Mr. Till and respected readers:

I want to express my appreciation for the wonderful opportunity that I have to be a participant in this discussion. I count it a privilege. I assure you that every word that I shall write will come from a heart of love and concern for my opponent as well as everyone else who reads this discussion. I have no animosity towards him, but you understand, of course, from the fact that we are having this discussion that I disagree with his position. I am firmly convinced that anyone who follows the position which he espouses is in danger of eternal damnation and will suffer such fate if they do not change their beliefs before they die.

He and I agree, I take it, that every person should study the evidence and draw only such conclusions as are warranted by that evidence. This is in harmony with what it means to be a Christian and it is in harmony with what I shall try to do throughout this debate.

Preliminary Remarks: I wish to take care of some preliminary matters before I begin. I want to deal with the idea of knowledge. Farrell is on record as stating that knowledge can come only in one of five ways: "We may see things, we may hear things, we may smell things, we may taste things, we may feel things, and as a result we acquire information that we can properly call knowledge." (The Laws-Till Debate, p. 6) [sic] Does he really believe that this is the only way of obtaining knowledge: [sic] In his book Introduction to Philosophy Giesler [sic] gives: [sic] "...five corresponding logics or criteria for validating beliefs. They are faith or authortairianism, [sic] subjectivism, rationalism, empericism [sic] and pragmatism." (pp. 103,104) [sic] While none of these alone is the sole criteron [sic] for gaining knowledge, they all play a very important part in our lives as we strive to gain knowledge. If I were to say that the only way that one could know anything is by rationalism and logic, Till would quickly point out that I had left out our five senses and and [sic] rightly so. However, he does the same thing when he says that the only way to know is through the five senses. We must not rule out the five senses, but at the same time we must not be guilty of putting them above all others. We can use the testimony of others, common sense and intuition (the definition of subjectivism) as well as rationalism. We also need our empirical sense, and pragmatism can be used to regulate our social and individual conduct while Biblical imperitives [sic] do not apply. As Geisler says: [sic] "Each method is best suited for application to a specific kind of knowledge." (p. 117) [sic] So when I use the testimony of others and logic, all will know that I am using valid criteria to prove my proposition. Till is fond of saying that unless we were there when the Bible was inspired we cannot know for sure that it was inspired. I did not need to be there to know. I can use logic and the testimony of others to have knowledge. If Till cannot know except by the senses he cannot know that the Bible is not inspired because he was not there when it was. So his argument turns against him.

Challenge: Since Till believes that the only way we can know is by the use of our five senses, I want to challenge him to show, only by the use of his five senses, that Moses never existed or that he did not write the Pentateuch, and do this withough [sic] using the authorities or the testimony of others. Now I predict that he will not try, but the challenge is there for him to take. However, I have a feeling that when he starts getting into higher criticism he is going to use the testimony of others and certain authorities such as Ian Wilson and Richard Elliott Friedman to prove that the Pentateuch was written by different authors that they call "J,E,D, and P". [sic] If Farrell is going to rely upon higher criticism, he is going to have to violate his ideas about knowledge and use the authorities, but we shall wait and see.

Till Versus Till: In his debate with Jim Laws, Mr. Till answered a question that I feel will help us in showing that Till's position is false. Till was asked if he might be wrong regarding his view of the Bible. His answer: [sic] "From long years of dogmatically believing (as Dr. Laws does) that I was right, totally right, and could't be wrong in my view of the Bible, I learned that it was unwise to take the position, on any matter, that I cannot be wrong. So, yes, it is possible that I am wrong" (und. mine J. M.) The Laws-Till Debate, (p. 11) [sic] Mr. Till, has signed a propositon [sic] that says "Resolved: There are intertextual contradictions and inconsistencies, historical and scientific inaccuracies, failed prophecies, absurdities, moral atrocities attributed to divine ordainment, plagiarisms, and other disparities recorded in the Bible that disprove its claim to be the inspired word of God." (und. mine, J.M.) [sic] Now anyone can see that the proposition he has promised to affirm in this discussion contradicts his answer to Jim Laws' question in the Laws-Till debate. There he said that it is possible that he is wrong regarding the Bible. He has signed a proposition that demands that he be absolutely sure that he is not wrong in his views regarding the Bible. In other words, he says one thing in one debate and something totally contradictory in another debate. Whenever a man contradicts himself, we know that his position is false. He has contradicted himself by signing the proposition that he is to affirm. Therefore, Mr. Till's position is a false position. If his position is false, then he has no business teaching it. As Jim Laws said: [sic] "...for all practical purposes the debate could end right here." The Laws-Till Debate, p. 13) [sic]

