A Word on Christian Debate
There are some in the church who think it is unhealthy for Christians to engage in debate with other Christians.
After all, are not Christians called to avoid "rivalries, dissensions, divisions" (Gal. 5:20), as they are works of the flesh and not works of the Spirit? Furthermore, is not the man of God called "to have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies" as he "must not be quarrelsome" (2 Tim. 2:23, 24)?
These are good questions and worthy of discussion.
But you see, that in itself - raising these points against the concept of the Christian's engagement in debate - is, in fact, a debate. That's truly what debate is: a rational discourse of competing ideas in which two or more parties attempt to demonstrate the truth of their own view over against the others.
As for the Christian walk in avoiding rivalries, dissension, and divisions, it's very important to understand what those terms actually mean before we dismiss the important aspect of the Christian walk that debate truly is.
The word translated "rivalries" has to do with party-spirit and factions; in other words choosing sides without regard to content
The word translated "dissensions" has to do with division, sedition, or a standing apart; a general discord
The word translated "divisions" has to do with factions; a sect that stems out into a counter group of those who should be in fellowship
The thing about debate (as defined above) is that it actually protects the church of Christ from these things.
When debate is entered into for the sake of hearing what the Word of God says on a particular topic, and the body of believers is engaged in hearing and participating (constructively), then the church avoids party-spirits, discord, and factions. Healthy debate helps keep the church from these types of things that destroy it.
A New Testament example of this is found in Acts 15, where a dispute arose concerning whether or not Gentiles needed to be circumcised and follow the other ceremonial laws found in Moses. Had the church done nothing, rivalries, dissensions, and divisions would certainly have ensued. However, we're told in Scripture that the church leaders from all around considered the matter and had serious debate over it (Acts 15:1-11). Afterwards, a consensus was reached as to what the Word of God taught, and it united the church rather than divided it (Acts 15:12-35)!
Likewise, as for the man of God who should have nothing to do with "foolish, ignorant, controversies" - the qualifiers are right there in the text. When approached with questions or "controversies" that are in themselves foolish and ignorant (that is, not deserving a response), of course the man of God should avoid them (Prv. 26:4).
Just as well, he should not be quarrelsome, in that he should not get into a fighting match verbally (or otherwise). However, he is (according to the text) to engage in "correcting his opponent" (2 Tim. 2:25). And how else does he do this but with rational, humble debate?
We realize for the majority of this discussion, we've been focused on the church having a debate within itself. While we think similar principles apply for Christians debating unbelievers, for a very good Biblical case regarding that subject, we'll refer you to this article by Douglas Wilson.
After all, are not Christians called to avoid "rivalries, dissensions, divisions" (Gal. 5:20), as they are works of the flesh and not works of the Spirit? Furthermore, is not the man of God called "to have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies" as he "must not be quarrelsome" (2 Tim. 2:23, 24)?
These are good questions and worthy of discussion.
But you see, that in itself - raising these points against the concept of the Christian's engagement in debate - is, in fact, a debate. That's truly what debate is: a rational discourse of competing ideas in which two or more parties attempt to demonstrate the truth of their own view over against the others.
As for the Christian walk in avoiding rivalries, dissension, and divisions, it's very important to understand what those terms actually mean before we dismiss the important aspect of the Christian walk that debate truly is.
The word translated "rivalries" has to do with party-spirit and factions; in other words choosing sides without regard to content
The word translated "dissensions" has to do with division, sedition, or a standing apart; a general discord
The word translated "divisions" has to do with factions; a sect that stems out into a counter group of those who should be in fellowship
The thing about debate (as defined above) is that it actually protects the church of Christ from these things.
When debate is entered into for the sake of hearing what the Word of God says on a particular topic, and the body of believers is engaged in hearing and participating (constructively), then the church avoids party-spirits, discord, and factions. Healthy debate helps keep the church from these types of things that destroy it.
A New Testament example of this is found in Acts 15, where a dispute arose concerning whether or not Gentiles needed to be circumcised and follow the other ceremonial laws found in Moses. Had the church done nothing, rivalries, dissensions, and divisions would certainly have ensued. However, we're told in Scripture that the church leaders from all around considered the matter and had serious debate over it (Acts 15:1-11). Afterwards, a consensus was reached as to what the Word of God taught, and it united the church rather than divided it (Acts 15:12-35)!
Likewise, as for the man of God who should have nothing to do with "foolish, ignorant, controversies" - the qualifiers are right there in the text. When approached with questions or "controversies" that are in themselves foolish and ignorant (that is, not deserving a response), of course the man of God should avoid them (Prv. 26:4).
Just as well, he should not be quarrelsome, in that he should not get into a fighting match verbally (or otherwise). However, he is (according to the text) to engage in "correcting his opponent" (2 Tim. 2:25). And how else does he do this but with rational, humble debate?
We realize for the majority of this discussion, we've been focused on the church having a debate within itself. While we think similar principles apply for Christians debating unbelievers, for a very good Biblical case regarding that subject, we'll refer you to this article by Douglas Wilson.