Menu

Is debate divisive?

C
ceedub

There was recently a post blocked with this statement....

I can 100% verify to you brothers and sisters Jesus does not want us to be arguing about calvinism or arminism which are terms not found in the bible. Do a search through the new testament on debating, strife, sects, divisions, this all amounted to carnality in God's eyes.

As I'm assured that this brother doesn't hold himself infallible, nor would he oppose a listener trying to follow the Berean example, could I humbly disagree and dispute the 100% certainty that God opposes debate concerning the gospel, and which system of thought confirms or rejects it.

It's not needed here to debate either side, but rather to point out two things,

1) Debate over doctrine is never wrong when the intent is to defend the true teachings of the bible.

2) Debate is not divisive in the context of the previous quote.

Paul said that wisdom from above is first 'pure', then 'peaceable'. Peace doesn't come first, sound doctrine does. Peace is a product of pure wisdom, not the means to achieve it.

That Paul spent much time debating in the synagogues as well as defending the faith in Galatia is no secret. Paul's most passionate rebukes came to those that would corrupt the gospel, to which he issued anathemas.

Divisiveness is trying to start fights, break up unity and arguing from a position based, offensive style. It is not defending the faith, as Paul urged Timothy to do.

One of the reasons the church is in such a mess today is because the art of debate has been villianized in the church itself, hence the near disappearance of those who can rightly divide the word of God.

I think we could rather be assured, that if it comes to question the importance of debating the truth of the gospel, it would be more accurate to say that Jesus is never pleased with those that would turn to silence when the gospel is attacked.

I heard this said once..

Silence is golden. But sometimes it is just yellow.


When I look back at church history, there are too many men of God that felt it was of utmost importance to debate and defend the faith as good soldiers, shutting the mouths of naysayers.

If we will not stand up and defend it, who will Jesus use?

I agree that name-calling and arguments over church carpet are less than fruitful.

But not the great debate over the gospel.

1 Cor 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

As Paul clearly shows, to say that we are of Christ if we are using that to cause the same divisions that arose between those that followed Paul and Apollos, there is no difference. This debate is not about Calvin or Jacobus, it is about their interpretation of the gospel. It is about knowing Christ and ourselves aright.

Debate is a good thing.

And though the terms Calvinism and Arminianism aren't found in scripture, neither is 'theistic evolution', 'deism', 'agnosticism', etc. and I assume the church has been right in debating these controversies as well.

My only problem with debate is when people unlearned in the topic engage in debate. If we are not familiar with both sides then we should be learning before arguing.

Debate over doctrine is good.

If the church is to keep itself free of hyper calvinism and other equally dangerous errors, it will need to do so in the arena of conflict through debate.

When God's people are convinced that the gospel is not worth debating over, revival will be an impossibility.

Did God look on Paul as carnal for debating the gospel and what it really meant? I don't believe He did.


Does he disapprove of devouring one another in the process? I'd say yes.


2Tim 4:1-8

P
PaulWest

I understand much of what you are saying, but you must remember that you are a guest here and the hosts' guidelines are that you refrain from stirring up this ancient debate. If you do a quick search of the SermonIndex archives you will find a plethora of these threads, already hotly debated over the years...and you will find the vast majority of them degenerating into ugly maelstroms and being subsequently locked. So, to answer this thread's question: yes, the Cal/Arm debate [i]is[/i] divisive, especially when stirred up in a forum with believers of all different maturity levels.

This is why SermonIndex is not a battlefield to wage Cal/Arm camp warfare. There are other Christian forums on the net for that purpose. I have my own personal beliefs (also reformed), but I do not bring them here for the sake of polemics. I know what I believe and I am content to have fellowship with brethren of another camp; I can break bread and offer my arm in fellowship to any brother or sister who marches beneath the banner of Christ, regardless of their "spiritual ethnicity", as it were. Note, I am not saying you are guilty of this, however, this seems to be the sad, inevitable result of engaging this type of debate in an open forum.

The Lord has seen fit in the past not to join any one side, and so neither do I. He moved over John Wesley, and he moved over George Whitefield. This was because both men were enlisted in Christ, even though they differed on the more "hard to understand" points of scripture. Whatever your affiliation may be, it is not worth inciting debate and disrupting precious fellowship. Any threads that begin pointing to a specific side of a camp will be locked.

Thank you, and please pray about what our host brother Greg said.

Respectfully yours,

Paul

H
hmmhmm

some food for thought, it is interesting the word of God put debate in this context, there may be a great difference between debate and debate, but when read in this passage it should make us evaluate twice before entering into one.

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, [b]debate[/b], deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


also the last verse, saying they know the judgments of God who do all these things, among one was debate. Does anyone consider some debates as evil is all the rest listed in this passage?

it seems to be....

it is the same word in the greek translted here strife...


Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, [b]strife[/b], seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.


so these are words that should make us take very serius about entering into a debate, if we know it has the capability of stirring up strife and all the rest, division etc, these are the works of the flesh, this is an eyeopener too me, i ask for more grace i could be more gracius in my conversations, and chose them more visely, i have noticed in scripture how often the doctrinally correct pharisees had "smart" arguments and tried with them win a debate against the Lord, but what wisdom he had in avoiding "foolish" talk and just get right down to the heart of the matter, sometimes answering with a question and other things.

Anyway, some debates are of the flesh, born from natural man, even tho they speak "spiritual" things, all debates the pharises had with the Lord was about spiritual things so to say, yet many of them was "against" the Lord Jesus, so I beilive much of our debates can be of the flesh, much can be against the Lord himself, how some might wonder? when the Lord appered to saul from tarsus, he asked why are you persecuting [b]me[/b]?" not his church.... so i think the divition some debates cause, the strife it stirrs up, the contention between brethren, the produsing of spiritual pride... it all is against the Lord himself somehow, and that is why it is in the same category as lust, murder, adultery, fornication,Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath.... and the most interesting is, many debates are against "heresies" so to speak,, but yet debate are just as a serious sin as heresies, since it is in the same list.... so the ones burning to debate against heresies, are in their debating doing just as a great sin as those who hold the heresy.

Of course some debate is necessary, we se many men in the word debating, but i think the line between "debating" with fear of God and with his wisdom to our flesh is very "thin and transparent so we mostly do not even see it when we step over it. May the Lord open my eyes more to see the evil in some debating.

God bless

S
sermonindex

Very good admonition brother PaulWest. I've seen and heard too much discussion on the Cal/Arm debate, to which there is no end and it's stupid to even talk about it, because it does gender strife. I have found that those who are contentious about this subject love the LORD less and has no use for his neighbour who does not know the LORD.

C
ceedub

I've seen and heard too much discussion on the Cal/Arm debate, to which there is no end and it's stupid to even talk about it, because it does gender strife. I have found that those who are contentious about this subject love the LORD less and has no use for his neighbour who does not know the LORD.

Well, I guess if I avoid debate, and point out that those that do seek to find the truth are 'stupid', 'love God less' and 'have no use for his neighbour', then I will be more loving and Christlike than those 'debators', thus avoiding any kind of strife.

But thanks Paul for the explanation. I hear what you're saying and can see why you'd like to avoid the topic here on this forum. I did not say what I did to abuse the privelage of being able to post here, only to call into question if God really does view the debates of Calvin, Arminius, Spurgeon, Wesley, Toplady, Edwards, Bunyan etc as carnal, as was stated.

My point of contention was that it was stated that God sees doctrinal debate over soteriology as 100% certainly carnal and wrong.

Very strong words in speaking for the Lord there.

There was a debate that the Pharisees conducted, but it is readily apparent that they were trying to trap the Lord and resist His practice and doctrine. That is something worlds away from debating doctrine with a sincere conscience while seeking the truth and to defend it. The two cannot be compared in any more than term itself.

The Pharisees were wrong because they sought to resist the truth, Paul was right because he sought to reveal and defend it. They both 'debated'. But with very different motives.

Debate can be used to silence the truth or to reveal it.

I felt those were very harsh words to the great men of faith in the church's history on both sides that have deemed it most worthy of their time and effort.

But I respect Sermonindex's wishes to not talk about the doctrine of salvation here as it is explained by either side. Or is that allowed as long as one avoids the 'terms' and 'camps' that usually accompany it?

(please excuse my ignorance if this rule has already been laid out)

P
PaulWest

But I respect Sermonindex's wishes to not talk about the doctrine of salvation here as it is explained by either side. Or is that allowed as long as one avoids the 'terms' and 'camps' that usually accompany it?

Good question. You are free to post sermons from any speaker, be it John Calvin or Jakob Arminius, and you are free to discuss them. We can talk about Wesley or Whitefield, Spurgeon or Fletcher, Pink or Booth. Everyone is welcome here; "discussing" in detail about what they teach or preach is fine...and encouraged!

Where we run into trouble is when the edifying "discussions" suddenly morph into polemic warfare. This happens very quickly, and when it does, the thread is immediately polarized. This factional mindset will then spread like a cancer and begin to infect other threads as well. The way to avoid this is to always remember where you are, and that you are a guest here, and that our host brother Greg has expressed that these topics be avoided in order to keep the interdenominational peace that SermonIndex is committed to.

You are welcome to engage each other in PM's if you so chose, if this can be done amicably. There is a way to disagree in love, and still hold each other in the utmost repect and genuine Christian humility. We ask that everyone who uses these forums beseech the Lord to learn of this humility and charity when dealing with others whom we may not see theologically eye-to-eye with.

God bless you.

S
sermonindex

Also it should be added that people who come to sermonindex with a agenda to propagate a certain type or facet of teaching are not welcome. This is not a open pulpit but rather a place to serve others, edify and encourage others on the pilgrim way.

I would actually discourage this open door of PM's for people to propagate Calvinistic teachings to others. I have had many complaints personally of border-line harassment of posting strong articles to others in PM's trying to convert their "thinking" to that of reformed. "amicably" but alas even that when it is not to edify and encourage but rather to make others like yourself is dangerous.

I personally don't care if someone is calvinist or not. Do you live for Christ in your daily walk? Are you witnessing and praying for souls? Is Christ daily speaking with you? Are you an embodiment of God's loves to others in this earth? With all of our knowing is there doing?

Is Christ in you!

R
roadsign

Debate over doctrine is never wrong when the intent is to defend the true teachings of the bible.

This rather emphatic proposition needs to be tempered with a great deal of humility and honest self-evaluation! Let’s remember that a lot of pride can be submerged under our fine sounding confidence in defending the “truth”.

To pick up a debate on this Calv/Arm issue as boldly as is happening here on SI is a bit like picking up a bat and entering the big leagues - believing you are fit for the challenge. If the most brilliant theologians have been challenged and have not resolved it, who are any of us to think we can do better!

It is better to sacrifice such a “passion for ‘truth” on the alter, and let God teach truth – not about some debated doctrine ‘out there”, but about ‘self’ in the innermost place of the heart – which in the long run is what is what God is most concerned about at this point.

I am convinced that debates can teach us a lot about ourselves - if we are willing to evaluate our manner of conversation, our ability to be sensitive to others who are partaking, and if we allow debates to strenghten our love for one another.

Debates are destructive when we objectify people, and start seeing them as an argument to be conquored rather than people to be loved.

Diane

S
sermonindex

Well, I guess if I avoid debate, and point out that those that do seek to find the truth are 'stupid'
Whoa, back up there. I didn't say you were stupid, I said, "talking about it is stupid" big difference.

P
PaulWest

I would actually discourage this open door of PM's for people to propagate Calvinistic teachings to others. I have had many complaints personally of border-line harassment of posting strong articles to others in PM's trying to convert their "thinking" to that of reformed.

Sorry brother, I wasn't aware of this. Agendas, in any form (be it openly or PM), should be avoided, I totally agree.

C
ceedub

I've noticed there's been many remarks on 'debate' on all these threads. After it was stated that it is 'divisive' to debate the doctrine of salvation, I put forward the question 'is debate divisive'?

All agree that Paul debated doctrine, and he did so with a clear, predetermined agenda. To proclaim the truth and correct error. The Galatians were on the verge of proving themselves apostate by adding to Paul's gospel the need to be justified by continued obedience to the law, as opposed to being saved by grace.

