammatical structuring by which the words are presented.  Grammar is the very means by which word structuring provides meaning.  To deny grammatical analysis is to deny the precise meaning of any given statement. 

Indeed, to do deny grammatical analysis for a statement of God’s Holy Word is to deny the precise meaning of that statement as inspired by God the Holy Spirit in God’s Holy Word.  The Lord our God chose to communicate His truth and wisdom unto us by means of the words of His Holy Word and the grammatical structuring of those words, as inspired by God the Holy Spirit.  Thus God’s Holy Word is not simply inspired by God the Holy Spirit word-by-word, but also grammatical construction-by-grammatical construction.  Therefore, to deny the grammatical construction of any statement in God’s Holy Word is to deny the inspired meaning and communication of God the Holy Spirit with that statement. 

Furthermore, grammar is not only the very means by which word structuring provides meaning, but is also the very means by which statements are narrowed in their application.  For example –

If I simply employ the word “ball,” then the application is quite broad (although the definition of the word, which is also a point of grammar, does narrow the intention from not including such things as birds, cars, pinwheels, etc.). 

On the hand, if I employ the grammatical phrase, “the ball,” then the application is now more narrow, not referring to any ball in general, but to one specific ball.  (In fact, this use of a the definite article “the” is the very grammatical construction by which you yourself argue that the “covenant” of Daniel 9:27 cannot be just any covenant, but must be some definitely specific covenant.  Even so, I would challenge you that if you do not wish to focus upon grammar as a means to Biblical understanding, then you need to quit pushing this point.)

Now, if I employ the grammatical phrase, “the ball in the car,” then the application is now even more narrow, not referring to the ball in the house, or in the field, or under the car, or beside the car, but to the ball that is to be found in the car.  Grammatically, each modifying phrase narrows the application for the meaning of any given statement.  So then, to deny a modifying phrase that God the Holy Spirit inspired for any given statement is to deny the correct understanding and application that God the Holy Spirit intended for that statement.

Grammatical analysis is not a hindrance to understanding God’s Holy Word correctly, for grammar is the means by which the Lord our God communicated to us in His Holy Word by the inspiration of His Holy Spirit.  Indeed, grammatical analysis is the means by which we can correctly understand that which the Lord our God has communicated unto us through His Holy Word by the inspiration of His Holy Spirit.

Actually I question that final statement. Most people who can read have enough grammar to understand what they are reading.  Only believers have a spiritual understanding - an understanding aided by the indwelling Holy Spirit - as they believe & practise what they read & understand. Many (most?) theologians & preachers fail to understand correctly what they read, teach & preach, however perfect their grammar. 

   

[Invicta]

So Bro. Scott, what exactly do you mean by this?

"Finally, with verse 27 we come to the concluding verse of this prophetic utterance and to the specific reference to the seventieth and final “week” (7 years) of these “seventy weeks.”  The opening line of this verse indicates that some “he” will “confirm” some “covenant with many” (apparently among the Israelites, since that is the focus of this prophetic utterance as per the opening statement of verse 24). "

Specifically " this verse indicates that some “he” will “confirm” some “covenant with many".

Just curious if you mean "some" here. 

 

  

​Our preacher this evening said "If you can't find anything I said in the bible or for that matter what any other preacher says don't believe us. "

I  cannot find the following in Daniel.  

some “he” will “confirm” some “covenant with many".

But I can find    "he shall confirm the covenant with many"

Note the definite article.  He shall confirm the existing covenant with many.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Genevanpreacher]

​Our preacher this evening said "If you can't find anything I said in the bible or for that matter what any other preacher says don't believe us. "

I  cannot find the following in Daniel.  

some “he” will “confirm” some “covenant with many".

But I can find    "he shall confirm the covenant with many"

Note the definite article.  He shall confirm the existing covenant with many.

​Good point Invicta! That little word 'the' says to me that this is a covenant that already existed beforehand too.

Well Bro. Scott? Should you have said it differently, or do you mean 'a peace treaty' like others have said, or what?

[DaveW]

Unless you are determined to misunderstand Brother Scott's point it is not difficult to know what he meant.

If any of you would like to show which particular covenant is being referred to - without guessing - it would clear it up immediately.

The point is that Brother Scott was not quoting scripture at that point but pointing out that the covenant is not defined in the passage - it just noted as "the covenant", not which particular covenant.

It would be like me saying "the car sped away from the crime scene" - you would know it was an individual and specific car, but not which car - was it a ford or a chevy? Was it green or blue?

In that instance you could also say some car sped away and it would still make sense.

However, if you are determined to find fault with him you can feign ignorance.

[Genevanpreacher]

Unless you are determined to misunderstand Brother Scott's point it is not difficult to know what he meant.

If any of you would like to show which particular covenant is being referred to - without guessing - it would clear it up immediately.

