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

First I would like to address one issue in the 3rd round rebuttal:"If my opponent wishes to challenge my assertion that the Holy Spirit falling on a person indicates conversion" Well, let's look at this:First of all there are five recorded accounts in the New Testament of the Holy Spirit being "recieved," having "fallen" or "filled", etc. : 1. Acts 2:4, 2. Acts 4:31, 3. Acts 8:17, 4. Acts 10:44-46 and 5. Acts 19:6. In 4 out of 5 times, the account records supernatural signs accompanied the occasion and in the Acts 8:17 account although there was not mention of a supernatural sign, Simon a former sorcerer was so intrigued by whatever happened to those who recieved the Holy Spirit that he offered money to buy the ability to lay hands on people and them recieve the Holy Spirit. So either 80% or 100% of the time when people recieved the Holy Spirit, something supernatural happened. Now if my opponent insists that the"Holy Spirit falling on a person indicates conversion" (although I would disagree with him), he will have conceded the debate. Back to Business. .. In the second round, my opponent responded with a response to ONE statement in my opening argument and up to this point, the debate has been a rebuttal of a rebuttal of a rebuttal on ONE point. At this point, I would like to guide this debate back on track and resume my argument. First of all in the first round challenge, I stated: "The contrary position will defend the position that "witnessing" and preaching without any manifestations of the Supernatural is pleasing to God as a primary form of evangelization. "I did not speak against the need for the preaching of the Gospel. I did not state that supernatural phenomena ALONE were all that was needed to lead someone to Jesus (although my opponent did find a couple of accounts where they were all that were used as indicated in the yellow highlighted section of his second round rebuttal. ) The preaching of the Gospel is an absolute necessity in leading someone to salvation (otherwise how does one know HOW to get saved). I do not deny that someone can get saved without witnessing the supernatural. 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. Rom 10:17-So then faith cometh by hearing , and hearing by the word of God. There are two ways people in Biblical times came to faith in the Word of God. First was by witnessing a supernatural sign and secondly by believing the report of someone who has witnessed a supernatural sign. The primary source of faith is then the supernarual sign, the secondary source being the report of a witness. Joshua and Caleb are an example of those who believed through the primary source, and Rahab the harlot is one who believed through the secondary source. 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. A father may pass on his looks to his son, but after a fourth or fifth generation, the children look less and less like the great-grandfather. The longer the Church goes without a primary source of faith, the weaker its witness becomes! Acts 1:8 says, "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me. .. " The first step he gave was recieving power through the Holy Spirit (as I pointed out above, when people recieved the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, something supernatural happened). After this, one would BECOME a witness. "Witness" is not a verb, it is a noun! One becomes a witness by experiencing the supernatural! If one hasn't seen credible proof, how can one be a witness? One's testimony is then hearsay! In Acts 19, the seven sons of Sceva tried to witness on a hearsay testimony. .. The Church that does not have the power of a credible witness to the validity of the Bible through supernatural signs has a vacuum in its evangelism efforts. Churches attempt to fill this void with "Pack A Pew Sunday," "Volleyball and Pizza Night," or the myriad of other gimicks and tricks that churches use to solicit membership. Many churches are either filling their pews with members of other churches by offering more bells and whistles than the last church or they are dwindling. The efforts of these churches are like that of a telemarketer. A telemarketer will call someone and harrass them with an item for which the person does not see a need. Jesus never needed to use gimicks to get people to come to Him! The word "mulitudes" is found quite frequently throughout the Gospel accounts! His evangelism was like a grocery store. There are no grocery stores calling my house to sell groceries to me! They don't have to. They know that I will eventually get hungry and come to them! This put Jesus in a position of power, rather than the weak position of American churches who practically beg people to come to church. How did Jesus gain this position of power over people? He did so THROUGH THE SUPERNATURAL! The Church in the Book of Acts didn't hold a weak position either. There was no shortage of mulitudes in Early Church evangelism! A big problem with my opponent's list is that in two of the accounts where there was a supernatural sign, 3000 and 5000 came to faith! An impact of that magnitude is not recorded in those accounts without a supernatural sign. Why would God want his Church to operate without His supernatural power if He worked through supernatural power in the ministry of Jesus and encouraged Jesus's disciples through Jesus's final command to recieve power (which was manifest throughout the Book of Acts in supernatural signs)? Why would God want the Church to have a weak witness rather than a strong one? Why would God want "proselyter" churches or dying churches rather than churches that are having a powerful impact on the world around them? Now to answer some of my opponents rebuttal:"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. '"I couldn't agree more. I am certainly not speaking against love just because I am defending the need for supernatural power. The Church needs EVERYTHING in the New Testament! I am not advocating GIFTS of the Spirit to the exclusion of FRUIT of the Spirit! It seems that my opponent is the one who is seeking to exclude. A combustion engine needs the big pistons and cylinders; but won't work without small distributor points (in a carburated engine). All parts are necessary! Why leave out something so vital to the Early Church and the ministry of Jesus as supernatural power? "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. "No, they are not intended as examples of evangelism. They are examples of the validation of the Word of God. Without validation, the "Word of God" could just be a book of myths. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Without faith which comes from hearing the Word of God, one cannot get saved!