Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
Origen

Rules For Debates

Recommended Posts

Staff

(1) Post your topic here.

 

(2) Make sure you message the person you wish to debate and let him\her know.

 

(3) You must both agree on the topic.

 

(4) Also message a moderator and let that person know you want to debate.

 

(5) One side will take the affirmative proposition and the other the negative proposition.

 

(6) Each debate will consist of 3 rounds.

 

a. An affirmative constructive followed by a negative constructive

 

b. An affirmative rebuttal followed by negative rebuttal

 

c. Summations\Closing remarks

 

(7) Each debater will have 48 hours to respond to their opponent.

 

(8) Stay on topic.

 

(9) Moderation will be limited. No foul language. Other than that you are on your own, but remember you are Christians.

 

(10) All debates will be closed to outside comments.

 

(11) After the debate has ended anyone will be able to comment on the topic.

Share this post


Link to post

I would be interested in debating the following:

1. The Bible teaches that the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer/worship. I will affirm. (It would be great if James Dunn was here to offer a rebuttal but anyone else will do).

https://www.amazon.com/Did-First-Chr...+worship+Jesus

2. The Bible teaches that Cornelius and the Gentiles with him were saved before they were water baptized. I will affirm.

3. The Bible teaches that if a person today has not been baptized with the Holy Spirit then he/she is not a Christian. This event places a person into the body of Christ/the Church. I will affirm.

4. The Bible teaches that the Old Covenant command of obedience to the 7th day Sabbath is no longer binding upon the Christian. I will affirm.

5. The Bible teaches that a Christian wife is to fear her husband as her lord/master (unless he commands her to sin). I will affirm.

6. The New Testament teaches that homosexuality is a sin. I will affirm.

Edited by Faber
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Faber, I have a question about your debate topic #3. Do you believe that speaking in tongues is the evidence that proves that this particular kind of baptism has truly happened, and if so, do you believe that anyone who is saved WILL (therefore) speak in tongues?

 

Thanks!

 

Yours in Christ,

David

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Hello David,

1 Corinthians 12:28 teaches that not all speak in tongues - but those who happened to have this particular gift are "in the church".

 

Share this post


Link to post

Ahh, we agree. I was, for a time, involved with the AoG, and I still have a number of close friends who are members. Many (certainly not all) in the Charismatic movement believe that if one is truly saved, he/she WILL speak in tongues, period. On that point I cannot, of course, agree with many of my very well-meaning charismatic brethren for the very reason you just gave above. Glossa were a gift to some, not a necessity for all.

 

Perhaps someone else here at CF believes they are however (or perhaps better, is a strict/absolute cessationist). I would be interested in seeing a formal debate about that subject if there is a cessationist who would be willing to debate you (I haven't studied the subject, so the position I hold on cessationism is, at least for now, agnostic).

 

Yours in Christ,

David

Share this post


Link to post

I also spent some time as a member of an AofG church and witnessed what I have come to understand as a misuse of the gift of tongues, or at the very least an ignorant use of it. Meaning, there were people within the church who while others were praying would "speak in tongues." Some have explained that it is their "spirit language", while others just considered it speaking in tongues. However, when looking at what they were doing through the lens of the New Testament I can only conclude that they were speaking gibberish, as no biblical purpose for it was being fulfilled. There was no one else in the room who didn't speak english that could suddenly understand what was being spoken, nor was it edifying anyone else in the group. One specific individual, I feel, was doing only because he had watched his parents do it as he was growing up and figured that was just what you do when you are praying in a group.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

Too much orthodoxy and not enough heretics for debates here.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

 

Sprinkle or dunk? ;)

lol

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
Hello David,

1 Corinthians 12:28 teaches that not all speak in tongues - but those who happened to have this particular gift are "in the church".

 

Any particular reason why you use happened rather than happen?

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
Ahh, we agree. I was, for a time, involved with the AoG, and I still have a number of close friends who are members. Many (certainly not all) in the Charismatic movement believe that if one is truly saved, he/she WILL speak in tongues, period. On that point I cannot, of course, agree with many of my very well-meaning charismatic brethren for the very reason you just gave above. Glossa were a gift to some, not a necessity for all.

 

Perhaps someone else here at CF believes they are however (or perhaps better, is a strict/absolute cessationist). I would be interested in seeing a formal debate about that subject if there is a cessationist who would be willing to debate you (I haven't studied the subject, so the position I hold on cessationism is, at least for now, agnostic).