The Pharisees debated as well with an agenda, and all agree that their's was sinful.

The moderators have stated clearly that debate on the Cal/Arm is off limits (I don't understand why the other thread near the top is fine though), so, not disputing the rules for this forum, is debate divisive at any time? It seems a far too vague assertion given the great church history of debate and defense of sound doctrine. Is debate wrong if it never brings a unanimous answer from the church as a whole? Is it wrong if it maintains a mutual respect for persons and stays only focused on the issue at hand rather than accusing the other of suggested motive and position?

What makes debate good or bad in the church? Is it profitable or should it be avoided and the consequences accepted?

After reading much of the debates that took place between the Protestants and Catholics, it seems a priceless gift that God has granted to his people to protect the church from the ravages of the wolves.

It also seems apparent that God has raised up men who regularly use this forum who have learned to excel in debate as well.

Is debate for the sake of defending sound doctrine, given that the debator has God's glory at heart, right or wrong?

S
sermonindex

Is debate for the sake of defending sound doctrine, given that the debater has God's glory at heart, right or wrong?
You've posed a good question. I think you are right coupled with Greg's and PaulWest's admonitions.

P
passerby

If someone can debate and sin not,

If someone can debate and exhibit a humble spirit,

If someone can debate without malice, elitism, hostility, and being cynical,

If someone can debate without harassing, abusing, degrading, or insulting others,

If someone can debate and keep a cool head,

If someone can debate without making this website
a mess,

If someone can debate and respect the moderators,

If someone can debate and show patience, politeness, and benevolence to others,

If someone can debate and show a worthy behavior before the unconverted and young Christians,

If someone can debate and impose not upon others,

If someone can debate and have a clean and serene conscience afterwards,

If someone can debate without prejudging and have diligence to read and understand what the others are saying,

If someone can debate and be willing to admit mistakes, misses, and to ask for an apology,

If someone can debate with reverence, and use not the name of God in vain...

Perhaps one should read the exchanges between Wesley and Whitefield, or between Arminius and Junius and see how they behaved.

Perhaps it would be helpful if one would be extra careful in arrogating to himself the apostles' or the Lord's authority.

S
Sarah4Him

Hi everyone,

I think debates should be done with the fear of the Lord. In other words we need to judge ourselves harshly while dealing slack to the other person.

Obviously, if we have fear of accounting to God for our behaviour and speech on judgement day we will tread carefully. Furthermore, God takes very seriously how we treat His people, we are not to damage His body, since His body is the vehicle through which God is saving the world.

So in light of this, if you aren't harshly judging yourself, and if you aren't afraid of His judgements then you shouldn't be debating really. :)

I just had my brother in law stay 3 days, he is a liberal/charismatic. The whole time all he could do is find judgements about me and kept shutting me down since he only wished to talk about his ideas and his ways. :)

God bless you all,
Sarah

C
ceedub

That was a good post (passerby). All points would help with a godly debate, except possibly the one, 'If someone can debate and impose not upon others'. That one might be tough, otherwise there would be agreement and no debate. I think to not impose yourself on another is to agree or not care.

The church today doesn't have much use for Tozer's prayers that prophets come back to the church, not carring for the praise or consent of men, but rather the praise of God. In these last days I think the two will ofen be mutually exclusive.

P
passerby

What I mean by 'imposing' is being pushy, or forcing
others to our brand of beliefs and doctrines.

...clarify, explain, expound, elaborate, inquire, suggest, analyze, define... could we not a find a way to do that without being pushy or declaring a war.

J
jameztree

MARK THEM AND AVOID THEM--"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." (Romans 16:17)

SEPARATE YOURSELF FROM THEM--"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you," (2 Corinthians 6:17)

REPROVE THEM--"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." (Ephesians 5:11)

TURN AWAY FROM THEM--"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." (2 Timothy 3:5)

REBUKE THEM--"...rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;" (Titus 1:13)

REJECT THEM--"A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;" (Titus 3:10)

WITHDRAW FROM THEM--"...we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." (2 Thessalonians 3:6)

HAVE NO COMPANY WITH THEM--"And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed." (2 Thessalonians 3:14)

RECEIVE THEM NOT--"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." (2 John 1:10-11)

TRY THEM--"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1)

C
ceedub

That was an interesting reply.
Seems sound doctrine trumps 'unity at all costs'.
First pure, then peaceable.

Does it not come down to short term/long term?

It is easy to have 'short term' unity when doctrinal disputes are squashed, set aside, given up on, or not allowed, but sooner or later they come back and cause 10 times the damage than if they had been dealt with up front. Whereas if the church would bite the bullet up front and deal with the doctrine, long term unity is possible.

Unanimous agreement is not even totally neccessary, so long as it's clear to all that the issue was looked at and a conclusion came to.

I'm speaking for congregations, not for this site.

C
ceedub

From A W Tozer...

If the church in the second half of this century is to recover from the injuries she suffered in the first half, there must appear a new type of preacher. The proper, ruler-of-the-synagogue type will never do. Neither will the priestly type of man who carries out his duties, takes his pay and asks no questions, nor the smooth-talking pastoral type who knows how to make the Christian religion acceptable to everyone. All these have been tried and found wanting. Another kind of religious leader must arise among us. He must be of the old prophet type, a man who has seen visions of God and has heard a voice from the Throne. When he comes (and I pray God there will be not one but many) he will stand in flat contradiction to everything our smirking, smooth civilization holds dear. He will contradict, denounce and protest in the name of God and will earn the hatred and opposition of a large segment of Christendom.


The church has lost her testimony. She has no longer anything to say to the world. Her once robust shout of assurance has faded away to an apologetic whisper. She who one time went out to declare now goes out to inquire. Her dogmatic declaration has become a respectful suggestion, a word of religious advice, given with the understanding that it is after all only an opinion and not meant to sound bigoted.

H
hmmhmm

I was blessed just the other day by reading some about George Withefield and John Wesleys debate, and later after many different events George Withefield wrote this in a letter to John Wesley:

[i]He wrote to Wesley in October, 1741: "May God remove all obstacles that now prevent our union; may all disputings cease, and each of us talk of nothing but Jesus and him crucified. This is my resolution, I am without dissimulation. I find I love you as much as ever, and pray God, if it be his blessed will, that we may all be united together."[/i]

seeing they where in different camps they came to the conclusion the doctrines are important, but Christ have said "love one another" , we often ask what doctrines does this church have, or that preacher hold to etc, but how few ask "do you love one another" in your church? does this man love in te divine sense as Christ loved? regardless of doctrine, this is what matters, Christ will not ask how pure of a doctrine we had in that day, sure doctrine are vital, but when doctrine become the "main attraction" we missed it. God is love, not a doctrine, even tho there are doctrines that are vital, let us be reogniced not by our doctrine, but by our love, let not others "stamp" ,"calvinist" nor "arminian" or any common label in christianity due to our much speaking of doctrine, our christendom is a sad state iof that is so, let them call us Christians due to we love so much. But by all means, love and faulty doctrine will cause multitudes of heresies also, we see it all around, so we need to have two legs when we walk.

does love accept all things? Jesus did accept the pharisees doctrine, yet most went to hell of them, he did not accept the Sadducee's(unsure how to spell that) teachings or the herodians... so i just want to have the focus on the main thing.

Debate that causes division by two brethren, no matter doctrine is not Good, no matter if we are defended the right doctrine without truth in our inner most being we are nothing more then the pharisees Jesus sent to hell, they preached right doctrine, the pure doctrine, the word, the letter, and they where so caught up by doctrine and the purity of it they missed God, they missed love, they missed the greatest act of love throughout all eternity due to their fixation on right doctrine.

So let us be careful in our watch against false gospels, false doctrines, and call nothing false, Jesus did not call false, nor the Apostles. What they did call false and to beware of we also can say beware....

but let us focus rightly....

Peace brethren!

H
hmmhmm

Paul here warns Timothy to withdraw from those who corrupted the doctrine of Christ, and made it the subject off strife, debate, and controversy: If any man teach otherwise (1Ti_6:3-5), do not preach practically, do not teach and exhort that which is for the promoting of serious godliness - if he will not consent to wholesome words, words that have a direct tendency to heal the soul - if he will not consent to these, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. Observe, We are not required to consent to any words as wholesome words except the words of our Lord Jesus Christ; but to those we must give our unfeigned assent and consent, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness. Observe, The doctrine of our Lord Jesus is a doctrine according to godliness; it has a direct tendency to make people godly. But he that does not consent to the words of Christ is proud (1Ti_6:4) and contentious, ignorant, and does a great deal of mischief to the church, knowing nothing. Observe, Commonly those are most proud who know least; for with all their knowledge they do not know themselves. - But doting about questions. Those who fall off from the plain practical doctrines of Christianity fall in with controversies, which eat out the life and power of religion; they dote about questions and strifes of words, which do a great deal of mischief in the church, are the occasion of envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings. When men are not content with the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which is according to godliness, but will frame notions of their own and impose them, and that too in their own words, which man's wisdom teaches, and not in the words which the Holy Ghost teaches (1Co_2:13), they sow the seeds of all mischief in the church. Hence come perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds (1Ti_6:5), disputes that are all subtlety, and no solidity. Observe, Men of corrupt minds are destitute of the truth. The reason why men's minds are corrupt is because they do not stick to the truth as it is in Jesus: supposing that gain is godliness, making religion truckle to their secular interest. From such as these Timothy is warned to withdraw himself. We observe, 1. The words of our Lord Jesus Christ are wholesome words, they are the fittest to prevent or heal the church's wounds, as well as to heal a wounded conscience; for Christ has the tongue of the learned, to speak a word in season to him that is weary, Isa_50:4. The words of Christ are the best to prevent ruptures in the church; for none who profess faith in him will dispute the aptness or authority of his words who is their Lord and teacher, and it has never gone well with the church since the words of men have claimed a regard equal to his words, and in some cases a much greater. 2. Whoever teaches otherwise, and does not consent to these wholesome words, he is proud, knowing nothing; for pride and ignorance commonly go together. 3. Paul sets a brand only on those who consent not to the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which is according to godliness; they are proud, knowing nothing: other words more wholesome he knew not. 4. We learn the sad effects of doting about questions and strifes of words; of such doting about questions comes envy, strife, evil surmisings, and perverse disputings; when men leave the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, they will never agree in other words, either of their own or other men's invention, but will perpetually wrangle and quarrel about them; and this will produce envy, when they see the words of others preferred to those they have adopted for their own; and this will be attended with jealousies and suspicions of one another, called here evil surmisings; then they will proceed to perverse disputings. 5. Such persons as are given to perverse disputings appear to be men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth; especially such as act in this manner for the sake of gain, which is all their godliness, supposing gain to be godliness, contrary to the apostle's judgment, who reckoned godliness great gain. 6. Good ministers and Christians will withdraw themselves from such. “Come out from among them, my people, and be ye separate,” says the Lord: from such withdraw thyself.


from MHC

C
ceedub

I'm no expert on the Whitefield/Wesley debate, but I have read that when Whitefield came to America, Jonathan Edwards encouraged Whitefield to stop taking such a lax attitude towards the doctrines at stake, but rather defend them more fervently, to which, it seems, Whitefield responded.

Similar to the debate between Wesley and Toplady, in which Wesley was caught distributing tracts that he signed with Toplady's initials. Wesley saw it as very important, as did Toplady, but there were errors in the methods used at times.

It's not either/or.

We are called to be FULL of GRACE AND TRUTH. Full of both at all times. Not 60/40. That's impossible (being full of both) if truth must be sacrificed to be gracious on the doctrines of the gospel, the most important one.

In past eras, the church has chosen, as a whole, to opt for doctrinal precision over gracious interactions, it seems, to a fault. Today, it is the opposite.

Sound doctrine will not be tolerated in the church in the last days. I think we're in those last days today.

We need balance. Not the kind that labels doctrinal purity with every negative connotation it can find, but balance that holds to doctrinal truth, and can yet still love those that disagree or have not found it yet.

We can be gracious and truthfull at the same time, even while refusing to compromise the great doctrinal truths.

That is not easy, but it is our calling.

H
hmmhmm

Amen

C
ceedub

I heard a pastor, years ago, respond to the statement that 'all division is wrong'.