Joseph Wheless: Mr. Till tells me that the book Is It God's Word? is the most convincing "Anti-Inerrancy" book that he has ever read. After obtaining a copy of this book, I have found that many of the so-called Bible contradictions that Mr. Wheless has brought up can be easily explained by either reading what the passage says or by placing a correct interpretation upon the passage. Case and [sic] point: Wheless tries to show that the Biblical account of the flood is inaccurate because Wheless says that Methuselah would have lived through the flood. "Methuselah did not die until a year or more after the Flood--... [sic] It is recorded that Methuselah was 187 years old when his son Lamech was born (Gen. v,25) and he lived for 787 years afterwards, dying at the ripe old age of 969 years. (v,26,27) [sic] Lamech was 182 when his son Noah was born (v.28,29). When the Flood began, Noah was in his six hundredth year, or, to be exact, he was 599 years, one month, and seventeen days old (vii,11)...Methuselah was alive when the Flood began and when it ended, if the Bible record is true." (pp.58.59) [sic] Had he read Genesis 7:5: [sic] "And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth." [sic] he would have seen that Noah's age was counted after his birthday and not before [sic] which would have given Methuselah plenty of time to die before the flood. He would have had a whole year. On page 361 Wheless accused the Master of saying in Matthew 14:28 and Mark 9:1 that some of the disciples who followed him during his personal ministry would not die until he returned when all Jesus said was that some of them would not die until the church came into its established state. Where are the difficulties? Only in Wheless' and Till's minds!

In this part of the debate we will be looking to see if there is enough evidence to warrant the claim made by the Bible in 2 Tim. 3:16 that: [sic] "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..." [sic] If there is, then I will be able to sustain my proposition. However, given Mr. Till's position, he cannot know whether the evidence warrants such a conclusion or not. It is his obligation to follow me point by point, statement by statement and argument by argument. He is to answer every question that I shall ask, and I will do as much for him.

The Proposition--Resolved: The Bible in its original autographs was verbally and fully inspired by Jehovah God and is therefore completely inerrant.

The Proposition Defined:

1. "Resolved:..." [sic] Decided, determined.

2. "...the Bible..." [sic] The sixty-six books of the Bible.

3. "...in its original autographs..." [sic] The original manucripts that God inspired the Bible writers to write.

4. "...verbally and fully inspired..." [sic] All of the Bible was given by God who by the Holy Spirit revealed his word to certain men who wrote it down or spoke it using words which were selected by the Holy Spirit.

5. "...by Jehovah God..." [sic] The God of the Bible who is mentioned as the creator of all things.

6. "...and is therefore completely inerrant." The word completely denotes the "all" or "whole" of it. The word "inerrant" means: [sic] "free from error; infallible." [sic] (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 504) [sic]

Questions:

1. Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer we will assume that your answer is true.) "Each of us has a real (objective) moral obligation to become a believer that the Bible is not inspired by God. [sic] So that if one does not become a believer in said position, that person becomes guilty of real (objective) moral wrong." [sic]

2. Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer we will assume that your answer is true.) "Faith is a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence."

3. Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer we will assume that your answer is false.) "It can be absolutely proven that the Bible in its original autographs cannot be absolutely proven to be the inspired and inerrant word of Jehovah God."

4. Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer we will assume that your answer is true.) "It can be absolutely proven that the Bible in its original autographs can be absolutely proven not to be the inspired and inerrant word of Jehovah God.

5. Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer we will assume that your answer is true.) "Men should draw only such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence."

What I am not affirming:

1. I am not affirming that translations are inspired of God.
   
2. I am not affirming that every translation is a correct translation.
   
3. I am not affirming that translators were inspired of God.
   
4. I am not affirming that every doctrine of inspiration is correct.
   

What I am affirming:

1. I am affirming that God does exist.
   
2. I am affirming that God inspired men to write the original manuscripts of the Bible.
   
3. I am affirming the doctrine of "Verbal, Plenary Inspiration."
   
4. I am affirming that the original manuscripts were free from error. When a translation is translated correctly it will still convey the same message as did the original.
   