 

Yours in Christ,

David

 

I believe you actually make up the largest group David. Lots of people are neither Charismatic, Pentecostal or strict Cessationist. The largest group is suspect middle ground. Why don't you represent this middle group and debate in a friendly manner? I haven't much debate experience on this subject matter, so I wouldn't mind taking the Cessationist position.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
Too much orthodoxy and not enough heretics for debates here.

 

Based on reputation alone, I refuse to debate any Charismatic unless they first go through security and a metal detector.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Based on reputation alone, I refuse to debate any Charismatic unless they first go through security and a metal detector. I'm sure nobody would mind if a Cessationist just moves into the thread though?

God bless,

William

 

I wonder how one would type in 'tongues' if you were to debate a Charismatic. :)

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

 

I wonder how one would type in 'tongues' if you were to debate a Charismatic. :)

 

Exactly, look at what Knotical wrote:

 

There was no one else in the room who didn't speak english that could suddenly understand what was being spoken, nor was it edifying anyone else in the group.

 

Why would the Holy Spirit interrupt Himself from the pulpit only to speak a different language requiring a translator to speak to those He already had a direct line of communication with?

 

Seems irrational to me.

 

If they do begin speaking tongues and a translator begins, should we write these things down and add what is said to the end of Scripture?

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
I wonder how one would type in 'tongues' if you were to debate a Charismatic. :)
Let's all say it together "γλῶσσαι."

 

Edited by Origen
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

crazy-emoticon-236.jpg.484fc0e5ab3e8ea03f79508a6789b4a8.jpg

crazy-emoticon-236.jpg.3f104d44797b972395357ca23ab3eceb.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Let all say it together "γλῶσσαι."

 

My wife once pressed the wrong button on her phone and when she talked into it, the text messages all came out in Chinese characters.

So I guess it IS possible.

 

(I better save that link to Google Translate just in case.) :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

My, my, we all are in such a playful mood today.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Let's all say it together "γλῶσσαι."

 

It says "tongues" ... W00T!!! I have the gift of translation. ;)

(Won't all my Pentacostal friends be so jealous ... which IS what the Body is all about, right? Charismata one-upsmanship.) :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

I believe you actually make up the largest group David. Lots of people are neither Charismatic, Pentecostal or strict Cessationist. The largest group is suspect middle ground. Why don't you represent this middle group and debate in a friendly manner? I haven't much debate experience on this subject matter, so I wouldn't mind taking the Cessationist position.

 

God bless,

William

 

Hi William, I like the idea of trying to hold the "middle ground" in a polarized debate subject like this one. That way, all I have to do is say, "yeah, I can see that", to WHATEVER the two of you end up saying to each other, and I'll win the debate :p

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5. The Bible teaches that a Christian wife is to fear her husband as her lord/master (unless he commands her to sin). I will affirm.

 

@Faber

It is probably a mistake, but hardly my first. Challenge accepted. I will negate.

 

(So what exactly happens next?)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

 

@Faber

It is probably a mistake, but hardly my first. Challenge accepted. I will negate.

 

(So what exactly happens next?)

Once Faber agrees, and the topic set, then we can begin.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

@Faber

@atpollard

As pointed out above, there will be only three rounds. Each person will have 48 hours to respond. If one of you does not respond within 48 hours, then the debate will be closed. However, the other person will be given a chance to sum up with closing remarks.

 

The debate will be made into a sticky. No other posts will be allowed. If anyone other the debaters post, it will be deleted. Only after the last round will anyone be allowed to post.

 

Once the two of have your topic statement hammered out, message me. I will then start the thread for the two of you.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Federal Judge Issues National Injunction, Stops Trump's New Religious Exemption Rules on Birth Control

      A Philadelphia federal judge has issued an injunction to stop the Trump administration’s rules which would broaden religious exemptions for the birth control mandate in health insurance plans, from going into effect on Monday. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • Federal Court Rules Masterpiece Cakeshop Baker Can Sue Colorado for 'Anti-Religious Bias'

      A federal court has ruled that Colorado Christian baker Jack Phillips may continue to sue the state in a claim that says the state had an “anti-religious bias” against him. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • Ocasio-Cortez Will Vote Against Pelosi’s Rules Package Because It Hinders Medicare For All

