Questions On Debating
From a reader of The Restorer (our local bulletin) we received the following some time ago: "Does not Paul condemn debating in Rom. 1:29? Why do you continuously challenge brother (Frank B.) Curtis and others to debate? After all, will a preacher be lost if he refuses to get mixed up in a debate? Do you really think debates ever do any good?"
I wish to answer these questions through this medium because I believe them to be of general interest to brethren everywhere, particularly at the present time I promise to deal with the questions in all sincerity trusting that the author of them was sincere in the asking.
1. "Does not Paul condemn debating in Rom. 1:29?" In the passage under question, the apostle condemns quarreling or wrangling, and personal strife. When the King James Version was made the word "debate" carried this idea. To us it carries only the idea of considerate and courteous discussion of issues, which Paul does not condemn. For this reason, the revisers rendered the word strife instead of debate. Personal bickering is sinful; honorable discussion is not condemned in this verse, or any other place.
2. "Why do you continuously challenge brother Curtis and others to debate?" In answering this I must first disclaim having "continuously challenged" any personal anywhere to debate anything. I did write an open letter to brother Frank Curtis, the preacher in Roseville, California, several months ago, in which I suggested that in the interest of unity and peace I felt it would be good for him and me to discuss the Bible Camp problem over which we are divided. I suggested that this should be a brotherly and peaceable discussion, limited to, and advertised only among, members of the church. He did not even reply to the letter by "word or by epistle!' Several readers of The Restorer wondered why, and continued to ask if we were going to have the debate. In order to try to find an answer for them, I have made one or two references to brother Curtis since that time.
But as to why I believe in and think it is good to debate, let me point out a few simple facts: The word debate has the following synonyms: contend, dispute give answer to, and withstand. I believe Christians should debate, because every one of these words is used with Divine approval in the word of God. To debate we have a command, "Debate thy cause with thy neighbor himself." (Prov. 25:9.) To contend we have a New Testament precept, "... Ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness. and denying the only Lord God, and our Jesus Christ."
(Jude 3,4.) Here we are commanded to contend for the faith, and against the false teachers who would pervert or change the faith. For disputing we have the example of inspired men, as in the case of Stephen. (Acts 6:9, 10.) In this example we have clearly implied two affirmative speeches and two negative speeches. Also we have the example of Paul, "Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him." (Acts 17:17.) Here we have a public debate, or rather a series of public debates. This was a regularly scheduled debate, it had its rules of order, to which Paul subscribed, and the propositions are even given. We are commanded also to give answer to those who question our reasonable hope, "And be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." (I Pet. 3:15.) I suppose the word always to mean at all times, and under what ever conditions your ability will permit. For withstanding those who teach or practice error, we have the authority of Paul, guided by the Holy Spirit, "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Gal. 2:11.) Notice please that this dispute was between brethren, indeed, between apostles of Christ. Furthermore, it was public according to verse 14. The arguments used by Paul are given in verses 14-21.
No, I do not "continuously challenge" for debates, but I do not avoid them on purpose either. Under some conditions I even seek to debate with those who oppose the truth, and the reasons are given above.
3. "After all, will a preacher be lost if he refuses to get mixed up in a debate?" Anybody who knows the will of God, and has the ability to perform God's will, who refuses to do so, will be lost. Absolutely. The trouble with some of the preachers around the Sacramento area is that they seek to hold themselves above doing what the apostles did. They think it is "undignified to debate", even though the Lord and all of His apostles did so.
4. "Do you really think debates ever do any good?" No, not for advocates of error. But for the truth much good is accomplished. Is it not good to let everybody hear both sides of an issue, or do we believe in just letting our side be heard? It is sometimes objected that it is not good for the weak members to be exposed to the "other side." That is a slap in the face to the gospel of Christ! I would not be afraid for the weakest Christian in the world to hear any amount of error, if he could have the opportunity to hear that error answered with the truth. I believe that truth shines so much brighter than error, that no honest heart, no matter how ignorant, can fail to see the difference when the two are placed side by side. Yes, debates do good and the many converts we have made through the medium of controversy proves this to be true.
These conclusions brother Curtis believes, for he has told me so in the presence of witnesses. We can only surmise as to why he refuses to engage in that which he knows to be his duty in the sight of God.