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 Rejoinder

Pat starts his last affirmation by saying that I am arguing, "two wrongs make a right". I am doing nothing of the sort. Pat this is what I am arguing; you don’t believe your own argument because you take it when you want and leave it when you don’t. I am simply showing that you are inconsistent and the reader can see that your response to that is merely a smoke screen to divert the attention away from that fact. Pat is demanding that we follow examples, yet he does not always do it himself. This reminds me of a group of people that Jesus mentioned in the bible. Matt 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. KJV

Holy Kiss

Pat says that he obeys the "Holy Kiss", just not the way they did in the bible. Is this not amazing that he would admit that he does not obey an example like the bible says do it. Yet, he is going to demand that we obey another one exactly like the bible says. If it is ok to fulfill one example differently than the way the bible says do it, then why is it not ok to fulfill others differently that the way the bible says. If Pat can fulfill the "Holy Kiss" any way he wants to other than the way the bible says do it, then why can we not fulfill the Lord’s supper differently than the way that he thinks the bible says do it?

Patrick T. Donahue Vs. Patrick T. Donahue

"But this is a reach. "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." (Second Affirmative)

I agree the phrases "throughout your generations" and "continually" indicate that the Passover and new moon were to be observed with some frequency, but they do not give indication of how frequent. (Third Affirmative)

Here you are ladies and gentlemen, we have my opponent denying the possibility of "throughout their generations" and "continually" having any indication of frequency in his first speech. Then with an ability that my opponent so masterfully demonstrates, he changes positions right in the middle of the debate and admits in his next speech that he was wrong, and that it does show frequency. Thus he defeats his own argument and his position fails and his proposition remains unproven.

By admitting that the passages about Passover and new moon demonstrate frequency, yet he still denies that Acts 20:7 denotes frequency, he admits that he has no parallel. Thank you Pat we appreciate that admission. As we have demonstrated in previous articles, the strength of language that exist in the Passover and new moon does not exist in Acts 20:7. My opponent both knows it in his heart, and has now admitted it in this debate by the above contradiction. Pat, that was very nice of you to do that!

Ladies and gentleman, my opponent whole bases of proving that Acts 20:7 was Passover and new moons. Yet, he has admitted that the wording between the two is different, thus admitting that his sole bases for his frequency argument in Acts 20:7 is no parallel at all. Pat your foundation has failed and so has your false doctrine. The following is another damaging quote by my opponent.

"John wants to know if the language of Exodus 12:11,14 is stronger than Acts 20:7. The answer is "no":"

Pat says the answer is no. But he admits that Passover denotes frequency, but the Lord’s Supper does not. If that is not stronger language then I do not know what is. Pat you just admitted that it was by stating what you did about "throughout your generation" and "continually" denoting frequency. Note the following illustration and see for yourself the difference in the language.

Acts 20:7

7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.


This is what the verse says. The following is what he needs it to say to be a parallel to the Passover in it’s strength of language.

"And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples can together to break bread, and ye shall keep it continually throughout your generations forever, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow and continued his speech until midnight."

The strength of language that makes me understand that the Passover was to be kept every 14th day of the first month does not exist in Acts 20:7. The only thing that Acts 20:7 says is that it was done on that day in that particular case. Nothing in the verse tells you that you will burn in hell if you don’t do it every Sunday.

My Conclusion

Again I want to thank Patrick for participating in this debate. His is a friend of mine, and a really nice guy. I think he is a nice guy though I think he is dead wrong on a great number of issues. I also want to say that Patrick is one of my favorite debaters of his brethren. He is honest and good spirited.

I would like to say that in relationship to this issue that I do not think that it is wrong to take the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week. What I believe is wrong about my opponent’s proposition is that he demands you do it every first day of the week or burn in hell forever if you do not. I think that his position is totally and completely wrong. I also do not believe that he has in any way proven his proposition. I had nothing to prove in this debate. My only job was to deny his proposition. I believe that I have effectively done that. Thank you readers.

--John “Buddy” Carroll



Email the Editor at