Upcoming Debate Between Steve Gregg and Dr. Michael Brown

[Sean]

Is Steve out of town this week? Is the debate still a go? Does the internet work well where you are at Steve? (If your out of town, that is.)

[steve]

I am in Honolulu, teaching for YWAM, but that should not interfere with the debate going forward (I was planning on being here at the time I agreed to the debate). However, Dr. Brown had some emergency arise, which required that the debate be rescheduled for Wednesday morning, instead of Tuesday.

[CThomas]

Like the others, I'm really looking forward to hearing this one. Both you and Michael Brown have influenced my thinking in different ways, and this is one of the many issues I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough about which to have a decided view. I also like the format, which leaves substantial time for direct interaction. Both of you are very respectful guys, and there won't be any problem yielding to each other to answer points under discussion. Should be great.

CThomas

[Sean]

Well, I wish it could have been longer. But it is what it is.

I wish that Michael Brown, since he has many times stated that God must fulfill any outstanding promises to all Israel, would directly address passages like 1 Samuel 2:30 (which Steve mentioned) and Jeremiah 18:9-10.

Dr. Brown seems to take the position that if God requires a condition be met with Israel then that is like God breaking His word. And since that can't happen then God will "keep His promises" to Israel even in unbelief.

Yet this would contradict the passages already cited. It would also contradict Leviticus 26:

40 “‘But if they will confess their sins and the sins of their ancestors —their unfaithfulness and their hostility toward me, 41 which made me hostile toward them so that I sent them into the land of their enemies—then when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they pay for their sin, 42 I will remember my covenant with Jacob and my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land

[CThomas]

Very interesting, but obviously to brief to all much in the way of definitive conclusions. I wonder whether, in formulating debates of this sort, it might make more sense to substantially narrow the scope of the resolution. If you want to talk about the post-NT role of Israel and have only an hour, maybe spend that hour just talking about, I don't know, Romans 11:29 (to pick a purely arbitrary example). That would probably allow the discussion to go a bit deeper and perhaps make some progress toward agreement, albeit on a very narrow issue.

CThomas

[CThomas]

(I also thought that, without any disrespect to the moderator, he was too active in participating in the discussion. With one hour and two featured speakers, a very minimalist role for the moderator would have been ideal.)

[darinhouston]

(I also thought that, without any disrespect to the moderator, he was too active in participating in the discussion. With one hour and two featured speakers, a very minimalist role for the moderator would have been ideal.)

Or an active role in keeping Brown from interrupting Steve.

[Choosethisday]

Can anyone tell me where I can listen to the debate?
Thanks,
In His service

[jeremiah]

here you go man. if the link doesn't work just type in :www.theopologetics.com, click on the "shalom jerusalem" link and there you can download the podcast.
http://www.theopologetics.com/2012/07/1 ... jerusalem/

grace and peace...

[steve7150]

I thought it was a great but short debate and that both sides made their points. I thought Steve's best point was describing the Apostles interpretations of OT promises to Israel. That is a compelling argument and i thought Brown's breakdown of Romans 11 was excellent.
Both parties were convincing IMO and i hope to see a longer debate in the future. They may never agree but thought it was edifying.