Is debate divisive?

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

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

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

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)

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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!