Send article as PDF   




The Godhead

Perry Cotham Affirms: That the Scriptures teach that there are three distinct and separate persons in the one Godhead: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. (Billy Davis denies.)

Cotham 1st Affirmative

Davis 1st Negative

Cotham 2nd Affirmative

Davis 2nd Negative

Davis 1st Affirmative

Cotham 1st Negative

Davis 2nd Affirmative

Cotham 2nd Negative

AD 70 Preterest Heresy……. Chowning/Baisden Debate 8/9/2014




Carrol Sutton/Noel Merideth Debate

Carrol SuttonAffirms: The Scriptures teach that Churches of Christ may not build and maintain benevolent organizations such as Boles Orphans Home, Tennessee Orphans Home, Childhaven and Home For the Aged for the care of the needy. (Noel Merideth denies.)



01 – Sutton 1st Affirmative

02 – Merideth 1st Negative

03 – Sutton 2nd Affirmative

04 – Merideth 2nd Negative

05 – Sutton 3rd Affirmative

06 – Merideth 3rd Negative

07 – Sutton 4th Affirmative

08 – Merideth 4th Negative

09 – Sutton 5th Affirmative

10 – Merideth 5th Negative

11 – Sutton 6th Affirmative

12 – Merideth 6th Negative

13 – Merideth 1st Affirmative

14 – Sutton 1st Negative

15 – Merideth 2nd Affirmative

16 – Sutton 2nd Negative

17 – Merideth 3rd Affirmative

18 – Sutton 3rd Negative

19 – Merideth 4th Affirmative

20 – Sutton 4th Negative

21 – Merideth 5th Affirmative

22 – Sutton 5th Negative

23 – Merideth 6th Affirmative

24 – Sutton 6th Negative



Bob L. Ross/Michael Hatcher Debate

Bob L. Ross affirmed: “The New Testament Scriptures Authorize The Use of Mechanical Instruments of Music in Worship to God Today.” (Michael Hatcher denied).

Bob L. Ross 1st Affirmative

Michael Hatcher 1st Negative

Bob L. Ross 2nd Affirmative

Michael Hatcher 2nd Negative

Bob L. Ross 3rd Affirmative

Michael Hatcher 3rd Negative

Michael Hatcher 1st Affirmative

Bob L. Ross 1st Negative

Michael Hatcher 2nd Affirmative

Bob L. Ross 2nd Negative

Michael Hatcher 3rd Affirmative

Bob L. Ross 3rd Negative



Perry Cotham/Peter John Debate

Perry Cotham affirmed: Resolved, That miracles such as were performed by Christ and the Apostles ceased at the close of the Apostolic age (Peter John denied).


01- Perry Cotham 1st Affirmative

02 – Peter John 1st Negative

03 – Perry Cotham 2nd Affirmative

04 – Peter John 2nd Negative

05 – Peter John 1st Affirmative

06 – Perry Cotham 1st Negative

07 – Peter John 2nd Affirmative

08 – Perry Cotham 2nd Negative

09 – Question and Answer

5 thoughts on “Debate’s

  1. I thought Brother Chowden presented a good case against Realized Eschatology. Baisden's responses were hard to follow at times and did not follow the affirmative as he should have in honorable debate. He failed to show how a man has a spiritual body in this physical cosmos. He erred greatly when he suggested Jesus died spiritually. He oversimplifies when he grabs one definition from one context and universally applies it. Preterists see the destruction of Jerusalem in everything. Every coming of the Lord is interpreted as His coming in judgment upon Jerusalem. Yet to any honest reader, the book of Matthew speaks of three distinct comings. One, the disciples would not go into all the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes (Matt. 10:23, same as Mk. 9:1; Matt. 16:28). This was His coming representatively through the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (cf. Jn. 14:15-18). Two, the figurative coming upon Jerusalem in judgment is mentioned in Matthew 24:14, 27. That this cannot be the same as Matthew 10:23 is self-evident for before Jerusalem is destroyed the gospel would be taken to every nation; yet, in Matthew 10:23, that coming would be realized before they could even go through the villages of Israel. Then there is the personal coming at the end of the age (Matt. 24:35-25:46; 28:20). To apply one definition to all is to wrongly divide the word of God. 

  2. Proverbs 18:13 states "He who answers a matter before he hears it,
    It is folly and shame to him."  By his own admission Oldagg admits his folly of failing to heed this proverb.  I will readlly agree that his "big complaint" has some merit.  However, most people who attended or have watched the debate are unfamiliar with the FaceBook context that prompted it.  There has not been, to my knowledge, any similar criticism given by those brethren who are aware of what Brother Baisden has done and said since Memorial Day.  I will also readily agree with anyone who believes that the second and third affirmatives were the best speeches in the debate.  If Oldagg stopped watching/listening prior to that point in the debate, yet felt compelled to comment, he has, according to Proverbs 18:13, done so foolishly and to his own shame.

    It has been said that "you cannot teach an old dog new tricks."  I trust that such will not be true of our beloved brother Oldagg.

  3. I listened to some of this the other day – My big compliant – too much time spent at start telling us what the other guy did wrong concerning the challenge, e-mails exchanged etc…..Then he didn't have time at the end to make all his points!!

    Its a timed debate – get to the facts and leave all the he said – she said to be posted later for those who care!

    1. As one who has some experience in debating, learned from some of the best of our debaters of the past two generations or so, and has taught debate on occasion. sometimes the history of things as to what occurred or what exchange(s) took place prior to a debate is quite significant to the proposition(s) being discussed. It's a judgment call by the disputant and his moderator as to whether or not to address such things in the debate itself. Many may never be aware of the info any other way. I understand and can appreciate the sentiment of the preceding comment, but I would urge that all listen to the whole of the debate. The history leading up to the debate was still needful for many who were already in the know in some of the points and to others who had no other way to get that information. It was a very good job that was done by Brother Chowning, who is to be commended for his service in this effort.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *