Resolved: Supernatural phenomena as the primary method of evangelization is God's intention for the

Issue 1) As I noted, from the second half of Chapter 18 through the end of the book, Paul is interacting with the Church (Which is not Evangelism), or the book contains accounts of Paul's progress toward his trial and execution in Rome. There are no accounts of evangelism that lead to conversion in these chapter. Issue 2) It is possible that I have made mistakes. I shall assume that the references my opponent does not address, he agrees with the interpretation of. Acts 5:14 - This is difficult, because the immediately preceding verse says that no one dared join them. I am inclined to interpret this passage to indicate that people were simply gathering around hoping to be healed, but this is hardly a sign of conversion. Many gathered around Jesus simply to be fed, but walked away at difficult teaching. However, this is a somewhat weak debating point, so I will concede to my opponent that this verse should become Green according to the color schema above. Acts 8:26 and 29 - There is a qualitative difference between the leading of the Lord and supernatural words of knowledge. If my opponent defines simply receiving leading and instructions from God as supernatural phenomena then the very act of conversion itself is a supernatural phenomena. However, there is nothing supernatural about receiving directions simply because the direction giver is supernatural. This is an abuse of terms and this distinction should be discarded. The actual account of the evangelism (Philip's interaction with the Eunach) is entierly void of supernatural activity. It is entirely Philip's teaching that converts the man, at least according to the text. In addition Acts 8:39-40 is a disputed passage, the more Pentecostal Christians tend to see this as some sort of teleportation miracle. Where more conservative Christians tend to interpret this to mean that Philip left and his whereabouts were unknown until someone spotted him in Azotus. Acts 10:46 - If my opponent wishes to challenge my assertion that the Holy Spirit falling on a person indicates conversion, and wishes to challenge using Peter and John. .. then he is left with the option that the Holy Spirit indicates conversion, or the Holy Spirit falls on Christians after conversion. We do not have any support for the Holy Spirit falling on people who are not A) Becoming Christians or B) Are already Christians. So my point either stands (A) or this is not a case of evangelism (B) as you cannot evangelize persons who are already believers. As it stand in Acts 10:46, the tongues were heard AFTER conversion. .. not prior to it. Evangelism stops when a person converts. Acts 14:8-9 - The detriment of the signs in this passage is that the persons seeing the signs believed Paul and Barnabas were gods and attempted to sacrifice to them. The Jews then stirred them up and they attempted to stone Paul. There is no indication here of any conversion taking place. The only amendment to the list is the passage in Solomon's Portico. This makes our numbers 12 where signs are absent or hinder the Gospel (57%), 6 "Blended" (26%) and 3 "Pure" (14%) Issue 3) My opponent is correct that there are almost certainly events that happened but were not recorded in the book of Acts. However, when Holy Spirit inspired Luke to select events to record He chose to record a majority of evangelism accounts that did not include supernatural signs at all. This is telling, for if God wanted to communicate to us that signs are a primary modus operandi for evangelism, we would expect the examples he chooses to give us to be more representative. This is something my opponent must still contend with. If signs are the primary means of evangelism, why did God give us more than half of the examples with no signs present. In reference to signs being simply an everyday part of Peter's life and ALWAYS being present. This is hearsay and, in my opinion, an imposition on the text. Regardless of if the signs were present, the Holy Spirit, through inspiring Luke, made the decision that when He would give us examples of evangelism he would not include signs in a majority of the examples presented to us. Response to 1 Corinthians 2:4) This passage does not, exegetically speaking, mandate a reading of signs. The word "power" in this context is "dynamis" and while it may indicate miraculous powers, Paul uses it in various ways throughout his Epistles. He uses it as a synonym for authority (Romans 9:17), to describe supernatural beings (Romans 8:38), to denote God's power (Romans 14:11) and Lexically speaking may include moral purity, military power, and power which comes from wealth or position. [A] What is telling is that Paul most often uses this word in ways other than miraculous abilities, namely as a synonym for God given authority. While it is a matter of hermeneutical interpretation, this passage is not a silver bullet to say that Paul preached in a demonstration of the Spirit and of miraculous abilities. I find it more likely in fact that the demonstration of the Spirit and of power was his own changed life. We see in Romans 1:16 that the "power" of God for salvation is not His miraculous strength, his ability to do signs, or even his authority. The power of God for salvation is the Gospel. Response to "Mark's Book of Acts") This section of Scripture is in dispute as to its authenticity and therefore its authority. The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20. It is unwise and unsafe to build an entire biblical theology based on a section that is in heavy dispute. However, this passage actually supports the idea that the miraculous signs in the New Testament Church were there to validate and confirm the authority of the Apostles. This idea is called cessationism, and teaches that the primary purpose of signs was to do just what Mark describes, to confirm the Apostle's authority. This is drawn from a biblical understanding that the primary purpose for Christ's miracles was to confirm his identity and authority, and by extension that the purpose carried over to the Apostles. Response to the Sign of Jonah) It is true that Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees, however that does not mean that the principal does not apply to us as well. My opponent claims that it is because they had already seen the supernatural and still wanted a sign, and that made them wicked. However, we have seen the Resurrection of the Lord as well. If we are Christians we affirm them miracles of Jesus, yet signs ministries still seek signs. Does that not also make them wicked? God's very creation is a miracle (Romans 1) that is enough to hold people accountable to knowledge of God. Aren't we adding to their wickedness by seeking more signs for them, at least according to the principal my opponent has outlined? In regards to Jonah being spit out of the whale, and that being miraculous. It was indeed miraculous, but there is no indication in the text that the people of Ninevah had any awareness of that text. Jonah did not inform them of this, and none were there to witness it. In regards to repentance and if people will repent simply at the Gospel proclaimed. .. I have given 12 examples from Acts where people repented simply because the Gospel was explained to them, this is in addition to the entire city of Ninevah who had seen no sign. In regard to the "Examples" given in the Old Testament) These are not examples of evangelism. These are examples of something different entirely. Being that they are not examples of evangelism, they are not analogous to the discussion at hand. I will leave you with a quote from the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 13:1-2) "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. "