His response was that division caused by man's petty differences or selfish ambitions, most definitely were.

But he followed with the statement that divisions that come from God obviously aren't.

As one posted on this thread, the words of Jesus are sound and to be followed. He said he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword.

Barnes...

Verse 34. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not {w} to send peace, but a sword.

Vers. 34-36. Think not that I am come, etc. This is taken from #Mic 7:6. Christ did not here mean to say that the object of his coming was to produce discord and contention, for he was the Prince of peace, #Isa 9:6 11:6 Lu 2:14; but he means to say that such would be one of the effects of his coming. One part of a family that was opposed to him, would set themselves against those who believed in him. The wickedness of men, and not the religion of the gospel, is the cause of this hostility. It is unnecessary to say that no prophecy has been more strikingly fulfilled; and it will continue to be fulfilled, till all unite in obeying his commandments. Then his religion will produce universal peace.
But a sword. The sword is an instrument of death, and to send a sword is the same as to produce hostility and war.


He also said we would be recognized as disciples by our love for one another in Jhn 13.

I would have to say that those who are calling for unmitigated unity while in these last days, whether with the world, or within the church, are at worst naive and at best over-optimistic.

I believe we should strive for it with all our might, but be prepared for far less until every knee has bowed.

And again, I believe that God will raise up men ready to stand in the gap against the perpetual onslaught of attacks against the work Christ did on the cross.

And He will also raise up men who's calling is to go out and evangelize.

I hope that through these threads it can be seen that those gifted with the evangelization part of the great commission, as well as those gifted with the 'teaching the commandments/discipling' part, can instead of discounting each other, encourage each other to fulfill their callings with all zeal and power.

G
ginnyrose

Yes.

If both participants earnestly believe what they are promoting and they are at odds with each other, it is divisive.

ginnyrose

I
InTheLight

Debate over doctrine is never wrong when the intent is to defend the true teachings of the bible.

This rather emphatic proposition needs to be tempered with a great deal of humility and honest self-evaluation! Let’s remember that a lot of pride can be submerged under our fine sounding confidence in defending the “truth”.

Diane makes an excellent point here. Honest self-evaluation before we post is greatly needed. I have fallen many times into the trap of spiritual pride under the guise of defending the "truth".

I have been challenged to consider that I can get very passionate about the truth, even willing to lay down my life defending the truth; but I am rarely so passionate about a brother in Christ that I am willing to lay down my life for that brother and yet this is Christ's injunction to me.

[i]This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.[/i]
(John 15:12-13)


In Christ,

Ron

C
ceedub

ginnyrose said...

If both participants earnestly believe what they are promoting and they are at odds with each other, it is divisive.

Then the question is, is this a division from God or man?

If both men believe they are correct in which carpet should go in the church foyer and they split over it, that's a division of man.

But if a brother in your congregation begins to teach and spread the doctrine that Jesus death doesn't save you but rather your continued obedience is what God is looking for to procure your salvation, what do we say?

No Debating Here! That's divisive! Get busy doing more godly things! It'll all be okay!

Is that what God's people do? God forbid.

I readily acknowledge that many people don't like confrontation or debate, and that's fine. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that God doesn't call on some of his people to stand up and defend sound doctrine.

And of course it goes without saying that it needs to be done in a godly manner. But when Jesus told the Pharisees that every convert they made was twice the son of hell that they were, I think he gave us one of many examples of how he feels about religious people that corrupt the truth.

There is no blanket answer concerning debate. It is not as simple as 'always right' or 'always wrong'.

Wisdom is crying out in the streets. We should listen.

B
broclint

I believe our moderators are correct in limiting debate in this specific area and have felt so [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=21790&forum=35&9]from early on[/url], not because of the inability to debate the doctrines, but due to the fact that there is so very obviously a convinced "I am right and you need to hear me" position (hence the desire to continue the debate) to which many others would counter, and it has been for all these years on SI counterproductive. No telling how many megabytes of storage is already here on the subject, and no telling how many people have come and gone from the site, or at least from the forums from sheer exhaustion from seeing yet another cock fight of matching wits, from a convinced person who has the "right doctrine" to assure the rest of the uninformed or mislead or whatever, rest of us. The moderator is right, and if he were not right, it is still his site, and our privilege to come here. Cyberspace is open for multitudes of new websites to convince an audience without using this one for our own agendas.

The Christlikeness of submission… submission, without that humility what is all the debate of doctrine?

And the lack of submission, what is that but the epitome of pride and its president?

BTW good to see Roadsign (Diane) back on the forums. :-)

Clint

A
AbideinHim

In light of the following scriptures Romans 12:16, 1Corinthians 1:10, and Philippians 4:2, we are admonished in the Word of God to be of the same mind.

The Greek word for debate is the same word that is used for strife, contention, and variance.

The Word admonishes us that the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle to all men. Strife is a work of the flesh, and the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian belivers and said "For ye are yet carnal: for whereas [there is] among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?" (1Corinthians 3:3).

I don't see any basis in the Word of God for debates. We should not be reading the Word to try to prove our own opinions.

This does not mean that we are to compromise or water down the truth. The Word says that we are to "earnestly contend for the faith." (Jude 1:3).

(Ephesians 4:15) says that we are to speak the truth in love.

(Ephesians 4:3) says that we are to endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Mike


R
roadsign

I don't see any basis in the Word of God for debates. We should not be reading the Word to try to prove our own opinions.

I see truths in both of these two comments, and I think they deserve more processing. After all, it’s not merely a case of “Is debate biblically right or wrong?” but “What is a mature way of wrestling through discordant ideas?” To avoid debate or rather, to impose that on everyone else is just as suicidal as being divisive. That is merely a knee-jerk reaction to our fear, disguised under the name of “tolerance”.

Here I will post an article by R. Nicole which aims to teach us how to handle polemic debate. I posted it in March 2008 and the thread was soon locked. Why? Not because this article instigates division. Quite the contrary! It was because a few posters failed to read it in its entirety, and instead reacted strongly to a few words they saw in it. Quite possibly they responded out of past experience, fear, bitterness, or self-righteousness,ignorance or impatience. To be honest, I’ve made a huge number of premature and false judgments over the years. God keeps on using those humiliating moments to help me learn about myself and knock me down a few notches. (which is NOT a bad outcome of debate!)

I am convinced that if we exercised the cautions and lessons Nicole proposes, we would not see threads locked! When it comes to polemic issues, we really must submit ourselves to rigorous mental and spiritual homework - and that can take a l-o-n-g time.

This is a long article. I propose that if we can’t get through it, then polemic debates may be beyond our range. If we are unqualified, it would be best to remain silent and learn from more prepared Christians – and be like Mary, sitting at the teacher’s feet.

May God bless you as you read this:


[url=http://www.founders.org/journal/fj33/article3.html]Polemic Theology: How to Deal with Those who differ from us[/url] By Roger Nicole


Diane

C
ceedub

Debate...
7378 רִיב [riyb, ruwb /reeb/] v. A primitive root; TWOT 2159; GK 8189; 67 occurrences; AV translates as “plead” 27 times, “strive” 13 times, “contend” 12 times, “chide” six times, “debate” twice, and translated miscellaneously seven times. 1 to strive, contend. 1a (Qal). 1a1 to strive. 1a1a physically. 1a1b with words. 1a2 to conduct a case or suit (legal), sue. 1a3 to make complaint. 1a4 to quarrel. 1b (Hiphil) to contend against.


Debate is translated 'plead' 27 times and to 'contend' 12 times.

Paul did much 'pleading', 'contending' and persuading when it came to doctrinal disputes as well as exhorting Timothy to do the same.

I was part of a bible study men's group last winter in which we had a number of guests attend at times. Some of them would show up regularly and 'debate' what was being taught at our church. Some members voiced frustration that these men that were 'guests' were taking up most of the time with repeated arguments and I was encouraged to stop their 'debating'.

My reply was that it was not a bad thing but rather to the good. The guests were welcome and so were their debates. It sharpened everyone there and it was kept profitable. And in the end that is exactly what it was, profitable. We were blessed with their company and glad that they cared enough about doctrine to join us and even 'debate'.

If any can read Acts and show me from Paul's work that contending and pleading for sound doctrine is always wrong, as a number have posted on this thread, then I would be interested to see that.

Acts 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly [b]contend[/b] for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

C
ChrisJD

We are called to be FULL of GRACE AND TRUTH. Full of both at all times. Not 60/40. That's impossible (being full of both) if truth must be sacrificed to be gracious on the doctrines of the gospel, the most important one.


The Truth is not a set of doctrinal statements or proposistions.


It encompases the whole of life and our lives(Jer 5:1-3), from what we say about others(Exodus 20:16, John 8:26), to what we say about our ourselves (Proverbs 20:6, John 5:31, 8:54, 2Co 10:18), to what we are(Psalm 51:6, John 14:30), to what we do(Zech 7:9, 8:16-17, John 8:46, Acts 10:38). And what we teach(John 7:16-18).

[i]edited to correct an error in spelling[/i]

A
AbideinHim

We are called to be FULL of GRACE AND TRUTH. Full of both at all times. Not 60/40. That's impossible (being full of both) if truth must be sacrificed to be gracious on the doctrines of the gospel, the most important one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amen Chris!

Jesus Christ is "the truth". He has said "I am the way, THE TRUTH, and the life."

The Word of God also says that "God is love".

The enemy has led many people in the church to believe that if you speak the truth on subjects like homosexuality that you are intolerant. The "hate crimes" legislation that is being rammed down American's throats by our president and liberal congress and senate will one day make it illegal to preach the true gospel.

There is also the opposite extreme where certain groups are carrying signs to rallies and even to funerals that say: "God hates homosexuals".

If we would walk in the perfect balance of mercy and truth, then we would not be caught up in either one of these extremes.

I personally do not like using the word "debate" as something that christians should be doing to try to hash out their differences. Most debates have a winner and a looser, and the one that can lay out the best presentation, and have the best argument is declared to be the winner.

Christians are not called to debate the truth. We are called to proclaim the truth, to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, to live a life that bears witness to the truth that we preach.

The Holy Spirit has been given to the Church to lead us into all of the truth. None of us have all the answers, and we can certainly learn from others. There are baby Christians, young men, and spiritual fathers that are at different levels of spiritual development. A babe would not be able to eat and digest a T bone steak, neither would a spiritual man be satisfied with just the milk of the Word.

We can certainly learn from our brothers and sisters that are different from us if we are teachable. It is not a matter of debate, but it is loving the truth and allowing the Holy Spirit to teach us and lead us into all truth.

Mike

C
ceedub

We can certainly learn from our brothers and sisters that are different from us if we are teachable. It is not a matter of debate, but it is loving the truth and allowing the Holy Spirit to teach us and lead us into all truth.

I was in a theology class a number of years ago where a 4th year seminary student told the class that he was aware of 'vampire churches' (yes, that drank blood durring supposed communion), and stated to all in attendance that the vampire church was every bit legit as the baptist one we were sitting in.
I watched the pastor in the class also attending, who hates debate, and he said nothing to those listening incl the younger believers.
I drove across town the next day to ask him if any red flags went up durring class on Sunday. He said no. I asked what he thought of the 'vampire' statements. He said they might have been a bit much, but warned me not to confront the pastoral intern lest his feelings get hurt and it be divisive. The intern proceeded the next week to teach theistic evolution to the class as well.

For those that oppose debate over doctrine, can I ask what you would do in such a case?

R
rbanks


AbideinHim wrote:


Christians are not called to debate the truth. We are called to proclaim the truth, to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, to live a life that bears witness to the truth that we preach.

The Holy Spirit has been given to the Church to lead us into all of the truth. None of us have all the answers, and we can certainly learn from others. There are baby Christians, young men, and spiritual fathers that are at different levels of spiritual development. A babe would not be able to eat and digest a T bone steak, neither would a spiritual man be satisfied with just the milk of the Word.

We can certainly learn from our brothers and sisters that are different from us if we are teachable. It is not a matter of debate, but it is loving the truth and allowing the Holy Spirit to teach us and lead us into all truth.

Mike

Just now getting ready to walk out the door and decided to comment on this post.

Brother Mike,

If I haven't told you before you are a blessing on SI and I appreciate you. This is profound truth that you have stated hear and very important to be learned.

The works of the flesh are listed in the bible as being outside of the kingdom of God. We are to live and walk in the spirit of God and to have a "spirit of debate" in a person is a work of the flesh. You can check it out in gal. 5:19-21.

Blessings to you!

A
AbideinHim

This pastor should have definetly spoke the truth in this situation, but there should be no debate about it. This 4th year seminary student was definetly in error, and only one who agrees with the doctrine of unsanctified mercy, greasy grace or a bleeding heart liberal would agree with his statement.

The problem with most seeker friendly churches is that they are much more worried about hurting people's feelings than grieving the Holy Spirit and offending God.

I am only disagreeing with the terminology that you are using. You call it debate, and I refer to it as speaking the truth.

Mike

C
ceedub

Then you agree with what I've been saying but disagree with the term?

You're saying the pastor should have contradicted the student and contended for the truth. He should have disputed the teaching of the student and responded with the truth. He should have opposed the teaching that was in error for the sake of Christ, the truth and the church, especially the younger believers.

But he shouldn't debate.

I don't understand what you're saying.

Given that 'Debate' is translated in the bible as 'contend for' and 'plead with', how does one do this and not debate?

To debate is to contend for the truth and plead with those in error. Why is that bad?

It is easy to see that when the bible condemns 'debate' it isn't the defending of sound doctrine or the correcting of 'vampire church' error, but rather the stirring up of controversies to be divisive.

Is this wisdom not clearly seen?

Or do all that have posted 'anti debate' posts believe, as Mike, that the truth should be contended for against error, but only don't call it 'debate'?


PS: It wasn't a seeker sens. church. When the head pastor heard about it he was appalled.

C
ceedub

I wanted to add this passage as well...

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

C
ChrisJD

Hi Ceedub,

About this,


Debate...
7378 רִיב [riyb, ruwb /reeb/] v. A primitive root; TWOT 2159; GK 8189; 67 occurrences; AV translates as “plead” 27 times, “strive” 13 times, “contend” 12 times, “chide” six times, “debate” twice, and translated miscellaneously seven times. 1 to strive, contend. 1a (Qal). 1a1 to strive. 1a1a physically. 1a1b with words. 1a2 to conduct a case or suit (legal), sue. 1a3 to make complaint. 1a4 to quarrel. 1b (Hiphil) to contend against.


What refrence are you qouting above if I could ask? It seems to be combining several things/words together?


The first occurence that I saw of the Hebrew word that was mentioned was in Gen 26:20 where it is rendered 'strive'.


When I looked up the word [i]debate[/i] I found one instance in the KJV, and 9 instances of the greek word altogether that Strong's defines this way:


G2054
ἔρις
eris
er'-is
Of uncertain affinity; a quarrel, that is, (by implication) wrangling: - contention, debate, strife, variance.

I'm not sure what word you are referring to when you had mentioned Paul the Apostle?


Hope it is alright to ask this, and thanks in advance.

C
ChrisJD

Hi again everyone.


ceedub,

about this,


"For those that oppose debate over doctrine, can I ask what you would do in such a case?"

I think that is a fair question to ask.


I wonder if I could share something from my own personal experience?

Here in the city there are at least two groups that I have encountered that preach out in public. [b]As far as I can tell[/b], they are telling others that you must be a physical descendant of Israel in order to be saved. I could be wrong about the particulars of that.

One of the groups seems to be more moderate while the other seems almost militant, by the way they dress. I've confronted both.


The last time I spoke to them it was the group that seems more militant. The man speaking was loudly telling those standing by that they needed to obey the commands of Christ. As I passed by I looked at him and said that the Lord Jesus commanded us to love our enemies.

As he began to address what I had said to the crowd, saying things that would appearantly justify not loving some people, he called me a devil.


When I protested to those standing by that it was not fair to make a statement like that about someone you know nothing about, one of them asked me what "devil" means. I told him at first, 'liar', and then afterwards I told him it means 'slanderer'. Which I said to the rest also.

I then exhorted the people standing nearby to pay close attention to [i]what it was[/i] they were hearing and then walked into a building nearby.


When I came out and the people were still there, I took the opportunity to walk over to some of those that looked as though they were in the group and to admonish them that the Lord Jesus told us to pray for those who mistreat us. I said this to several of them.

Tonight as I was walking by that area on the other side of the street, I noticed that the same group was there. Several of them were in a circle and as I continued on down the street they began to shout all in unison. I could not make out anything they were saying except I heard the word Israel.

As I looked over to the other side of the street I noticed a van which I took to be theirs. It had a phrase printed on the side in qoutes that read:


"Home of the truth"

How do we always respond? I do not know.

I think that the Lord Jesus used the many opportunities that His adversaries presented Him in their seeking to ensare and to defeat Him, to speak the truth to those who were listening.


[i]edited to correct an error in spelling[/i]

C
ceedub

Well said. And good illustration.

Can I share another?

A brother recently asked what my eschatological views were. I answered. They were different from his. He asked if I was cemented into mine, and I responded, 'no'. He asked if he could share his views and I said yes. I learned alot about what he actually believes, and in the process had a number of misunderstandings fixed. I still don't hold to his views. But he is considering mine, and I his.

We debated the two sides as Christians should. No name calling or slanders. Just seeking the truth.

I'd say debate will be very different depending on who's involved and what they're after.

Here's what you were asking about...

Enhanced Strong's Lexicon (3 occurrences in 3 articles)
4683 מַצָּה [Strong's Hebrew #4683] 1
4683 מַצָּה [matstsah /mats·tsaw/] n f. From 5327; TWOT 1400a; GK 5175; Three occurrences;
7378 רִיב [Strong's Hebrew #7378] 2
7378 רִיב [riyb, ruwb /reeb/] v. A primitive root; TWOT 2159; GK 8189; 67 occurrences; AV
2054 ἔρις [Strong's Greek #2054] 3
2054 ἔρις [eris /er·is/] n f. Of uncertain affinity; GK 2251; Nine occurrences; AV translates

I believe it was 7378 that I was alluding to.

C
ChrisJD

Hi ceedub,

I think that was a nice illustration also!

I believe that others also will agree with you and the illustration that you shared, that we can refine each other's views of doctrine and teaching and what it is we believe.


I suspect though that many would not have had that in mind when they heard the word debate. I probably would not either. My suspicion is that they would think of the adversarial type of confrontation that has each side against the other, seeking to defend what they believe and defeat those that oppose them.

Thank you for the refernces! I thought it was the Hebrew word you were referring to but wasn't sure because you had made refrence to Paul.


One word that came to mind in the New Testament that I have looked up before is this:


G3870
παρακαλέω
parakaleō
par-ak-al-eh'-o
From G3844 and G2564; to call near, that is, invite, invoke (by imploration, hortation or consolation): - beseech, call for, (be of good) comfort, desire, (give) exhort (-ation), intreat, pray.


Wish you all well,

Chris

S
sonofthunder

The thing to keep in mind in all this: Is we don't debate for the purpose of someone winning and for the purpose of someone losing.
And the person whom we percieve as having WON the DEBATE - is also THE VICTOR WHO HAS COME OUT SWINGING AND ON top!! ( SO TO SPEAK )

EXACTLY JUST HOW IT happens in a world title boxing match and event! The winner goes home smug, happy, and victorious - And wearing a superior smile and grin! and the loser miserable and downcast. Why Do we debate? Anyway?

~~ To appear more knowledable
~~ To Appear the "winner" in public
~~ To blow off the opposition ( as it were )
~~ To look good - and others bad
~~ To push down whilst being brought up???

( What is your motive for debate ) ??

This is not high school debating (you know) that seeks to come out on top and run roughshod over all the opponents - and then judges score and appoint a winner on the day!

Why do you debate? What is it you seek to achieve ? I tell you what though: If a babe in the Lord or new born Christian was crushed in the meelee of some heated debate and thus became discouraged and weakened, and stumbled in his walk with the Lord - then i would hate to have that on my conscience!! I don't know about you? but i'd hate to have that on my plate! You might win the argument ... but crush the opponents in the process! How does that profit anything? Again why do we debate?

James says: Wars and fightings come from within our members ( which war from within ) Us...

Paul said he worried that when he returned to them @ corinth that he would find them not as they should be, and there be such things as: Debates, whisperings, swellings, tumults, stife. Ecet

Again why we debate? Titus says avoid them that STRIVE and are CONTENTIOUS... among you!

But a man may say: I can debate without arguing or without being contentious!! Yes perhaps you can! but is it edifying? Does it as paul says seek the wealth of others? Does it to the person "OUT" debated - lift and pull them up? and make them stronger? or rather discouraged and feeling downcast? From what ive witnessed over 3 decades it leaves the one who was trodden on - weakened and discouraged.

Seek that you may excel to the edification and building up - of the body! And that which makes others strong ( and not weakens )

I was present at a meeting not that long ago when the main speaker with relish craved and desired to challenge the author of a certain book (he had just read) to a running debate over "the timing" of end time events! and ( day of the Lord ) stuff...

As i sat in the audience listening i thought why do people even have these aspirations to challenge people to public running debates? Where does it get you? and lead to? And what is the underlying motive for doing such things? to demonstrate superior knowledge? ( forget that ) to prove others wrong? Nay: such glorying is not good!!! Should such a thing be praised you think? ye are wise men, so judge ye!

And besides: If a man does thinketh himself to know anything? He knoweth nothing yet, as he oughta know. HMMM. And if any man thinketh he stands, let him take heed, lest he fall! And let us not forget "knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifies" ...

And what kind of message does this send to the non christians out there?? That all we want to do is put our point across and out-debate others?? who are of the contrary part?

And i know to those who seek to justify debate one of the many passages appealed to is taken from the book of acts where paul went into the synagogue of the jews and disputed with them. But the question is? what is meant by dispute? Is it causing trouble and evoking strife? or is it disputing that (Jesus was Christ) and that he indeed rose from the dead! And disputing that christ is the truth and only way - and only life. Remembering many had not recieved (the nazarene carpenter) who was thought to be by religious authorities, to be a deciever - who failed to keep the sabbath!!!

Paul disputed the truth of Christ's gospel knowing these jews were still in darkness to the truth. Paul didnt care about being proven right as a vindicating thing ( for himself ) that his own flesh and pride be gratified in wit and superior knowledge. If truth prevailed: then paul didnt care about how people percieved him. He wanted the truth both declared and be known - but if truth led to quarrels from the ones rejecting then he quickly sought to extinguish that fire and/or leave the scene -- in which he preached.

SHAKING THE VERY DUST OF THE SOLES OF HIS FEET!

IS HOW ONE RESPONDS: TO THEM THAT REJECT YOU

IT IS ALSO HOW CHRIST TAUGHT HIS DISCIPLES TO RE-ACT -- TO BOTH DISSENT AND REJECTION.

Not to go round and round and round in circles (arguing the matter) -- till LITERALLY all and sundry ... are blue in the face - exhausted!

Some people love to debate the finer points of calvinism and arminianism, or what is the definition of santification? or the place of television in the christian home? or is christmas pagan? or where did cain's wife come from? Or was judas ever truly saved? Or can a genuine christian ever be lost and eternally damned?

What I can tell you without fear of mistake or error: Is these (questions and posts) do the rounds at every forum on the web about every 2-3 months (USUALLY WITHOUT FAIL) And From what ive observed: these questions seldom get (definitively) answered. And to them wanting to know the answer -- it often serves to arouse more confusion and more debate.

Hence and thus: paul told timothy ( watch them ) that seek to DOTE on questions and strife of words!!! ( watch out for them ) paul said...

For such are proud and know nothing anyway!!!!!

People who love to argue paul said are actually perverse people with little feeling for others and there conscience! And people who love to argue strangely enough often find a resting pad and place in the arena of religion ...as they love to quarrel and dispute things found within the 66 books of holy scripture?? Don't they? :-)

Where does debate get you?? Is the question asked
And i have a really good answer for everyone:

People who debate often "feel good" about themselves when they (percieve) that they have Won (or) out debated a rival, they feel chuffed and somewhat bemused, about it all ...but ah alas, all the more reason why paul was indeed right ... that knowledge PUFFS UP!! In fact:
It puffs you up like a balloon swelling to full size -- and then it pops ... and all the air escapes and fades away.

