Ketching up with Dr Bob

Ketching up with Dr Bob

Put in perspective, the Falls-Welch debate brings a number of statements on the strength of argumentation presented by Falls. Probably the most striking moments that reveal why he won include, among others: First Telling Moment: At this point, Falls, through…

In deconstructing the latter half of the debate in which Welch argued in the affirmative and Falls took a negative argument, several onsets occurred that continued to prove the strength of Falls' argumentation.

When Welch took the affirmative position, he conspicuously moved toward the cultural arguments concerning modern hair practices and rebellion and did not keep a close, textual-based argument. A lot of his effort was put forth in trying to discuss how "long hair that the men have in this land today speaks or stands for the sign of rebellion." Even if this would carry some kind of cultural significance, it detracted from the actual exegetical question under examination.

It was particularly the negative responses of Falls that brought out this weakness. He said he did agree with Welch that men wearing long hair was not appropriate, but such an agreement did not answer the real textual questions concerning the coverings in 1 Corinthians 11. Falls wrote incisively: "Mr. Welch is supposed to be in the affirmative, but he has spent most of his time telling us about the rebellion of people with long hair."

A critical moment was when Falls confronted Welch's use of the woman who wiped Jesus' feet with her hair. Welch had presented this account as if it proved his argument, but Falls refuted him once and for all by pointing out that this incident happened before the New Testament church and its order of worship had been established, and more to the point, the woman wasn't praying or prophesying at the time.

Falls was even more methodical in his approach as he nailed Welch, in his final negative, to five questions that he had not answered. Welch's inability or unwillingness to answer these questions, especially those dealing with the meaning of "also" in verse 6 and whether the covering requirement was temporal, seriously weakened his affirmative position.

The final exchanges in the debate drove the point home: Welch continued with cultural applications and modern practices, whereas Falls stuck with the Greek text, logical consistency, and systematic theological reasoning. This reality accounted for why, even though having to argue the negative, Falls' position was more convincing.

What made the negative responses from Falls particularly effective in this latter portion of the debate was that he could both defend his position and expose the weaknesses in Welch's arguments, all while sustaining scholarly rigor and respect. The fact that he systematically dismantled Welch's affirmative arguments while further strengthening his own position demonstrated great debating skill.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

www.group-telegram.com/us/Ketching_up.com/30

61 viewsJan 31 at 03:55

In deconstructing the latter half of the debate in which Welch argued in the affirmative and Falls took a negative argument, several onsets occurred that continued to prove the strength of Falls' argumentation.

When Welch took the affirmative position, he conspicuously moved toward the cultural arguments concerning modern hair practices and rebellion and did not keep a close, textual-based argument. A lot of his effort was put forth in trying to discuss how "long hair that the men have in this land today speaks or stands for the sign of rebellion." Even if this would carry some kind of cultural significance, it detracted from the actual exegetical question under examination.

It was particularly the negative responses of Falls that brought out this weakness. He said he did agree with Welch that men wearing long hair was not appropriate, but such an agreement did not answer the real textual questions concerning the coverings in 1 Corinthians 11. Falls wrote incisively: "Mr. Welch is supposed to be in the affirmative, but he has spent most of his time telling us about the rebellion of people with long hair."

A critical moment was when Falls confronted Welch's use of the woman who wiped Jesus' feet with her hair. Welch had presented this account as if it proved his argument, but Falls refuted him once and for all by pointing out that this incident happened before the New Testament church and its order of worship had been established, and more to the point, the woman wasn't praying or prophesying at the time.

Falls was even more methodical in his approach as he nailed Welch, in his final negative, to five questions that he had not answered. Welch's inability or unwillingness to answer these questions, especially those dealing with the meaning of "also" in verse 6 and whether the covering requirement was temporal, seriously weakened his affirmative position.

The final exchanges in the debate drove the point home: Welch continued with cultural applications and modern practices, whereas Falls stuck with the Greek text, logical consistency, and systematic theological reasoning. This reality accounted for why, even though having to argue the negative, Falls' position was more convincing.

What made the negative responses from Falls particularly effective in this latter portion of the debate was that he could both defend his position and expose the weaknesses in Welch's arguments, all while sustaining scholarly rigor and respect. The fact that he systematically dismantled Welch's affirmative arguments while further strengthening his own position demonstrated great debating skill.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

BY Ketching up with Dr Bob