My Obligation:

My obligation as far as this proposition is concerned is to give a precisely stated argument. This argument must be valid. That is, the form of the argument must be correct. This argument must be true. That is, the premises must be true and the conclusion must follow from the premises. When I produce such an argument, I will have produced a sound argument. When I do this, I will prove my proposition.

The argument that I shall give in defense of my proposition is the constituent element argument. This argument says that when you prove all of the parts to be factual, then you have proven the whole to be true. If my argument is true, then my proposition is true. As long as Farrell holds to his belief on knowledge, he cannot logically deny any part of my argument. Therefore, he cannot deny my proposition.

The argument:

Major Premise: All total situations, the constituent elements of which are factual are total situations which are true.

Minor Premise: The total situation described by my proposition is a total situation the constituent elements of which are factual.

Conclusion: Therefore, the total situation described by my proposition is a total situation which is true.

Now all this argument says is that if all the parts are factual, then the whole is true. The argument is valid. It conforms to the rules of this type [sic] syllogism. Both premises are precisely stated and the conclusion follows. Therefore [sic] the argument is valid. Is the argument true? The major premise is true: "If all of the parts are factual then the whole is true." The question is: "Are All of The [sic] Parts Factual?" Let us find out.

In order to prove that the Bible is God's inspired word, we must first of all prove that God exists. When this is proven then we can prove that the Bible is of divine origin. We can prove it to be inerrant. We can prove that it is authoritative. We can prove that it is all sufficient. We can prove that the canon that we have is the correct canon. We can prove that it is the most [sic] unique book on earth. Then we can prove that historically it is a reliable document. When we prove this much, we will prove this proposition. When we prove this much, we will prove this proposition. Can these things be proven?

Element Number one: Does God exist?

1. "Till's Prison." Envision with me, if you will, a series of rooms. Each room is inside of [sic] another and each one is small. On a chart it look like a large square with several smaller squares inside of [sic] it. In these rooms are walls which are made of steel and concrete with no doors or windows. There are no holes in either the floors or the walls. Envision Mr. Till as being in the innermost room and the only way that he can come to his conclusion that the Bible is not the inspired and inerrant word of God is to come through each and every wall. He cannot go over or under, [sic] he must go through. I submit to you that he is in the midst of a prison and that he cannot come through all of these walls and not only that, but he cannot come through any of these walls.
   1. Now in order for Farrell to know (absolutely) that the Bible is not the inspired and inerrant word of God, he must know that there is no God, and there are several things that he must know before he can know this much. (1) He must know that matter is eternal. (2) He must know that life came from rocks and dirt. (3) He must know that consciousness came from that which has no consciousness. (4) He must know that conscience came from that which had no conscience. (5) He must know that intelligence came from that which had no intelligence. (6) He must know that human beings came from that which was not human.

   2. The path that Mr. Till must follow if he is to know that the Bible is not God's word is that he must break through each and every wall in this prison, but he cannot even go through the first wall because he cannot know that God does not exist. Now he can believe that God does not exist, but he cannot know this. If Mr. Till answers question #2 in the affirmative he will be taking the position that faith is a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. If he takes this position then we will know that is [sic] faith is an irrational faith. However, if he answers question #2 in the negative, he will be taking the position that there is evidence for faith and will be forced to deal with the evidence that I give for my faith in some way other than saying that faith is belief without evidence. How will he answer question #2? His response will show us whether or not he views faith as being irrational.

2. The Argument For [sic] The [sic] Existence of God.

   Major Premise: If there is even one characteristic, attribute or property of even one human being which could have come into existence only by the creative power of God, then that one human being constitutes proof that God does exist.

   Minor Premise: There is one characteristic, attribute or property of at least one human being which could have come into existence only by the creative power of God.

   Conclusion: Therefore, that one human being constitutes proof (when the evidence is recognized and reasoned about properly) that God does exist.

   1. In regards to the argument we notice that (1) the argument is valid. (2) If the two premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. (3) The only question is on the second premise. Is it true or false? Let us proceed to prove it is true. When we do we will prove this argument.

