The Donahue - Carroll Debate
"The Bible teaches that all Christians should eat the
Lord's Supper every first day of the week."
Mr. Carroll's Second Negative
Acts 20:7 Is Refers To The Lords Supper
He said that he gave conclusive evidence that "break bread" in Acts 20:7 is the L.S. He gave no such evidence. But that really does not matter since for debate sake I conceded that point. But do not let him make you think that the reason that I conceded this point is because of his overwhelming, irresistible, undeniable proof. I simply conceded for debate sake ONLY. I also agree that the ONLY point of contention between us is "every" first day of the week. Again in his second affirmative article he came up way short of proving his proposition.
The Bible Teaches/Binds By Example
Pat had one sentence to say about the command and example that Jesus gave in John 13:13-16. We want to know, Pat, if you obey the example given in this verse of scripture. You said, "We agree with John that we should follow the example of Jesus; we just don't agree on when feet should and need to be washed." Show us from the Bible, book chapter and verse, when and why feet should be washed. After you do that we want you to give us an example of how you fulfill this command. Not only does my opponent not obey his own doctrine here, there are other examples and commands, as well that he does not obey. We are going to give you and him one more to think about.
Salute one another with an holy kiss Romans 16:16
Greet ye one another with an holy kiss 1 Corinthians 16:20
Greet one another with an holy kiss 2 Corinthians 13:12
Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss 1 Thessalonians 5:26
Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity 1 Peter 5:14
I charge my opponent with the height of hypocrisy. In that he demands that we follow his doctrine when he does not follow it himself. Pat, will you tell us with a Bible verse why you feel you do not have to obey the above verses the way that Paul said to do it?
In responding to what I said about Philippians 4:9 he said, "This would mean we wouldn't have to obey Paul's instructions to the husband in Ephesians 5 (since Paul wasn't married)," This is a very debatable statement at best. He does not know and cannot prove that Paul was never married. There are a lot of scholars that for various reasons believe that at one time Paul was married. If this is true, then they could have seen and heard Paul on this issue. He also says, "nor any instructions peculiar to women, since Paul couldn't be an example in that regard either." Pat, if you will give us an example of one of those particular instructions to respond to then we will do that.
Acts 20:7 Binds It To The First Day Of The Week
I responded to this argument by saying that my opponent, Pat Donahue, condemned Jesus himself to being a sinner since the only example of Jesus taking the Lords supper was on a day other than the first day of the week. Pat himself admits that it was on a day other than the first day of the week. He says that it was on Thursday. He responds to this by saying, "the institution of a religious activity is not always the same as the regular observance of that activity." Pat, if in the case of the Lords supper, the institution and the regular observance are not the same, where is your approved example for "fruit of the vine"? You for sure do not find what is to be used as the drink in Acts 20:7. Or any other place for that matter, besides the institution of the Lords supper. The fact that Jesus and the disciples took it on Thursday and in Acts 20:7 they took it on Sunday is proof enough that no necessary day or frequency is taught in the bible. Jesus gave all the necessary commandments for the Lords supper during its institution. The only thing that is necessary about the Lords supper is that it must be done. Lets consider for a moment that Pat is right that Acts 20:7 binds Sunday as the only day that the Lords supper can be eaten. It in no way states the frequency of the Lords Supper. All it would prove is that when we do it that it must be done on Sunday. All Acts 20:7 shows is that at least on this occasion that the disciples there did it on Sunday.
Why Is The Example Of Acts 20:7 Important?
What did Pat say about my response to his above argument? Absolutely nothing. Not a word. Evidently he felt as thought I properly responded to this argument and had no problem or disagreement with what I said. That is nice to know!
Every First Day Of The Week
First of all I would like to say that Pat made no attempt whatsoever to respond to the following parallel.
Exodus 12:11, 14 - And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORDs Passover. And this day (the 14th day of the 1st month) shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it (the 14th day of the 1st month) a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it (the 14th day of the 1st month) a feast by an ordinance for ever.
And thus shall ye eat it (the L.S.), with unleaven bread and grape juice, and this day (first day of the week) shall be unto to you for a memorial and ye shall keep it (the first day of the week) a feast in rememberance of me throughout your generations; ye shall keep it (first day of the week) a feast by an ordinance forever.
We would like for you to respond to this parallel. Pat, would you not admit that the language of Exodus 12 is a little bit stronger than language of Acts 20:7? Notice what Pat says, "Throughout their generations" would not give any indication of how often the Israelites were to keep the Sabbath; it just tells how long they were to keep it." I am going to show that this is simply not the case. Pat you are wrong. Lets take a look at the verse again.
14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
Notice there is a difference between "throughout your generations" and "by an ordinance forever". According to Pat, the verse is saying the same thing twice. "Throughout" is contrasted with "forever"; therefore they are not the same thing. He wants you to think that "throughout" is duration, and that "forever" is duration. Throughout is frequency, and forever is duration. And again, the day was the institution, this is not so in the Lords Supper. Nothing is ever mentioned about a day in any of the teaching about the Lords Supper.
So far as new moons are concerned, he said that "continually" was like "throughout" in that it in no way indicated frequency. I found the following definition under the word continually.
conˇtinˇuˇal (k n-tšn"y- l)
adj. 1. Recurring regularly or frequently: the continual need to pay the mortgage. 2. Not interrupted; steady: continual noise; a continual diet of vegetables. conˇtin"uˇalˇly adv. Synonyms: continual continuous constant ceaseless incessant perpetual eternal perennial interminable These adjectives are compared as they mean occurring over and over during a long period of time.
The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Š 1992 Houghton Mifflin Co. Electronic version lic'd from and portions Š 1994 InfoSoft Int'l, Inc. All rts rsvd.
It means, recurring regularly, or frequency. And this does not imply to my opponent frequency? Nothing in this definition implies how long, but that something occurred over and over. Also from Strongs, we will look at the Hebrew word and its meaning.
Continually - OT:8548
tamiyd (taw-meed'); from an unused root meaning to stretch; properly, continuance (as indefinite extension); but used only (attributively as adjective) constant (or adverbially, constantly); ellipt. the regular (daily) sacrifice: KJV - alway (-s), continual (employment, -ly), daily, ([n-]) ever (-more), perpetual.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
It has reference to the daily sacrifice. If that is not frequency, then I do not know what it is. Continually does denote frequency.
Pat says that in each of his three illustrations (Sabbath, new moons, Passover) that I give different reasons why I believe that they mean what I believe they mean. They are different illustrations, that is why. Different illustrations, with different wording. In the case of new moons it has different terminology than it does when talking about Passover. But in both cases they indicate the same thing. That was not hard to figure out now was it? I am about to run out of words so I want to thank you for taking the time to read this debate. Looking forward to your next reply.
--John Buddy Carroll
CLICK HERE TO GET BACK TO THE INDEX OF LINKS FOR THIS DEBATE
CLICK HERE FOR THE NEXT SPEECH IN THE DISCUSSION
Email the Editor at email@example.com
| CURRENT ISSUE | MAIN PAGE | BACK ISSUES | DISCUSSION PAGE |
| SPECIAL STUDIES | SERMON OUTLINES |