Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fox-McDonald Debate: A Brief Review!

Expand Messages
  • Robert
    (One of Two) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OneheartinChrist/message/2820 From: Marion R. Fox To: OneHeartInChrist@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, August 6,
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 6 9:13 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      (One of Two)

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OneheartinChrist/message/2820

      From: Marion R. Fox
      To: OneHeartInChrist@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Saturday, August 6, 2011

      Subject: Fox-McDonald Debate

      Brethren,

      I have decided to write a brief review of my debate with Jerry McDonald.

      First,

      Jerry gave me my point that what is forbidden in 1 Tim. 2:12 is
      authoritative type teaching. Then I argued that this applied "everywhere" or "in
      every place." Jerry countered with a claim that a mother may authoritatively
      teach her adult son. I pointed out that Jerry did not give us an apostolic
      approved example, a direct statement (command etc.), or a necessary inference
      (implication) of his claim that a mother may authoritatively teach her adult
      son. Jerry only gave us emotional arguments, he did not give us scripture except
      to go to the book of Proverbs and "beg the question."

      Second,

      I set forth several arguments that proved that the expression "in every
      place" is not limited. (Primogeniture argument etc.). Jerry had no answer to
      that argument. Jerry admitted that he denied a proposition that he believed to
      be true.

      Third,

      Jerry admitted that he did not believe the proposition that he was
      affirming when he said that a woman was not obligated to "preach the gospel to
      men." After he gave up his proposition, I decided to deal with the last part of
      his proposition (the claim that "The Great Commission" was binding upon us until
      the second coming). I demanded that he prove that the expression: "end of the
      world" meant the second coming. Jerry did not give us any arguments to prove
      this claim. Jerry gave me a trilemma with the following options:

      > (1) either this expression means
      > the second coming, or
      >
      > (2) it means the end of the Law
      > of Moses, or
      >
      > (3) it means the destruction of
      > Jerusalem (A.D. 70).

      Jerry knew that I had
      set forth (very briefly) in my book (The Great Commission) that it referred to
      the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the nation of Israel. He seemed to
      think that he could label me with the "Max King error" and "poison the well"
      against me. This is when I decided to set forth my arguments on this expression
      (that I made in my second speech of Friday night).

      After Jerry gave up his proposition, I decided to make an affirmative argument
      demonstrating the meaning of the expression "end of the world." I realize that
      the argument was condensed (on the slides) and that it will require a bit of
      study by Bible students, but I believe that honest-hearted persons will study my
      claims. I think that I gave enough information (on my slides) for an honest
      person to discern what I am claiming the Scriptures teach.

      Jerry's only reply was to introduce a "red herring" and accuse me (falsely) of
      teaching the Max King error.

      Yours in His service,
      Marion R. Fox

      ----------------------------------------------------------

      (Two of Two)

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OneheartinChrist/message/2821

      From: Marion R. Fox
      To: OneHeartInChrist@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Saturday, August 6, 2011

      Subject: Fox-McDonald Debate

      Brethren:

      There was one other matter that I left out of my review. I asked Jerry why he
      marked me as a "false teacher" and he said: "You know." That was not true and
      Jerry knows it was not true. To this day I do not know what "specifically" these
      men claim I teach that is false doctrine that warrants me being marked.

      This is a lie that has been told by several preachers and I am surprised that
      brethren cannot see through it. They could easily say: "Marion teaches "x," "y,"
      "z" etc. and these doctrines warrant him being marked. Are they not being
      specific because they are afraid to let the brotherhood know what they teach in
      this matter?

      Love demands that we reprove sin (including false doctrine). Reproving means to
      expose both the guilt of the claim and a proof (from the Scriptures) that it is
      (in fact) false doctrine. I claim that no man has the right to rebuke a person
      until he has first reproved (shown evidence that the accused has committed the
      alleged act and that the alleged act is sin). Reproving (ASV) is a mark of love
      (Rev. 3:19).

      If Jerry truly loved me, he would most certainly let me know what false doctrine
      I am teaching in order that I might repent of teaching it.

      Yours in His service,
      Marion R. Fox

      ---------------------------------------------------------
      ---------------------------------------------------------
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.