Bit like them who lost the debate -- they feel DEFLATED AND EMPTY!! No friends: you can have debate - all to yourselves, i will refrain and STAY away. Not because i don't think i can go "toe to toe" with you (or) "match it" with you .... but simply because it is so draining and deflating. And saps precious life and energy!!!

Still others will say: Ive listened to THOSE DEBATES on the Web beTween HARDENED atheists and apolagetics! and it was all civil and VERY cordial, and they even had rules in place to be observed AND OBEYED, and it was all good!
Yes: And ive heard these discussions too: and what i can say is - there are times that THESE DISCUSSIONS became dis-respecting and dis-honouring of the other person and his views. And at times various parties were agitated and obviously offended! and times when they were rudely interupted - and not able to get there point across. Jesus didn't debate! even when the sadduccee's came to him with there ridiculous non-sensical discussions as to why they dis-believed the resurrection, it was merely a re-active response from Jesus, not a pro-active - ONE !!!!

And Please no debates Over what you just read :-P

Y
yoadam

This thread is pretty over the top. People debating that we should not debate. Wow. :-(

Look-- of course it's very possible to have sinful motives in debate. Is debate the evil? No.

Bottom line: It's about the truth.

Unity at all costs? No way.

C
ceedub

sonofthunder...

I think you're in the lead now with the biggest debating post on this thread. You're on top. :-)

P
passerby

I think I missed some points in my last post.

1. Re: imposing

I would describe it further as 'bullying', carrying the cross in one hand and the sword in the other hand, like the 'inquisition' in the dark ages and which sad to say some leaders of the reformers also abused others in the name of their doctrines. Well, not only among the reformers but by many other professing Christians as well.

2. Re: explain, expound, explore...suggest...

Suggestions, are for the things that are presumptions in nature of which a lot of arguments on debatable issues have much in abundance. Also, I said that in the context that we are guest in this site, or in any other open fora especially where the decorum is clear.

The truths of God are inviolable, the gospel of Christ doesn't suggest, it declares, it commands, many will stumble upon it, many will be divided, many will be offended.

Many Christians will be mocked, cursed, marginalized, put to death, but where the Lord tells us to speak we must speak, shake the dust off our feet if we must, or keep the pearl from the swine.

Yes_ plead, persuade, warn for the truth, but to be 'obssesed with polemics' is a worldly way of getting the things accross, let us always recall this: "not by might, nor by power.._but even then, only few will understand, only few will enter the narrow gate so that we must not be easily exasperated by oppositions, nor be easily led to useless and idle disputes. And as for us who name the name of Christ, must speak and act worthy of His name.


C
ceedub

Amen.
Chris also made it clear that the word 'debate' carries different baggage for different people.
It seems some agree that disputing for a true gospel is the right thing to do, while others see all debate as wrong.

As far as being 'obsessed with polemics', that was a good point to make. The root of bitterness can creep up on someone that's had the courage to defend the faith, polluting something that had a good start into something much different. One can become jaded from too much conflict.

C
ceedub

It seems from PaulWest's comments on the Calvinism thread that debate is bad when
a) it targets true believers as enemys and
b) it attacks the person instead of the issue and
c) it is entered into by people who have no business debating before they know what they're talking about.

By the way, I've been thinking about the war/trenches analagies for the last couple hours and think they were very well placed.

Thanks paulwest and ccrsskhscr.

C
ceedub

found a few quotes re debate from some sources that don't usually make it on SI...

“Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors”
Thomas Jefferson

“When you resort to attacking the messenger and not the message, you have lost the debate.”
Addison Whithecomb

“Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate.”
Hubert H. Humphrey

“Great leaders are almost always great simplifiers, who can cut through argument, debate and doubt, to offer a solution everybody can understand.”
Colin Powell

“It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.”

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress."
Joseph Joubert

“Honest differences of views and honest debate are not disunity. They are the vital process of policy making among free men.”
Herbert Clark Hoover

“Do not debate! is one of my inventions.”
Deng Xiaoping

“It may happen sometimes that a long debate becomes the cause of a longer friendship. Commonly, those who dispute with one another at last agree.”
Elbert Hubbard

“There is always a multitude of reasons both in favor of doing a thing and against doing it. The art of debate lies in presenting them; the art of life lies in neglecting ninety-nine hundredths of them.”
Mark Rutherford

P
PaulWest

Saints,

Some people relish debate because it [i]causes[/i] division, and division for the mere sake of division is the product of unmortified pride in the heart of a believer. If we would allow God to deal with our hearts and submit to the inner cross of our self will, we would find that unity among brethren is a sweet, dear fragrance to yearn for...despite our differences on non-salvific matters.

Heresy is one thing, and heresy must be dealt with through division (as God divided the light from the darkness in Genesis 1), but I have found that believers with a divisive nature will often use unheretical teachings to their own means, in order to accomplish their aim in dividing a community. Teachings on election, predestination, moral government, free will, limited atonement, speaking in tongues, water baptism, total depravity etc. are more often than not deputized by unbroken believers and elevated to a height of communal importance which was never intended by God to bring division in the body of Christ.

It is perfectly okay to have your own convictions in these non-salvific matters (we all do, including myself), and promote them on your own webite or through your own ministry, if you so choose. It is fine to attend a local church fellowship where other believers of your ilk can congregate and break bread; the problem arises when one brings their little "emblems of division" into a public setting (like this forum), where believers of all walks and denominations and levels in maturity seek to find a common ground whereby all can be edified: in the fellowship of the saints by the humility, wisdom and grace of the Holy Spirit.

Fellowship is suddenly lascerated when an incautious person begins to elevate their deputized emblems in the midst of all, and all too often with an air of spiritual impugnity - the universal mark of unmortified pride. In most cases, the believer read some Spurgeon, the believer read some Wesley, the believer read some Finney...and was profoundly touched in these great men's level of understanding in certain aspects of the Christian life and theology, but in the believer's own immaturity level he is unable to process it correctly through the filter of wisdom and meekness, and so he goes on an untouchable campaign, precipitating division everywhere other believers gather.

Often, references to Paul's speeches on Mars Hill and the Acropolis and the synagogues are employed to vindicate and verify a debate-causing antic, thinking he is following in the footsteps of apostolic polemics and defending the true gospel from "all other" gospels; but the truth is, such believers are often so blinded by a thirst for division and glory among the brethren for their knowledge that they forget Paul was either apologetically addressing unbelievers and/or polemically refuting Judaizers in each group setting.

The things we so often see today that cause division in fellowship, are, alas, the very things Paul decried in the introduction to his first letter to the Corinthian fellowships. The factions of Appollos, the factions of Cephas, etc. He was not rebuking unbelievers or heretics, hypocrites or Judaizers; those he always sought to weed out and expose. No, Paul was addressing genuine believers caught up in "isms", fractured by non-slavific emblems. His heart was that they should be unified (as opposed to divided) and be of one mind despite their differences.

And that is my heart as well.

Brother Paul

E
elected


I think debate in itself its not wrong. Paul debated with the jews, if im not wrong to convince them from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah, but more then ever he proclaimed the gosple. In the church of new Testament i dont find any scripture that encourage us to debate with believers, we are called to proclaim the gosple to the world and build up each other in the most holy faith not debate.

Apologists and theologians debate alot with unbelievers, agnostics, atheists, with people of other religions then christianity but from christian history we learn that the gosple triumphs when simply is is proclamed with power and unction.

Its the demostration of the Holy Spirit and the power of the risen Savior that conquered the heathers to Christ in the first century, thats clearly evident in the ministry of Paul and its true today whenever the gosple is preached with power and unction.


C
ceedub

I agree with Paul concerning divisive agendas, but...


There are ten thousand writings and commentaries throughout church history filled with debate aimed at believers over varying doctrine both salvific and not. Have they all been wrong? Yet what Paul writes of Newton makes much sense. Not only sense, but we're drawn to such men as these.
But what about those men God sent that drew no one?

Its almost like cal/arm, one side has trouble accepting the other.


Peace

P
PaulWest

There are ten thousand writings and commentaries throughout church history filled with debate aimed at believers over varying doctrine both salvific and not.

This is true, and if a person wants to dedicate his or her time to this type of expenditure, that's between them and God. Personally, I wish to avoid these topics unless I'm directly asked what my take is on God's sovereignty, election, tongues, etc. I will share what I believe - but that is the extent of it. If I sense an eagerness to engage in debate, I will excuse myself from the conversation. I sense that God has not called me to debate, but to edify my brethren and comfort those in turn with the comfort God has shown me. Debating Cal/Arm is a colossal waste of time for me, because those who debate it are usually already set in their own systems and are just trying to win a volley contest.

Have they all been wrong?

No, but not all have been right either. I would wager many of these saints of old who are in heaven and casting their crowns are embarassed at all the time they spent on earth deliberating non-salvific "isms" in the face of the eternal glory they are now enjoying. All the writing and time and friction expended as they peered through the dark glass while on earth. If their hearts were pure, and agenda-free I'm sure there will be some noble rewards, but if they engaged their convictions for any other cause...there will be reason to lament.

H
hmmhmm


by T. Austin-Sparks

The Natural and the Spiritual


Reading: Psalm 11:1-4; 1 Cor. 3:9-17.

As we proceed with our consideration of foundations there is a third thing. In the first letter to the Corinthians we have another way in which foundations are virtually destroyed, at least in a very real measure. It is by what is put on them; the building that is placed upon them. Not utterly and altogether and finally are they destroyed by this means, but they are robbed of their supreme value, and thus they are in their main virtue destroyed. You will see what I mean by the apostle’s words: “I laid a foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let each man take heed how he buildeth thereon.” And then Paul proposes that some build with certain materials and others build with other materials. Then a testing fire from God comes to try out that superstructure; and the wood, hay and stubble material goes up in smoke, and when it has all gone the question is: Well, what was the value of that foundation if when all is said and done nothing is on it? In that way the foundation is in its supreme significance and value destroyed. The apostle tells us that those who do that sort of thing may be saved people, and, because they have Christ the foundation is there; they themselves may not lose their salvation, but then they were not saved just to be saved. Christ did not come into them just to be there. He was not the foundation just to remain the foundation. A foundation presupposes a superstructure, it points to it, implies it, necessitates it. There is no justification in having a foundation if you have no superstructure. The superstructure is the justification of the foundation. What would you think of a builder who went round everywhere putting down foundations, and then you went round the earth seeing a lot of foundations and that is all you saw; foundations put in year after year and as you passed on, you saw nothing but foundations. You would say: Well, that fellow did not justify his existence, he did not justify his labour. The only justification for putting those foundations in is that he put something on them.

The justification of our salvation is that there is a superstructure; for our salvation involves that, and we are not justified as saved ones until God’s building is up. God is justified in saving us when He has His building. That is the justification of the grace of God. So the apostle goes on with the language about God’s temple: “Ye are God’s building.” God’s building. Now what we are putting upon our salvation, what we are building is either going to justify the foundation, or to, virtually, for all divine intents and purposes, destroy the foundation; that is, render it vain in the full purpose of God. That is plain. Do you see what I mean? There is a way of rendering even the divine foundation well nigh valueless, and robbing it of its real virtue by putting up something not according to Christ. Now that is very simple and very elementary, but it will help us on a little.

The superstructure has to be in keeping with the foundation. It has to be spiritually and morally of a piece, it has to be alike. What the foundation is, the superstructure has to be. The building has to take character from the foundation. The foundation is said to be Jesus Christ and the whole building has to take its character and nature from its foundation. Think of de-rooted foundations after an excavation down to the bottommost depths of hell; for that is where Christ laid the foundation. He excavated down to the very bottommost depths of sin; He touched rock-bottom to lay the foundation of our salvation. Deeper He could not go. He ploughed through hell to lay the foundations of our eternal redemption. Now think of putting up a flimsy wood, hay, stubble building upon that. Does that justify those foundations? Something worthy of Christ is required, something worthy of the work that He has accomplished, something which will speak of the greatness of His grace and His glory. That is God’s building.

