2-15 Bishop Spong -VS- Dr. Martin - Topic : Sexual Ethics

A debate between the controversial Episcopal Bishop of Newark, N.J., Rev. Spong, and Dr. Martin concerning. "Should the church condemn or condone homosexual and premarital sex?" Dr. Walter Martin, Dr. John Spong, Roger Montgomery Debate these Topics and More on the John Ankerberg Show. http://ankerberg.com/

This was Dr. Walter Martin's Last Debate before his Death. 1989 (June 24) Debate with Bishop Spong on "The John Ankerberg Show," the weekend prior to his death. 1989 (June 26) Walter R. Martin died peacefully at his home in San Juan Capistrano, California. He was 60 years old. Link to his Site Below

http://www.waltermartin.com/index.html

Wikepedia on Walter Martin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Martin

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Dr.
• Walter
• Martin
• John
• Spong
• Roger
• Montgomery
• Ankerberg
• Debate
• Sexual
• Ethics

[kidwhocracked]

I would probably disagree with Spong on sexuality, but he seems to making much more sense than the others here, and he's certainly very gracious despite how little respect he seems to be given.

[demondagger19]

Jesus claimed to be God, and the gospels themselves give witness to this. Now, it's one thing to flat out deny, what the scriptures already teaches about who Jesus Christ is, but it's another to say that the scriptures don't teach the deity of Christ, (Bishop Spong) is a clear example of a heretic.

[Keruaran]

Dr Martin tells Spong he'd be kicked out of the Anglican Church in the 1930's. Spong replies with an amazingly smarmy and arrogant, "I don't think so". Fast forward to his 2001 and 2007 trips to Australia. Spong is rejected as an apostate and banned from speaking in Churches in their respective diocese by two Anglican Bishops. Forget the 1930's, in the 21st century Mr "I don't think so" received a very firm, "we don't think so" from Australian Anglican Bishops.

[mrpayne123]

Evangelical scholars start with thinking the bible is infallible, and then they violently twist the evidence to fit that because that certainty makes them happy.

Why would all other scholars besides fundamentalists want to point out the many contradictions and forgeries in the Bible? Most of them are Christians so the only motive they would have is to do the exact opposite, yet they are honest.

Martin doesn't respond with facts,he just says "what your saying is making the Bible less reliable"

[NewLeftOpposition]

@demondagger19 Square circles.

[demondagger19]

@NewLeftOpposition The statement "My doctrine is not mine", clearly affirms that Jesus is speaking on behalf of the father, not himself, again, learn to read the verse in context, he isn't denying his deity, but rather is speaking based on the information his father is giving him to say, that is what the text is saying. My advice would be for you to know your doctrine, because it's quiet obvious that you don't.

[demondagger19]

@NewLeftOpposition "My doctrine is not mine" cannot be any clearer. Jesus makes an ontological distinction between himself and God. So should you."

Kid, no ones saying that God the father, and God the Son (which is Jesus Christ), aren't two distinct persons from one another, and i nowhere said that they weren't different from one another, clearly they are, you've clearly missed the point.

cont

[demondagger19]

@NewLeftOpposition "You cannot be both limited and unlimited simultaneously. It's not just a logical, but an existential contradiction."

Actually it's not illogical at all, think about it, if God created logic, and if Jesus is God, why then would he then not have the ability in manipulating it according to his own power, namely in this case, in becoming a human being if he so willfully chooses to do so? In short, it's not an impossibility for the one who created logic itself to begin with.

[demondagger19]

@NewLeftOpposition But, even though he took on a human nature, and became a human being, his divine nature did not cease to exist in the process, all Jesus basically did was "Add on" a human attribute along with his divinity, and hence there being a perfect balance between the two, in other words, the two natures didn't overlap each other, they both where equalized with one another simultaneously in a perfect balance.

cont

[demondagger19]

@NewLeftOpposition Again, how was he limited? he was only limited in regards to him giving up his authoritative position before when he ruled with the father eternally, but when he became a human being, that authority that he held on to before the incarnation, was subjected to the father, and thus his divine prerogatives where relinquished from him temporarily as a human being.

cont

[demondagger19]

@NewLeftOpposition Secondly, because Jesus is God, then he has the ability in taking on a human nature if he so chooses to do so as Philippians 2 describes, why? because there is no limitations within his own abilities in doing so, why? because he is God, his powers are limitless, it holds no bounds.

cont