   2. Proof for the truthfulness of the argument on the Existence of God.

      1. Either human beings owe their ultimate origin to creation or to evolution. These are the only two possibilities.

      2. If human beings owe their ultimate origin to creation, then God does exist.

      3. If human beings owe their ultimate origin to evolution, then this evolution must have happened only in one of two ways. (A) Either some human-being [sic] was born of some non-human [sic] thing or (B) some human being was transformed from some non-human [sic] thing. I submit that this is the only way this could have happened. And now, if Mr. Till is to disprove the argument that God does exist, he is going to either have to show that one of these two alternatives is true or he must point out another possibility.

      4. It is false that any human being was ever born of [sic] some non-human [sic] thing.

      5. It is false that any human being was ever transformed of some non-human [sic] thing.

      6. This being the case, the following argument is true.

         Major Premise: If it is the case that no human being was ever born of or transformed from some non-human [sic] thing, then it is case that man owes his ultimate origin to creation, which prove that God does exist.

         Minor Premise: It is the case that no human being was ever born of or transformed from some non-human [sic] thing.

         Conclusion: Therefore, it is the case that man owes his ultimate origin to creation which proves that God does exist.

3. The Argument For [sic] Man's Respiratory System [sic] Being One Characteristic, Attribute or Property Which Could have Come Into [sic] Existence Only By [sic] The [sic] Creative Power of God.

   Major Premise: If the gaseous interchanges (i. e., of oxygen and carbon dioxide) in the respiratory system of a human being possess such properties (or involve such things) as to make clear that such interchanges were not brought into being by any part of or the totality of dead matter, then the respiratory system of the human being (in which these interchanges occur) must have been brought into being by a (the) creator who transcends the universe (God).

   Minor Premise: The gaseous interchanges in the respiratory system of a human being possess such properties as to make it clear that such interchanges were not brought into being by any part of or the totality of dead matter.

   Conclusion: The respiratory system of the human being must have been brought into being by a (the) creator who transcends the universe (God).

   1. In regards to the argument we find that if these interchanges could not have been brought into being by any part of or the totality of dead matter (evolution) then God had to have created it, which proves that God does exist. There is no way to deny this because there are only two alternatives: "Creation or Evolution". [sic] If not by evolution then by creation. [sic] Now I must prove that the minor premise is true. These interchanges could not have been brought into being by evolutionary forces. I must now show why the respiratory system could not have been brought into being by evolutionary forces.

   2. Proof for the argument.

      (1.) The Alveoli Of [sic] The [sic] Respiratory System.

      1. Aveoli [sic] are grapelike bunches of very small air sacks.

      2. Each person has approximately 750,000,000 of these.

      3. All of them together likely have a surface area which is about 25 times that of the skin. Spread out flat, they would probably cover as much as 600 square feet.

      4. Each Aveolus [sic] is covered with a network of capillaries.

      5. The capillaries are so small that the red blood cells must pass through them one cell at a time.

      6. Through the very thin walls of the capillaries, the blood gives up its waste (carbon dioxide) and takes on refreshing life-giving oxygen. without this exchange of carbon dioxide and oxygen, no human could live for more than a few moments.

      7. The body's entire blood supply must pass through these small blood vessels every few minutes.

         1. The blood goes in one end a dark blue-black and out the other a bright cherry red.

         2. Day and night this process must go on without interruption.

(2.) It is clear from these facts that man did not evolve by mere chance from non-living [sic] matter--but that man was created by God. It would have taken billions of years for this system to have evolved into what we have today if evolution is correct. It would have had to evolve along with the human body and, without it, the human body could not have lived long enough for this to have happened. Thus God does exist.

Element Number Two: "The Bible Is Of [sic] Divine Origin."

1. "Till's Prison." In order for Till to come to the conclusion that the Bible is not the word of God, he must know that God does not exist, but he cannot know even that much. Now that we have proven that God does exist, we can prove that the Bible is not of divine origin; that is, that it came from God. In order to break through this wall, he is going to have to know for sure that the Bible is not of divine origin, and this is something he cannot know for sure; therefore, he must stay in this prison.

2. The Argument For [sic] The [sic] Bible [sic] Being Of [sic] Divine Origin.

Major Premise: The Bible is either of divine origin or it is of human origin.