The point is that Brother Scott was not quoting scripture at that point but pointing out that the covenant is not defined in the passage - it just noted as "the covenant", not which particular covenant.

It would be like me saying "the car sped away from the crime scene" - you would know it was an individual and specific car, but not which car - was it a ford or a chevy? Was it green or blue?

In that instance you could also say some car sped away and it would still make sense.

However, if you are determined to find fault with him you can feign ignorance.

​The part of the verse that says "the covenant" implies a known covenant.

Maybe looking at Daniel 11 will shed some light on "the covenant" -

28 Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land.

29 At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.

30 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.

[DaveW]

No, in fact the part of the verse that says "the covenant" implies a specific covenant - nothing about it being known at that time.

In fact apart from the link to the last week of the Dan 9 prophecy, there is no definition to this covenant in Daniel 9.

 

Your attempt to identify that covenant by pointing towards Daniel 11 is a valid thought, but the use of the term "the Holy Covenant" in Dan 11 but NOT that same term in Dan 9 if anything implies it is a different covenant. However, as it is nothing more than an implication, it is worth investigating.

How about then you show by proofs why you think it is the same covenant that is spoken of in both Daniel 9 and Daniel 11, and why it is that the link continues throughout the events of chapter 10 and the first part of chapter 11 where it mentions a differently referenced covenant ("the Holy covenant" as distinct from simply "the covenant".)

(Note: I am not saying it is not the same covenant, but the with the difference of reference name it falls to you to prove that it IS the same covenant.)

Finally on this point, we must discover WHICH HOLY COVENANT Dan 11 is referring to, as it doesn't appear to precisely define "the Holy covenant" in specific terms in chapter 11 either - which leaves us in the same place: precisely which covenant is being referred to here?

Aside from the link to the last 7 years of Daniel's prophecy, the book of Daniel does not seem to specifically define the covenant.

So it appears that all we have to go on is a covenant specifically related to a seven year period.

 

So again, we find ourselves trying to discover precisely which covenant, or which "Holy covenant" is being referred to here.

Any further info to define which covenant it is?

 

[DaveW]

I'm posting this here to illustrate a problem I have with Pastor Scott's approach to the debate. In this fragment of a post in the debate, he employs 800 words to respond to 100 of mine, & misquotes me so refuting at length a point I didn't make.

FYI a 30 minute sermon of mine takes about 2,000 words to explain the Scripture in context & apply it's teaching. The following, apart from the [ ... ] is a selection from Pastor Markle's post. 

Posted 17 April  by Pastor Markle

Now, in your most previous posting, you did present an opposition to the grammatical and contextual evidences and support that I have provided for my position on Daniel 9:24.  Indeed, your presented opposition appears to be delivered with the following statements:

​​I'm not convinced that your grammatical analysis leads to a proper understanding of the prophecy, or whether it actually obscures the clear meaning of the prophecy. 

[Note that I referred to "your grammatical analysis" & "complicated grammar" with no suggestion that grammatical analysis per se "of a passage is not really a help, but is actually a hindrance in Bible study, especially in relation to prophetic utterance." And I did NOT "deny the grammatical construction of any statement in God’s Holy Word." I hope it goes without saying that understanding grammar is necessary to understanding both the written word & speech. ]

Pastor Markle:

Herein you appear to reveal another premise against which I will have significant contention and opposition.  It is the premise that grammatical analysis of a passage is not really a help, but is actually a hindrance in Bible study, especially in relation to prophetic utterance.  In opposition to this premise, I would contend that grammatical analysis is the arithmetic of communication.  By definition, grammar deals with the meaning of individual words, the meaning of grouped words by phrases and sentences, and the meaning of contextual statements within paragraphs.  Grammar is the very means by which words, phrases, and sentences have precise meaning in communication.  

For example, can we discern any real meaning from the following set of words –

“world whosoever Son life him he God the only his everlasting begotten should perish loved have gave believeth that that so not for but in”

On the other hand, can we discern real meaning from the following set and structuring of words –

 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

No, in the first presentation for this set of words, we cannot discern any real meaning.  On the other hand, in the second presentation for this set of words, we can indeed discern real meaning, and that a very precise meaning.  The reason that we can do this in the second presentation is specifically due to the grammatical structuring by which the words are presented.  Grammar is the very means by which word structuring provides meaning.  To deny grammatical analysis is to deny the precise meaning of any given statement. 

Indeed, to do deny grammatical analysis for a statement of God’s Holy Word is to deny the precise meaning of that statement as inspired by God the Holy Spirit in God’s Holy Word.  The Lord our God chose to communicate His truth and wisdom unto us by means of the words of His Holy Word and the grammatical structuring of those words, as inspired by God the Holy Spirit.  Thus God’s Holy Word is not simply inspired by God the Holy Spirit word-by-word, but also grammatical construction-by-grammatical construction.  Therefore, to deny the grammatical construction of any statement in God’s Holy Word is to deny the inspired meaning and communication of God the Holy Spirit with that statement. 