When we have said that, and seen that, we can come to this letter to the Corinthians and let the letter itself explain that to us. You remember that we are thinking of destroying the foundations in this sense, that something not worthy of Christ is put upon them.

Now take up your letter to the Corinthians and we will cover some familiar ground. Remember this whole letter represents the problem which confronted the apostle as he contemplated visiting Corinth. There was a situation there with many sides which represented for him a problem calculated to break the heart and destroy the faith of anyone whose foundations were not well laid in themselves. I am quite sure before we are through you will see that to face a situation like that, you will need to have foundations well laid in yourselves.

The Wisdom of the World and the Things of the Spirit

The first chapter introduces you to the first phase of his problem. Before you are through that chapter you discover that in that assembly of believers at Corinth the spirit of the world outside, the Corinthian spirit, had gained access and taken hold. The spirit of the world at Corinth was the spirit of worldly wisdom; it was a centre and citadel of philosophy. They had no better entertainment than to discuss the latest phase of philosophy, the new thing in thought. And Corinth was a place where human reason had full play and everything was determined in its value by the reasoning powers of the mind; argument, debate, discussion. It was a world-centre of rationalism, and that had crept into the assembly of the Lord’s people. And what we find is that the Lord’s people in that spirit, in that mind, had taken hold of spiritual things, heavenly things, things of God, and brought them down to the level of mere human argument, debate, discussion, and reason; applying all the time the test of human reason to them and seeking so to handle them by the intellectual faculty as to bring them within the limited compass of man’s own power of mind. Thus they were discussing what the apostle calls the things of the Spirit of God, and bringing heavenly, eternal, spiritual things down there; dragging the things of eternity into the school of worldly rationalistic discussion, debate, argument. Of course, that was not exclusively the way of the Corinthians of Paul’s day. There is plenty of that today. Again and again we have come up against people whose one great obstacle to the things of the Spirit of God is their own head. They will get their head in the way; and what they cannot reduce to their own intellectual comprehension, they reject. And when you say: Look here, you will have to stop arguing, discussing, give God a chance along the line of faith, they will answer: Why have we got brains? That means our brains are the capacity of eternal things. If that is so, God help the eternal things! Well, that was the first phase of Paul’s problem, no little one. Those of us who have met it even in a little way know what a big difficulty it is.

Human Predilections, Sympathies and Antipathies

Pass into chapter two and we find the same thing carried on for a bit, and then as we move on and begin the next chapter we find we come into the realm of human preferences, human likes and dislikes in the direction of teaching and teachers, preaching and preachers, the messengers of God and their messages. One school says: Now Paul is the man we like, and Paul’s line of things is the line we like. You may like Apollos or Peter, but as for us, well, Paul is our man. Within the same assembly another company are saying: We prefer Apollos and his line of things. You may have Paul, and you have Peter, but we like Apollos. The third company were saying: All right, if you like Paul and if you like Apollos you may have them, we will stick to Peter. There was a fourth class who said in a superior way: Well, if you like to have Paul, you Apollos, and you Peter, you may, but we belong to Christ (something quite different from the other, of course). That is the implication, you see, making Christ a party. You know when human preferences run riot they are awfully difficult things to handle. That was there; their sympathies and antipathies; and these are deeply rooted things in human nature. It takes a lot of grace to get over them. Of course, that was their condemnation. If it does take a lot of grace to get over these things, and you have not got over them, you have not got a lot of grace. That was Paul’s problem, the thing which Paul had to face and deal with and for which he had a responsibility before God.

The Tragedy of Arrested Growth

In chapter three again you find a state which is perhaps more difficult, that of unduly delayed maturity. After some considerable time of being God’s people and having the things of God in their midst, Paul says that he could not speak to them as unto spiritual but as unto carnal, as unto babes. That is a tragedy. There are perhaps few more pathetic tragedies in human life than to see arrested growth in infancy while years go on. That is how things were at Corinth. Paul says it was carnality which had caused the arrest, and carnality always does cause arrest, and when they ought to have been mature they were still helpless, dependent, spiritual infants, without understanding, perception, capacity to take spiritual responsibility. A very difficult thing to deal with that. Beloved, that was not peculiar to Corinth or Paul’s day. Multitudes of the Lord’s people are like that today. Oh, yes, it is a pathetic situation to find people who have known the Lord for years, decades, who are still without their spiritual faculties developed to a state where they can take spiritual responsibility, where they know and have not to be told! There are multitudes like that. The reasons are not always the same. It is true that carnality is the cause of that very often, but I am afraid poor teaching is also responsible for that in many cases. They have not been fed and nourished. It is a tragic situation with which we are met today; but there it is, whatever the cause. In this case it was their own responsibility, their own fault, their carnality.

The Shame of Spiritual Pride

You pass to chapter four and find the apostle speaking with language which indicates spiritual pride. It takes this form. The Lord had blessed them with spiritual gifts and done very gracious things for them, put them in possession of His spiritual riches, and they were boasting of those possessions, boasting of these things as though they had acquired them by their own ability, had achieved them by their own efforts; and the apostle says: “...if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?” In other words: Why are you trying to make people think that your possessions spiritually are the result of your own spiritual ability, that you have by your own effort attained unto this? Why don’t you recognise that it is all the grace of God, and that you are the humble dependants upon the Lord? They were boasting of their spiritual gifts as though they were their spiritual attainments and not gifts. Spiritual pride is a terrible thing. Ordinary pride is bad enough, always the hallmark of ignorance, but spiritual pride is a far worse thing.

Then there is the next phase of the problem confronting Paul. That alone would dishearten a good many, but put them all together! Chapter five. Here we dare not tarry. “It is actually reported that there is fornication among you...” Amongst believers? In an assembly of the Lord’s people? Yes, a tragic story which has been repeated again and again through the ages. But oh, the heartbreak to any man who had any real sense of spiritual responsibility for souls, to come up against that.

Chapter six. Believers, members of the Body of Christ dragging one another into the courts of earthly judgment, having writs issued against one another, summoning one another before the magistrate, charging one another, lawsuits before the ungodly. Fellow members of the Body of Christ! Oh, what a misapprehension of the Body of Christ. That is, they were standing up and fighting for their own rights.

He goes on. You come soon upon some terrible disorders at the Lord’s Table. One was that they were turning the Lord’s Table into a revelry, a feast. People better off in this world’s goods were bringing to the feast luxuries, and people who were poorly off could only just bring their little, and there was the class distinction, and all that sort of thing. The apostle says: Have you not homes? If you want to glut yourselves at least have the decency to do it in your own home in private, do not do it as an assembly of the Lord’s people. You see they often turned their common meal into a sacrament. They met together, ate and drank together and then as spontaneously as if it were the natural thing they made of their meal a testimony, but this thing had so degenerated as to make it a commonplace, as we have mentioned, and all the glory, beauty, sacredness of the Body of Christ and Blood of Christ had been dragged down to this. No small problem that in itself to have to deal with. There were other aspects of this matter which we will not deal with.

You pass on still further and you come to disorders in the assembly in general. People usurping authority, and you know what the apostle has to say about disorder in the House of God. The place of men is under the sovereign headship of Christ in a spirit of subjection, fulfilling their ministry in the House of God. But here men were taking authority themselves and not having their authority in subjection to Christ. And then women, out of their divinely appointed place, upsetting the whole order of the assembly. The apostle tells them what this means: “You get out of your divine covering and get into touch with the evil spirits who deceived Eve. The Devil is out to disintegrate this assembly along the same line, and you are giving him the chance he wants by this disorder.” The whole matter was one of order. The Lord has an order for His House, and all may fulfil their ministry—women and men—if they keep to His order.

I think any one who had not the foundations in himself well established would give up this situation, abandon it, run away, do what the counsellors advised David to do, flee to the mountain. “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Surely with a situation like that the foundations are destroyed? Not a bit of it! I come back and see that after all Paul does not run away, he does not accept that the foundations are destroyed, but he does see that those foundations are being robbed of their value by all this. This is the thing which destroys the foundations in their real virtue.

The Natural and the Spiritual

Now do you want an exposition of what Paul means by wood, hay, stubble? That is it! The Word interprets itself. What did he mean by putting upon the foundation a superstructure of wood, hay, stubble? He meant all that. Divisions, schisms, worldly wisdom, intellectual glorying, and all the rest. This is something which will be destroyed by the fire. What will you have left? When you are building with that material you cannot be building with the other at the same time, therefore you will have nothing left. Do you want an exposition of what Paul means in the second chapter by the spiritual and the natural? “Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged (discerned).” Natural and spiritual. We know that word natural, in the Greek, is the word soulical, or soulish man, and he is set over against the spiritual man. What is the soulish man? One Corinthians tells you all that. The man who is handling spiritual things with natural wisdom, he is the soulish man. The man who is influenced and actuated by his own natural likes and dislikes, preferences, sympathies and antipathies—Paul, Apollos, Peter—that is the soulish man. But over against him is set the spiritual man. The man who is not actuated primarily by his own worldly reason, but looks to the Lord the Spirit for his understanding in the things of the Lord. The spiritual man is never influenced or governed by his own likes or dislikes for people or teaching or anything else. He is actuated by what the Lord likes. He does not say: I prefer this man to that, this line of teaching to that. He says: Has Paul got something of Christ? Well, I will have all, it is Christ I am after. Never mind what kind of a vessel, it is Christ I am after. There are no divisions in the spiritual man, no preferences in the spiritual man. He may know secretly what naturally he would like, but he does not allow those things to come to prejudice his mind or in any way affect his relationship. The spiritual man does not go to law with a believer to fight for his own rights. The spiritual man is not guilty of fornication. The spiritual man does not bring disorder into the House of God; it is the man of soul who does that. You see you have got a clear exposition with the whole letter of the meaning of the natural or psychical and spiritual.

How Paul Won at Corinth

Do you see what I am getting at? It brings me right back to my beginning. What kind of a building is to be suitable to the divine foundation? Well, we have seen how Paul faced his problem. Oh, magnificent example of how to face a spiritual problem! I am not coveting to face a problem like that in one assembly. God forbid that it ever should be, but I do see here the most magnificent example of how a humanly impossible situation is faced, met, dealt with, and triumphed over. I am so glad Paul won through. Read the second letter and you see he has won, he is on top, and they are out with him. Everything was in a state of suspense so far as ministry was concerned in his first letter. The second letter is the letter of ministry. “Therefore seeing we have received this ministry, even as we obtained mercy, we faint not; but we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by the manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” Then a wonderful chapter on godly sorrow leading to repentance, and what the fruit of that repentance is. But he has won, that is the point; solved the problem from every standpoint. How did he do it? Open at chapter one again. I see Paul away there with this whole problem spread out before him. Yes, bowed, concerned, praying, saying: Lord, this is a terrible thing, only You can meet it, but something must be done, this does not glorify You. Give me the key to the situation, put into my hand the key to the whole thing. And as he sought the Lord, it flashed into him, and perhaps he shouted: I have found it, and sat down to write. Chapter one, put your pencil under every reference to the Lord Jesus and you will have seventeen blue pencil marks in thirty-one verses, an average of more than one to every two verses. Gather that all up into the grand statement: “For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” “For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” What is the solution? Giving the Lord Jesus His full and right place! Put the Lord Jesus into His place as absolute Lord in the heart, in the life, in the assembly, and all these foul birds will go out before the light. If the Lord Jesus is dominant in our hearts, divisions will go. You will not have to clear them up, they will go. What we need for all our divisions, our lack of love, our schisms, our likes and dislikes, is a fulness of Christ. Christ as Lord, Christ as Master, Christ reigning. And like evil creatures in a dark cellar scuttle away when the light comes on, so will divisions and schisms, and all that makes for them, go, when Christ comes into His place. It is the cure for everything.