Minor Premise: The Bible is not of human origin.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible is of divine origin.

3. Proof for the argument.
   1. Mr. Till might object to the major premise of this argument by trying to show that someone other than God or man could have written the Bible. In his debate with Jim Laws he said: [sic] "...for if this Satan that fundamentalists believe in has the power to work miracles on earth to thwart the purpose of God, how can we be sure that one of the miracles was not the 'inspiration' of a book (the Bible) that was intended to deceive the world into accepting a false, albeit transcendent, image of God? Such a possibility would be entirely consistent with Bible teachings." The Laws-Till Debate, (p.10) [sic] The Bible could not possibily [sic] have been written by Satan because he cannot do any good. Jesus responded to the Phariseeic [sic] charge that he had healed the man possessed, deaf and blind by the power of Beelzebub, the prince of devils by saying: [sic] "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand." (Mt. 12:25,26) [sic] Satan could not have written the Bible because the Bible teaches that which is good. The Bible teaches that which is good, and it claims that there is no good in Satan. How could Satan possibly have written that which would cause men to live good moral lives? (Gal. 5:19-23) [sic] Therefore Satan could not have written the Bible.

   2. Since we have established that Satan could not have written the Bible, we can now go on to show that men could not be the sole writers of the Bible. If it is of human origin, what kind of humans were they that wrote it? Were they bad men? Could bad men have written something that condemns their life-style? (Gal. 5:19-23) [sic] No! Bad men would not have written it because it condemns their evil-doings. What about good men? Could they have written it? Good men could not have written it because the Bible claims to have been inspired by God, and if good men did write the Bible, then they would have had to lie, and good men do not lie.

   Therefore, since we see that there are only two alternatives, God or men (Satan is necessarily ruled out), and since we have shown that the Bible could not have been written by good men and would not have been written by bad men, then there is only one alternative left. The Bible is of divine origin. God inspired certain men to write it.

Element Number Three: "The Bible Is Inerrant."

1. "Till's Prison." Till is still in his prison and must stay there until he breaks through the first two elements. Since he cannot do this, then we can safely say that he cannot break through the third element. Therefore, he must stay in his prison.

2. Skeptics and infidels have tried for years to show that the Bible is not free from error because it was written with human agency. They reason thusly:

Major Premise: To err is human.

Minor Premise: The Bible was written with human agency.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible has error in it.

The above argument is faulty because the conclusion does not follow from the two premises. Yes, the Bible was written with human agency, but God had inspired these men to write it.

3. Are we to say that it is impossible for God to inspire men to write the Bible to be free from error? Would not the all-powerful God have the power to do this much? I think so!

4. [sic] The Argument for The [sic] Possibility For [sic] The [sic] Inerrancy Of [sic] The [sic] Scriptures.

Major Premise: If it is the case that God is omnipotent, then it is the case that he would have the power to inspire men to write the Bible to be free from error.

Minor Premise: It is the case that God is omnipotent.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is the case that God would have the power to inspire men to write the Bible to be free from error.

1. God created the human being. We saw in our first elements that there are only two possibilities: either creation or evolution.

   Major Premise: Either God created man or man is the product of evolution.

   Minor Premise: Man is not the product of evolution.

   Conclusion: Therefore, God created man.

2. God created the universe. Again, there are only two possibilities, creation or evolution.

   Major Premise: Either God created the universe or the universe is a product of evolution.

   Minor Premise: The universe is not a product of evolution.

   Conclusion: Therefore, God created the universe.

For proof of the two above syllogisms the reader is asked to review the first element of this argument.

3. A God that can create man and a universe would surely be able to inspire men to write the Bible to be free from error.

4. [sic] The Argument For [sic] The [sic] Inerrancy Of [sic] The [sic] Scriptures.

Major Premise: If God wrote the Bible, and if it claims inerrancy, and if God cannot lie, then the Bible is free from error.

Minor Premise: God wrote the Bible, and it does claim inerrancy, and God cannot lie.

Conclusion: The Bible is free from error.

1. 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20,21 and 1 Cor. 2:10 teach us that God inspired men to write the Bible. Also see my argument under Element Number 2-B. Tbis will show that the scriptures are of divine origin.