Furthermore, grammar is not only the very means by which word structuring provides meaning, but is also the very means by which statements are narrowed in their application.  For example –

If I simply employ the word “ball,” then the application is quite broad (although the definition of the word, which is also a point of grammar, does narrow the intention from not including such things as birds, cars, pinwheels, etc.). 

On the hand, if I employ the grammatical phrase, “the ball,” then the application is now more narrow, not referring to any ball in general, but to one specific ball.  (In fact, this use of a the definite article “the” is the very grammatical construction by which you yourself argue that the “covenant” of Daniel 9:27 cannot be just any covenant, but must be some definitely specific covenant.  Even so, I would challenge you that if you do not wish to focus upon grammar as a means to Biblical understanding, then you need to quit pushing this point.)

Now, if I employ the grammatical phrase, “the ball in the car,” then the application is now even more narrow, not referring to the ball in the house, or in the field, or under the car, or beside the car, but to the ball that is to be found in the car.  Grammatically, each modifying phrase narrows the application for the meaning of any given statement.  So then, to deny a modifying phrase that God the Holy Spirit inspired for any given statement is to deny the correct understanding and application that God the Holy Spirit intended for that statement.

Grammatical analysis is not a hindrance to understanding God’s Holy Word correctly, for grammar is the means by which the Lord our God communicated to us in His Holy Word by the inspiration of His Holy Spirit.  Indeed, grammatical analysis is the means by which we can correctly understand that which the Lord our God has communicated unto us through His Holy Word by the inspiration of His Holy Spirit.

Actually I question that final statement. Most people who can read have enough grammar to understand what they are reading.  Only believers have a spiritual understanding - an understanding aided by the indwelling Holy Spirit - as they believe & practise what they read & understand. Many (most?) theologians & preachers fail to understand correctly what they read, teach & preach, however perfect their grammar. 

   

​

The accusation of him misquoting you to refute a point you didn't make I feel is unjust - he was not the only one who read your point in that way, and that led to much discussion outside of the debate thread.

It is possible that your point was worded poorly, which led to the response and the overflow, but the way brother Scott took it was the way many of us read it.

As to his lengthy replies - yes they are often lengthy, but when the simply stated point is ignored or pushed aside, then a more in depth explanation is sometimes called for. And it is, after all, a debate of technical matters, and lengthy posts are pretty much expected - indeed you could hardly be accused of brevity yourself.

(Long posts in general bug me, but this is a debate and I expected it, as in fact did both you and brother Scott - in the set up thread you both stated that replies would be slow in coming as the arguments needed to be formulated properly and other things of both your lives take precedence.)

[Genevanpreacher]

 

So again, we find ourselves trying to discover precisely which covenant, or which "Holy covenant" is being referred to here.

Any further info to define which covenant it is?

​Maybe looking at Daniel 9 verse 27 and noticing the result of making "the sacrifice and oblation to cease"? Looks like the covenant, of 'sacrificing for sins', will stop, to me.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

See, this is where some see the one 'confirming the covenant' as the Lord Jesus, when he sacrificed himself on the cross, and the Temple vail ripping in half when he gave up the ghost and opening the 'holy of holies' to men, making a way for men to come face to face with God for forgiveness of their sins, through the death of God himself in the form of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Matthew 27:51 - And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

Mark 15:38 - And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. 

Hebrews 10:19-22 - Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;And having an high priest over the house of God;Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

 

Maybe.

[DaveW]

The problem with this idea is that the sacrifice and oblation did not cease within the seven years of this proposed timeline.

The argument that is then put up is that it "effectively finished" - but that is not what the passage says.

And furthermore:

Heb 10:4  For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

The sacrifices were NEVER effective:

Heb 10:1  For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

So even the argument of "effectively stopped" is null.

This means that the reference to the sacrifice and oblation ceasing must under this idea be the destruction of the temple when the actual sacrifice and oblation ceased, which then has such supporters finding a 40 year gap in the midst of the last 7 years where no such gap is found nor even implied.

There are only two options for the supporters of this idea:

1. force the Bible to say what it doesn't (ceased to be effective), or

2. insert a 40 year gap into the last 7 years.

 

At this point I feel we should bring our side discussion on these points to a close. I would hate to cause confusion to Covenantor or Pastor Scott by them joining this conversation about items ahead of the debate, and they have both participated in this thread.

 

 

 

Edit to say: It just occurred to me that this last statement might be seen as stifling the discussion - if people want to continue then do so, but I genuinely think we should tread carefully so as not to affect the debate itself.

 

Edited May 14, 2015 by DaveW