You’ve seen it online in some forum or on someone’s page and on the spur of the moment you decide to respond. To you it is plainly wrong and needs to be called out. But the response comes back, entrenched as ever. Then it starts to go back and forth and gets more and more shrill. In other instances perhaps you overheard something in conversation and all your instincts for the truth rose impulsively to the challenge. Other times an issue may so grip a minister or other Christian that they really just have to write defending the truth and attacking the arguments of others so that everyone can come to the right view. In either case was it edifying? Did you win the argument? Did you speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15)? Did you say anything that was less than true and did you say anything you regret? How difficult it is to have our speech full of grace at such times (Colossians 4:6)!
When James Durham was pastoring, the main way to reach a wide audience was through a formal public debate. Such debates are still held today, but our individual interactions on social media are public in a different way than James Durham could ever have imagined. Yet his wise counsels on the care we should take in public debates still hold good. We may have a due call and need to contribute but we should pause before we launch in. To apply the old words in a different context, debate should “not be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in fear of God.” The following is an extract from Durham’s writings in the book The Scandal of False Teaching.

Public debates may be appropriate in some circumstances

We say that there are some times and cases in which public debates are not altogether to be shunned. I will not say that every person should accept a challenge to a public debate, in case by doing so the truth would be wronged (neither is it always the most gifted person who manages such an activity best).

However, in general, a public debate is necessary in situations where, for example, errors seem to be new among the people. Or when those who promote the errors become insolent, daring to come to the light boldly with their deeds. Or if putting up with them and being silent on the issues would risk people thinking that there is something acceptable or worthy of respect in these insolent boasters and their opinions.

In cases like these, there is some necessity for a public debate for the church’s edification. This is apparently what Paul advises to Titus when he says, ‘There are many who are unruly and vain talkers (such as vainly boast of their own ability, to maintain their opinions), whose mouths must be stopped, lest they get advantage to seduce others’ (Titus 1:9-11). And the reason given why ministers should be qualified with abilities to convince gainsayers is because sometimes the insolence and vanity of some makes this necessary. And on this ground we find our blessed Lord, and Stephen and Paul, frequently disputing, even in assemblies and synagogues.

This does not mean it is necessary for every minister to dispute at all times, even in a situation where error is rife. Sometimes the responsibility of holding a public debate may be referred to others, for if truth is maintained and error refuted, it may stop the gainsayer’s mouth, even though not every minister actually engages in the debate.

Public debates are unhelpful in other circumstances

Yet there are some cases when entering into debates is neither necessary nor expedient.

(a) If the errors are not new, but have been sufficiently refuted already, perhaps in other places not far off, or not long before. For if there is continual debate, no truth would be acknowledged to be settled, neither would people have opportunity to carry out other and further duties.

(b) If those who promote the error are known for vainly and purposely seeking to put everything in confusion by multiplying such debates, and engaging in them irreverently, as if they made it their calling to do so. In that case, answering such fools according to their folly would implicate the minister in their guilt of taking the blessed name of God in vain, and would imply that they were acting more to satisfy people’s whims than for the great end of edification.

(c) When people become unreasonable, and in their debates show irrational contradictions and blasphemy. Then the debate is to be forborne, or broken off, with indignation and with zeal to the glory of God, as we see Paul and Barnabas do (Acts 13:45–46).

(d) When the erroneous persons are so flagrant and absurd that they are not to be disputed with, but must rather be reproved and abhorred. In the letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2–3, there is no disputing with the Nicolaitans, because where people give house room to such absurdities, they are manifestly unreasonable, so there is no opportunity to fasten a conviction on them from reasoned debate.

(e) When people reject the basics of the truth. Sometimes people deny fundamental principles, such as the authority or sufficiency of the Scripture. Sometimes they lay down new principles, such as inner light, new revelations, speaking in tongues, being ‘slain in the Spirit,’, or such like. Sometimes they grossly and absurdly wrest and pervert the Scripture, denying the clear senses of Scripture, and coming up with senses which are most ridiculous. In such cases, there is no basis for debate, not only because it cannot be done without giving them a platform to blaspheme, but also because there is no means by which they may be convinced, seeing the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, is rendered useless to them.