2. The Bible claims inerrancy. "..., [sic] and the scripture cannot be broken;" [sic] (Jno. 10:35) [sic] Alford says: [sic] "... 'and if you cannot explain this expression away,-- [sic] if it cannot mean nothing, [sic] for it rest [sic] upon the testimony of God's word,'..." [sic] (Alford's Greek New Testament, vol. 1, p.817) [sic] Robertson says: [sic] "A parenthesis that drives home the pertinency of the appeal, one that the Pharisees had to accept." [sic] (Word Picture of the New Testament, vol. 5, p.189) [sic] This simply means that they must accept the conclusion that Jesus drew from his premise. Why? Because it rested upon the testimony of God's word. This implies that God's word is free from error and it must be accepted.

3. God cannot lie for such would be impossible for him. (Tit. 1:2; Heb. 6:18) [sic]

4. Therefore, the scriptures are inerrant. They are free from error. Until Farrell can say with certainty that the scriptures are not inerrant, we will assume from the internal evidence that they are. We cannot logically deny this element. This element stands proven, and all he can do is "irrationally" say that he does not believe that they are inerrant, but we must have facts and facts are something that Farrell cannot give us. Whatever objections he may bring up on this element can be answered, and Farrell will be defeated in this element as well. Therefore, he must stay in his prison because he cannot break through the wall of inerrancy.

I want to take note of a quotation in the book Is It God's Word?. [sic] Wheless writes: [sic] "No man, priest, parson, or zealot for his inherited faith, [sic] can say with truth that this book of mine falsely or wantonly 'attacks the Bible,' or defames the Bible God, or ridicules the Christian religion. If iconoclastic results follow this candid search of the Scriptures, the fault is with the Bible, for this my book speaks truly." (p. viii) [sic] Wheless says that his book is truth while the Bible is at fault. Let us try the syllogism on this book that skeptics use on the Bible.

Major Premise: To err is human.

Minor Premise: The book Is It God's Word? was written by a human.

Conclusion: Therefore, the book Is It God's Word? has error in it.

As proof for this argument all I have to do is show that Joseph Wheless wrote this book without the aid of divine inspiration. Will Farrell take the position that this book is perfect and without error? If not, then what part is truth and what part is error? We cannot hold to the first syllogism without holding to the last one. If Farrell says that the last syllogism is true and sound, then he discredits the most convincing "Anti-Inerrancy" book he has ever read and therefore has no basis for his convictions. He is forced out of the debate. If he rejects the last one, he will, by necessity, reject the first one, in which case he admits that the Bible is inerrant. He is forced out of the debate. Either way, he is out of the debate.

Element Number Four: "The Bible Is Authoritative."

1. "Till's Prison." We have seen thus far that Farrell is unable to break out of the prison which holds him because he is unable to break through the first three walls. He cannot know that God does not exist. He cannot know that the Bible is not God's word. He cannot know that the Bible is not inerrant. Therefore, he must stay in his prison. Now we add another wall to his prison, the wall of authority. He must know, if he is to break out of this prison, that the Bible is not authoritative. If it is authoritative, then it will show man how to live. It will also be man's judge, and it will be a book that man is not allowed to add to or subtract from. Let us notice the following argument.

2. Argument For [sic] The [sic] Authority Of [sic] The [sic] Bible.

   Major Premise: If the Bible shows man how to live, and if it is to be man's judge, and it may not be added to or subtracted from, then it is authoritative.

   Minor Premise: The Bible does show man how to live, and it will be our judge, and it may not be added to or subtracted from.

   Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible is authoritative.

   1. The Bible shows man how to live.

      (1) In 2 Tim. 3:16 we are told that the scriptures are profitable for (A) doctrine, (B) reproof, (C) correction and (D) for instruction in righteousness.

      (2) 2 Tim. 3:17 tells us that these things are true so that the man of God may be complete, completely furnished unto every good work.

   2. The Bible will be our judge. (Jno. 12:48) [sic]

   Man may not add to or subtract from the Bible. (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18,19) [sic]

3. The Argument For [sic] The [sic] Bible [sic] Being Our Sole Authority In [sic] Religious Matters.

Major Premise: If we must do everything by the authority of Christ, and if the Bible is that authoritative word, then we must follow the Bible in making all of our religious decisions.

Minor Premise: We must do everything by the authority of Christ, and the Bible is that authoritative word.