If the foundation is to be justified it must be justified in a superstructure after its own kind. Christ at the root, and Christ the stem, branches, and fruit. It is all Christ. We have something to think about. “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Destroyed in this sense, that they are made void by what is being put on them. What can the righteous do? Well, there is nothing to be done but one thing, but that one thing will do all the rest: that is, bring the Lord into His place. Oh, Paul must have had a wonderful faith in Christ; facing a situation like that, beloved. Sit down with any one phase of it and see how you would like to tackle it; and then taking the whole thing—more than I have given you—and realising you have a spiritual responsibility for that situation, you want a mighty faith to believe that whole situation will yield if only the Lord Jesus can be brought into His place. It will do it, and it will again. There is no problem, no difficulty which cannot be solved by the enthroning of Christ. All the problems in this world, and of all the nations, are going to be solved by the enthronement of Christ. There is no other solution, but this is the sure solution. God has bound up everything to that, that all things are going to be settled when His Son has His place. But judgment must begin at the House of God; it must start with us.

I have used all this by way of illustration. It may have an application to us in some way or other. Whether that be so or not is for us to determine before the Lord. Whether we are guilty of any of these things in spirit, in principle, if not in act. If it does not come home to us in any specific application, surely the grand truth should help our hearts. How are we going to face our problem, either within ourselves, or without, in others? Only in one way. Seek to have the Lord Jesus exalted in your own heart, and in the hearts of others. Bring Him first into view and then with Him in view all the other things can be dealt with.

I have only touched one aspect of this chapter. I will not go further with it. Paul said: “Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” You will see what the foundation is composed of. Jesus Christ as the foundation in this letter includes Christ crucified, the meaning of His death for us: Christ Risen, Christ exalted in the place of sovereign head. Those three things comprise the foundation. When we know what the death of Christ means so far as we are concerned, Christ crucified; we died when Christ died, how can we have the natural man then, the carnal man then? He has gone. When we know what it is to be risen with Christ, that is, alive unto God, only unto God; unto no other being or interest, and certainly not unto ourselves, only unto God; when we know what the absolute lordship of the Lord Jesus means to bring us into His government, how can it ever be: I am of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Peter? They cannot come in there if Christ is all. You find these threads running right through this letter. The Spirit tells you of the Christ crucified, risen, exalted. That is the foundation and the superstructure must be according to that.

Let the word lead us to glory in Christ, for that is where chapter one ends: “He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”

C
ceedub

That was a great article showing the problems with divisive, worldly behavior.

From the previous posts, however, it was pointed out that the discussion was rather about how it is to be handled when believers genuinely are seeking the truth and disagree over doctrine.
To label any that contend for sound doctrine as a 'carnal Corinthian' would, of course, be gross misrepresentation of the bible.
Maybe Galatians would have been a more suitable example. That book gives an example of how Paul dealt with doctrinal problems as well as Peter's error.

I'm sure no one wants to resort to ad hominem tactics while defending the negative side of debate. To label those that wish to defend doctrine as 'corinthian' would be silly, and I'm sure wasn't the intent of the last post.
To say that those that debate only want to stir up divisions is wrong, agreed. To say that those that rely on 'worldly wisdom' to settle doctrinal matters is wrong, agreed.

For those that discuss issues on this forum without resorting to labels and accusing the other of motives, agendas, carnality etc when you're disagreed with, I'm sure it's appreciated by all. And part of the Corinthian problem is avoided.

P
PaulWest

I'm sure no one wants to resort to ad hominem tactics while defending the negative side of debate. To label those that wish to defend doctrine as 'corinthian' would be silly, and I'm sure wasn't the intent of the last post.

Splinter groups occur usually because of a difference in doctrine. In Corinth, everything begun as "of Christ"; however, differences soon arose that caused factional minsets. "Of Christ" suddenly became "of Cephas", and "of Appolos" and "of Paul". How did this happen? It happened, I would propose, though mutations of the original doctrine preached unto them.

Galatians, I think is a different case. In Galatia, Paul was dealing with the error of legalism in its infancy. Judiaziers crept in and perverted the gospel in a [i]salvific[/i] way. This wasn't the case in Corinth where the problem was not salvific, but one of faction and disunity. I believe the Corinthain church still held to salvation by faith alone in Christ, regardless if one was "of Appollo" or "Of Cephas". In Galatia, Paul addressd legalism and deception; in Corinth he confronted the beginnings of denominationalism. In Galatia he sought to expose and eradicate the false apostles; in Corinth he sought to unify the sects.

And that is all we are doing here on SermonIndex, when it comes to factional issues. Is it really an ad hominem attack to call for unity among the brethren despite our differences in doctrine? That is exactly what Paul did in Corinth, though much more lovingly I'm sure :)

C
ceedub

And that is all we are doing here on SermonIndex, when it comes to factional issues. Is it really an ad hominem attack to call for unity among the brethren despite our differences in doctrine? That is exactly what Paul did in Corinth, though much more lovingly I'm sure :)

Then maybe we don't disagree at all. I neither would pull for factions because of non salvific issues. I just defend the right to discuss/debate them if both men so choose.


I'm glad for this site and thankful for wisdom gained from it. Also glad for the desire for unity within differences.

Why don't you finish with the last post on this thread?

I
imnowhere

The great controversy which for many ages has divided the Christian Church has hinged on the difficult question of “the will.” Without a doubt that conflict has done much harm to the Christian Church, but I will also say, that it has been loaded with immeasurable usefulness; for it has thrust forward before the minds of Christians, precious truths, which without it, might have been kept in the shade. I believe that the two great doctrines of human responsibility and divine sovereignty have both been brought out more prominently in the Christian Church by the fact that there is a class of strong-minded, hard-headed men who magnify sovereignty at the expense of responsibility; and another earnest and useful class who uphold and maintain human responsibility oftentimes at the expense of divine sovereignty. I believe there is a need for this in the finite character of the human mind, for the natural lethargy of the Church requires a kind of healthy irritation to arouse her powers and to stimulate her actions. The pebbles in the living stream of truth are worn smooth and round by friction. Who among us would wish to suspend a law of nature whose effects on the whole are good? [b] I glory in that which at the present day is so much spoken against-sectarianism, for “sectarianism” is the jargon phrase which our enemies use for all firm religious belief. I find it applied to all sorts of Christians; no matter what views he may hold, if a man is earnest, he is quickly labeled a sectarian. Success to sectarianism, let it live and flourish, for the day it ceases then we can say farewell to the power of godliness.[/b]


Spurgeon


J
Jimotheus

Greetings to all in the name of the Lord:

The question, "does debate divide" is a very provocative question indeed. The simple answer is, yes, debate does divide. But maybe a more penetrating question is not whether debate divides, but rather what is being divided by the debate. Is light being divided from darkness? Is truth being divided from false doctrine? These are just some questions to consider. All divides are not bad, and all unities are not good. Another thought to consider; instead of the term, "debate" which is almost always precieved as bad, I prefer the term found in the book of Jude which is, contend. To contend for the faith is a biblical command. This invariably causes controversy. Controversy for the sake of controversy is sin indeed, but controversy for the sake of truth is a biblical command. there is another word that you may want to think about and it is a forensic term: Defense. Please consider these terms from a biblical perspective, and do not allow misplaced simpathies to distract in any way.

Secondly, let me just encourage everyone that is priviledged to post and reply on this forum. We must stand before the Lord on the day of judgement individually. Therefore what we believe and the way we have lived our lives will directly affect our judgement, and for many of us, it will affect us adversely. In light of this, our commitment to holding fast to the faith that was once delivered to the saints should be intensely personal and not based on what the sages of the ages believed. What I'm encouraging everyone to consider is; do not allow the fact that certain doctrinal teachings have been "debated" for centuries to cause us to use this as a cop-out from our personal responsibility for taking a stand on one side, or the other. This reminds me of an old song that says, "Mr. in-between makes a feller mean..." A man that stands for nothing is liable to fall for anything. Whatever, "great reformer" may have thought back in 1536 may have been right, or it may have been wrong. Notwithstanding, every new generation has a responsibility of it's own to search the scriptures for themselves to discover the truths and treasures in the word of God in this year of our Lord 2009. Logically speaking everyone cannot be correct. Either one is right and all the others are wrong, or they are all wrong. Remember, when the Lord Jesus was being tempted of the Devil in the wilderness, he did not say, "Rabbi 'so-and-so' said,..." No, No, but, IT IS WRITTEN. God bless.

C
ChrisJD

Hi everyone.


Jimotheous mentioned this,


"Another thought to consider; instead of the term, "debate" which is almost always precieved as bad, I prefer the term found in the book of Jude which is, contend.'

I wanted to mention also that according to Strong's Concordance, the word [i]debate[/i] is found one time in the KJV, in Romans 1:29, and also the greek word which is translated there as debate is used another 8 times in the Greek New Testament.


It is translated as:

[b]strife[/b] in Romans 13:13, 1Co 3:3, Php 1:15, 1Ti 6:4


[b]contentions[/b] in 1Co 1:11, Tit 3:9,


[b]debates[/b] in 2Co 12:20


[b]variance[/b] in Gal 5:20

According to Strong's Greek Dictionary, the word is:


G2054
ἔρις
eris
er'-is
Of uncertain affinity; a quarrel, that is, (by implication) wrangling: - contention, debate, strife, variance.

Also according to Strong's, the word that is translated as [i]earnestly contend for[/i] in the Epistle of Jude is:


G1864
ἐπαγωνίζομαι
epagōnizomai
ep-ag-o-nid'-zom-ahee
From G1909 and G75; to struggle for: - earnestly contend for.

So far as I can tell, Jude does not give specific instruction as to how, or by what means, the believers are to [i]struggle[/i] for the faith, and what he says, he does so as by [b]exhortation[/b] and [b]not[/b] by command.


He does write further on that believers should build up(either themselves or each other)Jude 1:20.

If I could say also, whatever exhortations we have that are given to us in general need also to be weighed in the balances of the time, and places, and circumstances of every day life.

"The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way."

- Psalm 25:9(KJV)

John 8:26

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Thank you, Chris. This is a good etymological encouragement to remember.

Sadly, debate [u]is[/u] often divisive -- even amongst true believers. Why? I think that it is often because our "positions" are not presented as "positions," "opinions," or "assumptions." We often present our side of a debate as if it is the only truth, the opinion that matters or as if it is the undeniable position of God.

The list of divisive debates on SermonIndex is probably as long as the list of people who frequent SermonIndex. It is difficult to find two people who agree on EVERY issue. However, I have seen two people with conflicting views of the same issue stand steadfast that they are CERTAIN that they have "heard God" regarding their stand. I have even met would-be "prophets" who have stood in opposition to one another in regard to doctrines. We often falsely attribute our slight beliefs and inclinations with the undeniable Truth.

Too often, I believe that men have turned the TRADITIONS OF MEN into the DOCTRINES OF GOD. I believe that this is the cause of much strife. We can share such things WITHOUT creating strife and division if we could somehow learn to mingle our words with the knowledge of how fallible we are.

Of course, I might sound a little like a broken record.

:-)

C
ceedub


Of course, I might sound a little like a broken record.

No you don't.
But that's just my opinion and not an infallible statement of truth.
Maybe you do sound like a broken record.
It's just that I don't think so.

How was that? :-)

T
twayneb

Trying to read and catch up on this thread is a monumental task! Here is another Greek word worth looking at.

G1256
διαλέγομαι
dialegomai
Total KJV Occurrences: 13
reasoned, 4
Act 17:2, Act 18:4, Act 18:19, Act 24:25
disputed,
Mar 9:34, Act 17:17, Jud 1:9
disputing, 3
Act 19:8-9 (2), Act 24:12
preached, 1
Act 20:7
preaching, 1
Act 20:9
speaketh, 1
Heb 12:5

It is interesting to me that this "dialogue" is used both for good, and for not so good purposes. The disciples arguing over who will be the greatest, and Paul bringing the Grecians to a knowledge of Christ.

Could it be that debate is neutral, and the heart and purpose of the debater is what is good or bad?

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Hi twayneb...

Could it be that debate is neutral, and the heart and purpose of the debater is what is good or bad?
Very good point!

:-)

C
ChrisJD

Hi everyone,


twayneb, how are you?


You had asked this...


"Could it be that debate is neutral..."


I believe that it would depend on how [i]debate[/i] is being defined? What is it that we mean when we talk about debate?


In the case of the greek word that we looked at before(eris), it did not appear that it was used in the greek New Testament in any other way but a negative way.


The word that you brought to our attention though,(dialegomai) is what perhaps? others would think of when they think of the example of Paul in the book of Acts(Acts 19:8-9)?


