In April 2007, a religious debate was held in Conway, Arkansas between Bruce Reeves, who preaches for the Highway 65 Church of Christ in Conway, AR and Dr. Ronald V. Mitchell, professor of church history/theology at Central Baptist College, Conway, AR.
The propositions were:
Resolved:"The scriptures teach that it is possible for a Christian, i.e., one who has been cleansed by the blood of Christ, to so sin as to be eternally lost." Affirm: Bruce Reeves Deny: Ron Mitchell
Thursday - April 26, 2007
- B. Reeves - 1st. Aff. R. Mitchell - 1st. Neg. B. Reeves - 2nd. Aff. R. Mitchell - 2nd. Neg.
Resolved: "The scriptures teach that it is impossible for a Christian, i.e., one who has been cleansed by the blood of Christ, to so sin as to be eternally lost." Affirm: Ron Mitchell Deny: Bruce Reeves
Friday - April 27, 2007
- R. Mitchell - 1st. Aff. B. Reeves - 1st. Neg. R. Mitchell - 2nd. Aff. B. Reeves - 2nd. Neg.
The Defining Moment of the Reeves-Mitchell Debate
|
Not Saving Knowledge? |
Is Saving Knowledge? |
|
“This word ‘epignosis,’ we discussed the difference between it and gnosis and this passage that brother Bruce chose he said showed that a saved person had the epignosis knowledge and had lost it. We looked up that word and twenty times it is used in the New Testament. The other nineteen leave no doubt whatsoever that epignosis is referring to saving faith, but that it is used totally different in 2 Peter 2:20…I believe that is a different passage” (Reeves-Mitchell Debate, Ron Mitchell’s First Affirmative, April 27, 2007). |
“When you get up here you cannot find chapters – books you have known where they were forever. In fact, I have misspoke a few times. I misspoke a while ago, Bruce, and I apologize—I said that epignosis used twenty times and that one did not refer to salvific knowledge and that is certainly not what I intended to say and that is certainly not true” (Reeves-Mitchell Debate, Ron Mitchell’s Second Affirmative, April 27, 2007). |
|
Listen ( Not Saving Knowledge? ) |
Listen ( Is Saving Knowledge? ) |
|
This was one of the defining moments in my debate with Dr. Ron Mitchell on the subject of the Impossibility of Apostasy. Interestingly it was both bewildering and encouraging. It was bewildering, in that, Dr. Mitchell's entire argumentation in response to the exegesis of 2 Peter, which I offered on Thursday evening, was that those spoken of in 2:20-22 were never saved. This did not surprise me for it is the orthodox Baptist understanding. Both contextually and linguistically it was demonstrated that these individuals had been truly saved, but had fallen away. When asked about this passage you will notice that he commented that he and those assisting him had looked up the word knowledge (epignosis) and nineteen out of twenty times in which it is used it referred to saving knowledge but not in this text. Yet, in his next speech he apologized and admitted that the term in 2 Peter 2:20 did refer to saving knowledge. With that one statement Dr. Mitchell's entire attempt of refuting my affirmative argumentation was swept away. How could one harmonize this understanding with his position regarding the impossibility of apostasy? Even a surface reading of these quotations would reveal that the conclusion that those who had saving knowledge and then became dogs and pigs would affirm the possibility of apostasy.
|
Bruce Reeves' Reply To Ron Mitchell's Charges
Debate Review on Once Saved Always Saved - April 30, 2007
Debate Review By Keith Sharp
The Question of an Agreement Regarding Calvinism