For instance, Hymenaeus and Alexander said there was no resurrection to come, because it was past already. They lacked no dexterity to abuse the Scriptures, because Scripture does of course say that there is a resurrection from sin, and that by the new birth believers are raised from the dead. But applying what is spoken of the general and second resurrection to this particular and first resurrection is so blatantly outrageous that Paul does not even dispute with them, but simply proceeds to sentence such blasphemers and abusers of the Scriptures. For it is clear that they did not outright deny the Scripture, nor simply deny the resurrection, but they grossly and irrationally misapplied the Scriptures and the doctrine.

Of the same sort of people are those who accept no logical distinctions or logical consequences, and those who do not recognise different uses of words and phrases, and such like. For, according to their principles, the Scripture is made to disagree with itself, and to give no certain sound in anything, and to imply many absurdities, and all of these are blasphemous to think.

Public debates always require spiritual zeal and prudence

When any such debate is found necessary, much spiritual zeal and prudence is required in how we go about it. In this, the following things should be observed.

The debate itself should not be tumultuous and confused. This would be to deal irreverently with the name of God, and it would make his name vulnerable to reproach. Therefore, we are to arrange things so as to have order and reverence, and whatever is needful and appropriate for the goal of honouring the Lord’s name. Otherwise, such confused meetings are to be left when entered into, as dishonourable to the name of God, and unbecoming the gravity that ministers should pursue (as we see, Acts 13:45, 46 and Acts 19:30, 32); for in such a situation there is no opening for edification.

Those who participate in a public debate should do so in a spirit of self-denial. This is the appropriate attitude for those who are convinced how difficult the task is, how feeble and ineffective they themselves are, and how subtle the principal adversary which they have to do with is. Therefore, people should not commit to participating just because they have gifts, talents, or learning, nor should the debater use only or mainly subtle arguments, nor should advantage be much sought for by way of clever point-scoring. Instead, simple truth should be presented plainly, gravely, and zealously, with the aim of reaching the conscience of the other party in the debate, and the conscience of the hearers. And as it is in preaching, it is not the most subtle and learned discourses which always turn out to be the most persuasive, so in debates that concern conscience, material plainness, demonstrating the truth with power to the conscience, often has the clearest evidence with it.

A notable instance of this is recorded by Rufinus, the fourth century monk and historian. Rufinus says that at the council of Nicaea, great scholars were convened from all places. On hearing about this famous meeting, some prominent philosophers also gathered. One of the most eminent of these philosophers disputed frequently with the greatest of the Christian scholars, but the Christian scholars were never able to catch him out, because such was his nimbleness that, like an eel, he slipped them by one tactic or another, even when their arguments seemed to have him most firmly trapped.

But God showed that his kingdom did not consist in word but in power. One of those who confessed orthodoxy, a man of a most simple nature, who knew nothing but Christ Jesus and him crucified, when he saw the philosopher insulting the Christians and boasting of his skill in debate, desired liberty to speak with him a little. Others wanted to avoid this, knowing the man’s simplicity and fearing that he would become a source of ridicule to the subtle philosophers. Notwithstanding, he persisted, and this is what he said.

‘Philosopher, in the name of Jesus Christ, hear these things that are true. There is one God, who made heaven and earth, and formed man out of the dust, and gave him a spirit, who made all things, seen and unseen, who sent his Son, born of a virgin, to deliver us miserable sinners from everlasting death, by his suffering of death, and has given us life eternal by his resurrection, whom we expect to come as judge of whatever we do. Philosopher, do you believe these things?’

Then the philosopher, as if he had not known how to contradict him, was astonished with the power of what was said, and was put to silence. He could only answer that it appeared that there was nothing but truth in what the old man had said. Then said the aged confessor, ‘If you believe this, rise and follow me to the Church, and receive the seal of this faith.’ Then the philosopher, turning to those who were with him, and other hearers, said, ‘Hear, O learned men! While I had to deal with words, I opposed words to words; but when for words power proceeded out of the mouth of him that spoke, words could not resist power, nor could man resist God. And therefore, if any of you have felt what I have, let him believe in Christ, and follow this old man, in whom God has spoken.’ This is how Rufinus tells it, and it is a story not unworthy to be observed.

Ministerial gravity and authority should always be preserved, in case the ordinance of the ministry is made despicable. Ministers should take their powers of reason, the light they have on God’s Word, their ministerial authority, and their commission from Christ to be ministers, and put it all to good use to reach the consciences of those they are interacting with, as we see Paul does in his debates, even where his authority was much questioned.

FURTHER READING

AUTHOR MENU