There it says,


"And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God."

Maybe this word is more nuetral as you suggested?

Strong's defines it this way:


G1256
διαλέγομαι
dialegomai
dee-al-eg'-om-ahee
Middle voice from G1223 and G3004; to say thoroughly, that is, discuss (in argument or exhortation): - dispute, preach (unto), reason (with), speak.


If it is, then perhaps it would be good to consider the context, and more specifically:


what is it that is being disputed


and how, or in what manner, is it being disputed


The second question may be harder to answer, except that we believe it was in a godly way, because we believe that Paul was a man of God, and sent by God.


But I think the first question is easier to get at, in that, in verse 9 it says that some [i]beleived not[/i] and spake evil of [i]that way[/i], and that as a consequence of this, Paul went elsewhere(he being first among the Jews in the synagaouge), and then going to [i]the school of one Tyrannus[/i], so that, as a consequence of this, and here I think is the answer as to the 'what' of the first question:


"...all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks."


They heard the word of the Lord Jesus.


That Paul was doing what He was commisioned by God to do, to preach Christ unto the world.

And this then I think, if we are to hold out Paul as an example for ourselves, or as a model for debate, or contention about the things of God, that we ought to consider not only what Paul did, but who Paul was, before God.


For this same Paul could also write:


For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:


or

I am set for the defense of the gospel.


or again


But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

or could begin his letters as saying


Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God


or to begin a most solemn warning as saying


According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.


Or to give an exhortation saying


For I say, through the grace given unto me.


I hope that I have not overstepped my bounds in suggesting these things.

May God be merciful and take away anything that is false or harmful.

C
ChrisJD

Chris,

We share some similar feelings about this.

I want to respond though to just one thing that you wrote, if I could :)

"...if we could somehow learn to mingle our words with the knowledge of how fallible we are."

I feel much the same way. But I want to say also, [b]that I earnestly hope that nothing that I have ever suggested has made anyone think it is never appropriate to speak with certainty and authority![/b] May God forbid that!!

My own way of writting is probably lacking this to a fault, maybe because of feeling how tremendous thing it is to share our thoughts about spiritual things in an open and public forum where we have no idea who could be reading what we write. Not because we fear who may read it, but because we have no idea of how they may be affected by what we say.

But God forbid that I should ever make anyone think it is wrong or never appropriate to speak and teach and warn with authority! God forbid that! And thank God that the Bible is not written in language that should leave us to doubt about what it is saying or the certainy of the the things that are asserted!

But balance and carefulness seem to me to be nearly always useful and tending to wisdom.


Paul told Titus:


[b]These things[/b] speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority.


Not all things, but those things.

Not everyone, but Titus.


Am I a Titus, are you?

God knows. And may he help us each one to know what we may say boldy and with much authority. And what we may have the liberty and privilielge, to share with others as only our opinon.


It was only the Lord Jesus Who ever began His sentences by saying, Amen.

T
twayneb

Hey ChrisJD: I am blessed, thank you. I think you are right. How two people understand a term or concept has a huge impact on their discussion of the matter at hand. That is why going to the original language and agreeing on a definition of the term is important to the diaglogue.

Just a few more thoughts on debate being divisive. The word I brought up is literally a dialogue, I guess more like a discussion, much like we are having on this thread. It is entirely possible to discuss an issue out of a wrong motive. It is possible to discuss the wrong issue (as happened when the disciples were arguing about who was the greatest). It is also possible to allow emotion to lead you down a wrong path in the discussion.

And yes, I believe even this good discussion can be divisive. Paul's discourse with the Grecians was divisive. Not, I believe, because Paul sought to be divisive, but because the subject matter at hand, Christ, is inherently divisive. Some accept Him, some reject Him, and vehemently at that. Jesus himself threw down the glove in Matthew 10:34-38. He said that he was come not to bring peace but a sword. The Gospel is the truth, and will naturally divide those who accept it from those who reject it. Jesus never sought to divide. He is not willing that any should perish. His desire it that all men come to the knowledge of the truth, but He acknowledged that this would not happen. So, yes, debate is divisive, but I am only talking now of the type of debate that includes dialogue that is intended to bring others to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
The other word you bring us is used in a negative sense, and, in my opinion, should be avoided. It implies arguing out of wrong motive. It is strife and contention. There is a world of difference in the two, but I personally think the difference can be boiled down to what is in the heart of the men debating.

Interesting, SI allows us to debate the term debate in a way that brings edification to the body and builds us all up. :-)

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Hi Chris,

I think that we have all been guilty of “pushing” our views as the only one that matters from time to time. I suppose that much of our ideology is based upon our own knowledge of the Word of God mingled slightly with our own intellectual ability and the experiences that we have had. Perhaps this is underlying fault in many of our discussions. Each of us knows and embraces the infallibility of the Word of God. Yet our “knowledge” of the Word is often based upon ideas that are influenced by the intellect or “gifts” that we believe God has given us. Often, we find it difficult to accept a variance of opinion because we are too easy “convinced” of what [i]is[/i] or [i]is not[/i] “truth.” We often attend congregations who share or complement our “understanding” of particular doctrinal issues. We view those with a different opinion (or even, [i]slightly[/i] different opinion) as though they just don’t [u]know[/u] what we [u]know[/u] – or that they are [u]unwilling[/u] to embrace the “[i]truth[/i].”

This is a little story that I wrote to illustrate the divisive, egocentric nature of debate. It is a bit silly, but I think that it might demonstrate the manner in which many “spiritual” debates take place amongst believers.

[color=000099]Once upon a time, there were four tenured wildlife biology professors who were discussing the anatomy and nature of a dog. They were determined to decide just what needed to be taught in the University’s Canine Biology class. While most of the anatomical makeup of the creature was not highly debated, there was an argument that arose about the purpose of the dog’s teeth. Now, everyone agreed about the specifics. That is, the size of the teeth, the physical makeup of the bone and enamel and placement was not in dispute. What was in dispute was the purpose of the teeth.

The first professor argued that the purpose of the dog’s teeth was for eating grass; because, he had witnessed a dog eat grass. The second professor said that the function of the teeth was to provide “pinchers” for removing fleas and ticks – a habit that he had seen in local dogs. The third professor fiercely argued that the teeth were used to puncture and kill other living creatures – including humans; because, this scientist had been bitten by dogs in the past. The last professor argued that the purpose of the teeth were to remove meat from the bones of scraps given to it by humans before they proceeded to crunch and consume the bones, as was the custom of the pets that he had in his own home.

The debate grew extremely fierce, since each of the scientists was certain of their own knowledge that they based upon the undeniable physical makeup of the dog mingled with their own experience.

Eventually, each of the professors decided to create their own classes. The first professor created a class that taught that a dog’s nature is to be a plant eating herbivore. The second professor created a class that taught that dogs belonged to the [i]Insectivora[/i] class of insect-eating mammals. The third professor argued that dogs were feral, aggressive and ferocious animals that can never truly be tamed. The last professor created a class that taught that dogs were quiet, docile animals that had lost all sense of their wild nature through years of selective breeding.

Each of these professors was convinced of the infallibility of his teaching. They gathered around themselves students and colleagues who embraced their beliefs. In fact, they shunned any students who held to beliefs that differed from their own. Those students who simply change classes and find the professor that they felt more comfortable with. Eventually, those students would earn their degrees, advanced degrees and expertise until they took over the classes and teach the same things that they felt certain to be true. [/color]

I know that this is a silly little story. However, I have seen very “spiritual” men argue about “spiritual” issues in a very similar way. Each is convinced of the truth as they [i]understand[/i] it. Unfortunately, they forget that we are not supposed to rely on “our own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5-6). Of course, no one admits that they are relying on their own understanding, because they think that every last issue is entirely [i]clear[/i] from the Word of God (or from what [u]God[/u] has shown or taught them).

Debate, in a very honest and pure sense, can be a very good thing. Believers, like those in Acts chapter 15, can meet together and come up with a solid solution from God’s Word (as Peter did in Acts 15:19-21). This does not create any sort of compromise in “truth,” since it takes honesty and purity of heart to admit when we don’t know the absolute certainty of any given concept – no matter how “clear” it might be to our limited intellect or base of knowledge.

The Holy Spirit will certainly guide us “into all truth” (John 16:12-13). Yet are we so bold as to proclaim that we have already arrived at such a place? That is what often happens in our debates. Many of them are unhealthy arguments that divide the Body of Christ! Such immovable stands on doctrinal issues aren’t showing how [i]spiritual[/i] we are, but how [i]unspiritual[/i] we can become! We point to the Word of God as being entirely clear on certain matters – failing to see how [u]unclear[/u] the matter is by the expansive nature of the debate itself!

We also fail to consider that each of us is changing. We are slowly maturing as we continue along our journey with God! Most of us are not the same people we were just a few short years ago. We have matured as we have learned something new or have discovered truth as God has chosen to reveal it to us over time. None of us were supernaturally endowed with the understanding of ALL mysteries at the moment of our conversion (I Corinthians 13:2). We started off with the “milk” as we progressed to “solid” substances until we began consuming the “meat” of God’s Word. Yet, surprisingly, there are some who will even argue that they, in fact, [u]do[/u] understand all mysteries.

I have met people who boast about being a “prophet” or being given “the gift of knowledge” whereas nothing is “mysterious” to them anymore – and that everything that they set their mind to is “understood.” Yet these often abrasive people are often the most devoid of any semblance of love within their words. They fail to see the selfishness of their own nature when they force their ideology or “prophetic words” upon those around them. It is as if they choose only a single phrase about “understanding all mysteries” from I Corinthians 13:2 while neglecting to realize the full truth of the verse: [color=990000]“And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, [b][u]I am nothing[/u][/b].” [/color]

I believe that our debates would be much more beneficial if we were completely aware of our flawed intellects within the temporary confines of these earthly temples. It would help if we would realize that even very “spiritual” apostles like Paul, Peter and Barnabas can have conflicting beliefs regarding a matter! It would help us if the ultimate and underlying outcome of our debates is for the maturity of the Body of Christ rather than the allegiance to a particular doctrinal view. It would help if we would remember all of those things that we have been given (such as our education – including a theological education) and count them as a LOSS and as DUNG compared with the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ our Lord (Philippians 3:4-8). If we aren’t willing to get down in the dirt and pray with the brother in loving tears without an acknowledgment or acceptance of our “side” of a debate, then we shouldn’t be debating in the first place. Of course, this is much more easily believed than is actually done. I have known many fierce debaters who furiously defend their ideas of the faith regarding controversial doctrinal issues (against believers, rather than the unsaved) – and they truly seem to feel that they are doing this at the prompting of the Holy Spirit (and have even told me as much). It is almost as if they feel that they are doing God a favor by arguing with other believers.

I just wish that we could spend more time in loving and sincere spiritual “debate” with the unsaved than what we find amongst believers. It seems that, far too often, debate is delegated to a circle of believers with doctrinal differences than directed toward a world that is quickly falling into the pits of Hell. May God help us to get our priorities right – and may He start with me!

:-(

P.S. - Just so no one is confused, I do believe in [u]absolutes[/u]. I do believe that the Word of God is [u]absolutely[/u] true. I do believe that there are doctrines that are [u]absolutely[/u] clear in the Word of God, and that we should be vigilent to proclaim such things. I just think that we need to be very careful about which things that we proclaim as "[u]absolute[/u] truths" from the Word of God, less we find ourselves bearing false witness against the Lord of Truth Himself. I am concerned about those who might speak in absolutes regarding issues that are not absolutely clear amongst those of us in the Body of Christ.

I also think that there are some debates that are healthy, while others are unneeded. There are some things that we will never need to understand on this side of eternity. Far too often, I fear that our "evangelism" is often merely to convince other believers to align to our particular doctrinal views -- rather than proclaiming the undeniable truth of the Gospel to a lost and dying world (where hundreds of thousands of people perish every single day without Christ). The greatest proof of God's love might be through the love that they see we hold for one another (John 13:34 and I John 4:7-12). I pray that you know that I love each and every one of you!

:-)

This discussion is archived and closed to new replies. Start a new discussion to carry the subject on.
Archived
1 of 68 posts

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate