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

I will respond to each of my opponent's points and then offer a closing statement. I would like to make one point about the Seven Sons of Sceva. My opponent drew a comparison between the Secen Sons of Sceva and Non-Signs churches. He implied that just as the Secen Sons of Sceva used Gimmicks to draw people in, so also do non-signs Churches. I find the mockery of my response to be a bit disconcerting from a fellow Christian, especially when the whole purpose of his statement ws to degrade and deride fellow workers in the Gospel. Beyond that, his comparison was incredibly faulty and demonstrates a poor ability to draw logical analogies. I agree fully with points 1 and 2. I hope to have convinced you regardless of teh position you held prior to the debate.3) My opponent claims I have stepped outside of the boundaries by appealing to something outside of Scripture for authority in this debate. However, this is a double standard set by my opponent. My opponent sought to argue using something he sees in the modern Church, namely "Pack A Pew" type gimmicks. Why does my opponent get to appeal to something outside of the Canon, but I do not. Since my opponent sought to show that modern Churches that do not employ the miraculous are lacking power and effect, I simply refuted that assertion. I find it disconcerting that my opponent would employ such a double standard. Furthermore, my opponent claims I did not make an introductory argument, however that is pattently false. In round two I made a very pointed argument. My argument wsa that the book of Acts serves as the primary historical exemplar for how Evangelism functioned in the New Testament Church. I demonstrated that by the rubric of this exemplar we see that the primary means of evangelism was NOT supernatural, or did the supernatural present itself in a majority of the instances we see. I then concluded my argument by shoing that Jesus discussed the sign of Jonah and infered that just as Jonah converted the entire city of Ninevah through a simple message of judgement and repentence, so also is the modus operandi of the Church. That sure seems like an affirmative argument to me. .. it contains all the components required. I most certianly fulfilled my burden to introduce my argument.4) I agree with my opponent in regards to us being even in terms of spelling and grammar.5) My opponent, as Pro and Instigator has the burden of proof to prove the resolution beyond reasonable doubt. My opponent primarily sought to do this in the opening round by demonstrating that in the book of Acts, that a pattern exists in which Supernatural phenomena opens the door to evangelism. He then drew from this pattern that this should be extrapolated into our modus operandi for evangelism. My opponent seeks to undermine the reality of the fact that this tally is legitimate. He makes the analogy to the book of 1 and 2 Kings and claims that my methodology is flawed. However, he neglects to realize that I simply followed the methodology that he prescribed. I observed the book of Acts, looked at the examples given, and drew a conclusion regarding the pattern. My opponent's entire argument begins by pointing out that there is a pattern in Acts that we should follow, yet when I show that the pattern he indicates is not as he presents it and rather shows the opposite, he claims that my methodology is incorrect. My opponent then claims that there is an inexorable link between the Great Commission and the power to do miracles, however he has not satisfactorilly demonstrated this. My opponent claims that because Jesus told his disciples to wait for the Spirit to descend that this is irrefutable logic. However, there are many explanations for this occurance. Regardless, my opponent still needs to demonstrate that AFTER the Spirit descended that the primary means of evangelism is through supernatural phenomena. He has not done this, as the examples given to us in the book of Acts reflect otherwise. If we are only appealing to the Bible for our authority, I would ask (rhetorically of course) my opponent where else are we to draw our example? If the account of the earliest evangelism does not exemplify that signs are the primary mode of evangelism, where else may we look? The answer of course is no where.6) My opponent claims that I have misunderstood and misused the Bible and therefore should not win the source vote. I would simply note that as a fellow Protestant, my opponent acknowledges that each Believer has an autonomous authority to interpret Scripture as he or she sees fit. This is a fundamental tenent of Protestant Theology. The fact is that Christ does indicate that the sign of Jonah was that he was in the belly of the whale, but anyone who knew or knows the story of Jonah is familiar with the whole story. His original audience would not only have thought of that aspect, but also of the fact that Jonah's mission was immensely successful and his message of repentence converted an entire City-State. My opponent claims he has proven the resolution. He claims that I have not refuted it. However my opponent's terms in this debate were to prove using exculsively the Bible that signs are the modus operandi of evangelisim in the Church. However, we see clearly that the only biblical example we have of how evangelism functioned in the Church (the book of Acts) reveals a very different picture. Contrary to my opponent's argument, I have clearly shown that in a majority of instances in the Bible (Particularly with Paul) we see that evangelism takes the form of Preaching and prayer. Again and again we see Paul preach a message of repentence and mercy, and again and again we see people respond. Despite the lack of signs. For this reason I urge you to place your vote in me. Thank you and God Bless.