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

I don't think my opponent has presented anything in this round that gives pause to any of my arguments, so I shall be brief. "The problem of the Gospel without the Supernatural, is a problem of credibility. My opponent pointed out that creation is all the proof one needs to believe in God. How does one know that the God of the Bible is the creator? How does one know that Budda, Allah, Zeus or another deity is not the creator? Elijah settled that question on Mount Carmel! "...and the God that answereth by fire , let him be God." (1 Kings 18:24) That theme has been consistent throughout both the Old and New Testaments." My opponent claims that preaching the Gospel without signs leads to a Gospel with no credibility. However, he ignores the fact that 57% of the instances of evangelism leading to conversion listed in the Book of Acts do not include an explicit mention of any form of signs or wonders. Apparently the Gospel was enough in those instances, and signs were not required. My opponent is defending the argument that signs are the PRIMARY means of evangelism in the New Testament. Is it possible that God would intend us to use signs as the primary means, but then show us in his Word a majority of cases with no signs? I guess. Does that seem likely to you? It certainly doesn't to me. Rather, I find it more tenable that God gave us examples that represent his intended modus operandi. Next, the New Testament records supernatural events happening when the Holy Spirit falls on them. I am not denying this. However, the Holy Spirit never falls on someone who is not a Christian. The person receiving the Holy Spirit is either already a Christian (the Disciples in Acts 2) or are converting. The Holy Spirit only falls on Christians after conversion, so the signs and wonders that accompany them are not a part of the evangelism process (which happens prior to conversion). My opponent then proceeds to post a passage that is rather damaging to his case. Romans 10:17 simply states that faith comes by hearing. Not by miraculous signs, not by wondrous abilities or powers, by hearing. It then clarifies where this hearing comes from, and clearly articulates that it comes from the Word of God. The logical conclusion from this passage is that faith comes through hearing the Word of God preached. He then states that there is a distinction between Primary and Secondary sources, and that " The problem with focusing on faith via the secondary source is that after a long period of time without a primary source for faith, the witness becomes weak" and continues to outline an entirely unfounded assertion about faith becoming weak over time. This is simply a matter of opinion until it has been given legs of some sort in the form of evidence. He then notes that the Seven Sons of Sceva tried to witness (despite the fact that he made a specific point that witness is a noun and not a verb), when in reality this is not at all what happened in the text. The Seven Sons of Sceva were attempting to use Jesus' name as though it were a magical incantation. This incantation fooled some of the weaker demons who did not realize that they were merely invoking the name of Christ, but when a demon realized this is gave them what they deserved. This has absolutely nothing to do with evangelism, nor does it have to do with this argument. My opponent then goes on a tirade against "Pack A Pew Sunday" type gimicks. While I am no fan of these methods, this is hardly the topic at hand. He claims that churches that do "not have the power of a credible witness to the validity of the Bible through supernatural signs has a vacuum in its evangelism efforts." However, reality does not prove this to be the case. The famous evangelist Billy Graham has preached to millions and seen hundreds of thousands of converts as a result of his ministry. And although Dr Graham is a believer in the power of God to do miracles, his ministry is hardly marked by signs. Rather, his ministry is marked by a humble preaching of Sin and Grace which people find compelling. Beyond Billy Graham, the famous American Puritan Jonathan Edwards preached a sermon in 1731 that would spark what was to be known as the Great Awakening, a revival that swept over the American colonies as well as through much of Britain and other parts of Europe. The Protestant Reformation itself was a great time of religious awakening, but rather than be marked by miraculous events confirming the validity of what the Reformers preached, it is marked by a time of intellectual and pietistic reform and revival. History simply does not support the claim that evangelism efforts that lack signs are doomed to failure. Thank you.