      By Evie Fordham - New York Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and California Rep. Ro Khanna, both Democrats, announced Wednesday they will vote against presumed incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s rules package because they say it hinders progressive policies. “I will be voting NO on the Rules package with PayGo. It is terrible economics. The austerians were wrong about the Great Recession and Great Depression. At some point, politicians need to learn from mistakes and read economic history,” Khanna wrote on Twitter Wednesday. The progressive politicians are against PAYGO, which stands for “pay as you go.” There are several variations of PAYGO, but it essentially mandates that new expenditures are offset by budget cuts or new revenue streams. Its purpose is to keep from adding to the federal debt, but Ocasio-Cortez and Khanna see it as an obstacle to the progressive policies they want to implement like Medicare for all, tuition-free college and the Green New Deal. “Tomorrow I will also vote No on the rules package, which is trying to slip in PAYGO. PAYGO isn’t only bad economics, as Ro Khanna explains; it’s also a dark political maneuver designed to hamstring progress on healthcare [and] other [legislation]. We shouldn’t hinder ourselves from the start,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter later Wednesday morning. If eighteen Democrats including Ocasio-Cortez and Khanna vote against the rules package, Pelosi might have to go back to the drawing board. Pelosi’s package also contains a provision that automatically passes a resolution suspending the federal debt limit when the House passes an annual budget resolution, reported The Washington Times Wednesday. This isn’t the first time Pelosi has faced pressure from progressives over rules for the 116th Congress. House Democrats caved to their progressive wing in December and decided to scrap a rule that would have required a three-fifths supermajority vote to pass any new tax hikes. Progressives wanted to do away with the rule completely to use tax hikes to fund programs like Medicare for all or tuition-free public colleges, which were two items on Ocasio-Cortez’s platform, reported The Washington Post. Along with many other Democrats, both Ocasio-Cortez and Khanna have been pushing a “Green New Deal” as a wide-ranging plan to fight global warming. Khanna has said he wants a “strong” climate committee in the House despite opposition from Democratic higher-ups. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Ocasio-Cortez Will Vote Against Pelosi’s Rules Package Because It Hinders Medicare For All is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Federal Judge Rules New York’s Nunchuck Ban Unconstitutional

      By Neetu Chandak - A federal judge ruled Friday that New York’s 44-year-old nunchuck ban violated the Second Amendment and therefore was unconstitutional. James Maloney, a State University of New York Maritime College professor, spearheaded the efforts after he was charged for nunchuck possession in his home in 2000, The Associated Press reported Monday. He filed an initial complaint in 2003. Nunchucks are two rods linked at one end by a chain or rope. Maloney was fixated on getting rid of the part of the law where nunchucks could not be possessed at home, though Judge Pamela Chen said she could not just take out a section of the current law. Chen ruled the ban and the law when it came to manufacturing, transporting and disposing of nunchucks was unconstitutional, according to the AP. “How could a state simply ban any and all possession of a weapon that had a long and proud history as a martial-arts weapon, with recreational, therapeutic and self-defense utility,” Maloney said, the AP reported. The Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to self-defense The nunchuck ban was placed in 1974 out of fear kids would hurt others by watching “Kung Fu” movies, the AP reported. The martial arts weapon was first made famous by martial artists and actor Bruce Lee. Chen is a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Second Amendment laws in the state tend to lean progressive. New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo wants to expand waiting periods when buying guns from three to 10 days, The Buffalo News reported Monday. He also wants to ban bump stocks. Maloney did not immediately respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Federal Judge Rules New York’s Nunchuck Ban Unconstitutional is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Ninth Circuit Court Rules Border Wall Must Be 'Short Enough That A Pregnant Woman Carrying A Child In Each Arm Could Be Expected To Scale It Without Difficulty'

      SAN FRANCISCO, CA—Amid heated debate in Washington over President Trump's border wall, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has weighed in, ruling that construction on the U.S.-Mexico border wall can proceed, so long as it is "short enough that a pregnant woman carrying a child in each arm could be expected to scale it without difficulty." The post Ninth Circuit Court Rules Border Wall Must Be 'Short Enough That A Pregnant Woman Carrying A Child In Each Arm Could Be Expected To Scale It Without Difficulty' appeared first on The Babylon Bee. View the original full article

      in Christian Satire

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.