Conclusion: Therefore, we must follow the Bible in making all of our religious decisions.

1. Colossians 3:17 says: [sic] "And whatsoever ye do in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus."

2. The Bible is that authoritative word.

(1) Jesus said that his word would be our judge. (Jno. 12:48) [sic]

(2) His words came by the Holy Spirit and were written in the Bible. (Jno. 14:26; 1 Cor. 7:10) [sic]

c. Therefore, the Bible must be followed in making all religious decisions.

Element Number Five: "The Bible Is All Sufficient."

1. "Till's Prison." We have seen thus far that Mr. Till is in the innermost room in the prison and cannot escape because he cannot break through the walls of (A) God's Existence, (B) The Bible [sic] being of divine origin, being from God. [sic] (C) The Bible [sic] being inerrant, and (D) The Bible [sic] being authoritative. In order to escape from this prison Farrell must break through each and every wall. However, there is no way through these walls as long as he holds to his position. If he cannot know unless he sees, hears, feels, smells, or tastes, then he cannot know that God does not exist, he cannot know that the Bible is not his word, he cannot know that the Bible is not inerrant and he cannot know that the Bible is not authoritative. Therefore, he must stay in his prison. There is no way out! Now we have another wall to add to his prison. The wall of All Sufficiency. The Bible needs no other book to help it teach people what to do to be saved. It needs no other book to back it up or endorse it. It has everything that man needs to live a Godly and happy life within its own pages. What other book could rightly make this claim?

2. The Argument For [sic] The [sic] All Sufficiency Of [sic] The [sic] Bible.

Major Premise: If the Bible gives us all things that will help us live this life and be Godly, then the Bible is all sufficient.

Minor Premise: The Bible does give us all things that will help us live this life and be Godly.

Conclusion: Therefore the Bible is All Sufficient.

1. The General Statements in 2 Tim. 3:16,17 and in 2 Pet. 1:3 show this to be true.

2. The Bible is all sufficient to show us how to live.

(1) Had Hitler followed God's word he would have never tortured and exterminated six million Jewish men, women and children. Whenever men stray from God's Holy word, moral atrocities are bound to happen. All one has to do to see this is to look at the holocaust that is taking place in our country today in killing a million and a half babies each year by abortion. Is God's word being followed? No!

(2) When men do things that are wrong, the Bible teaches them how to take care of those wrongs. Apart from the Bible, man has no knowledge about what to do with those feelings of guilt. The psychiatrist may instruct his patient to forget those feelings, but that does not take care of the problem. It is still there, [sic] it is merely covered up. The Bible tells us that we can come to Christ and be covered by his blood and then we can truly forget the problem.

(3) When I do things that are wrong, the Bible condemns me and shows me how to make things right. This is the work of the Bible: "And when the comforter is come, he will reprove the world of sin." (Jno. 16:8) [sic] At one time the Holy Spirit operated directly upon the hearts of men, while today he operates upon the hearts of men through the medium of the word of God. The Nazis were condemned by this word in the Nuremberg trials. Their defense was that (A) their society had its own needs and desires. [sic] (B) Their society made its own laws based upon those needs. [sic] (C) Their society commanded that they exterminate Jews. [sic] (D) It would have been wrong for them not to obey. [sic] (E) At the trial they claimed that they were being condemned by the law of an alien society--a society which had nothing to do with the Nazis. However, their prosecution appealed: [sic] "To a higher law which rises above the provincial and the transient." (R. H. Jackson, Closing Speech in the Nuremberg Trials) [sic] What law were they judged by? The law of God! Where is that law found? In the Bible!

So far, I have given a clear and precisely stated argument in favor of my proposition. I have given arguments which will sustain each and every element of my argument. It now becomes Farrell's obligation to answer my questions and arguments as I give them. He must follow me point by point, statement by statement and argument by argument. I wish to thank the readers for reading my first affirmative. I will be back to make some further affirmative arguments after Mr. Till responds to this article. I also ask that the reader carefully read Mr. Till's first negative to see if he answers every argument in my first affirmative. Pay close attention to the way that he responds to my questions. His attitude towards my questions and arguments will show the truthfulness of his position. I now invite you to read Mr. Till's first negative.

Go to Till's First Rebuttal