Recently, I picked up an old habit that I had laid down years ago; namely, the habit of debating.

I’ve long since quit debating with people outside the church, and I tend to limit how much I’m willing to debate even inside the church where it can sometimes do some good. Mostly, my experience shows that it is pointless.

Unlike in the (perhaps over-romanticized) times of the Greek philosophers, most people today go into any proposed argument having already decided their position instead of engaging in the argument to discover the truth of a matter. They are just there to argue their point or their view, not to actually hear yours, and certainly not to hear God’s views on the matter.

On the internet, I found a transcript of a Christian “apologist” who had gotten involved in debating a fanatical Muslim in the most preposterous format. (Note that my view on “debate” as stated above is not being applied to this person, and does not apply.) But even given this disadvantage it was clear that he was much more logically sound in his argument than his opponent was. Being interested, I followed to an article he had written, on his website, on homosexuality.

He had a way about him that invited comment, so I did so, by pointing out that I felt he had made a mistake in agreeing to the format of the debate with [the fanatical Muslim] and in even getting involved in a debate with just about any homosexual at all.

As soon as I discern that a person is simply arguing for the sake of arguing, or simply being obstructive or distracting, I’m content to ignore them and just draw in the sand. This comment seemed to draw his ire. He insisted that as long as people were willing to debate, that we should continue to do so. And I believed no such thing.

I am more than willing, and in fact am predisposed to simply ignore someone (inside or outside of the church), or walk away from them if it becomes clear that they are not interested in knowing the truth, but are only interested in the argument – specifically their own argument. After all, there are Alexander and Hymenaeus who got the same treatment from Paul. And the Pharisees who got the same treatment from Jesus. And there are millions who got, and are getting this treatment from God Himself right up to this very day. Jesus says drop what you are doing and follow me, and then… well… nothing. You either follow or you don’t. But He’s certainly not going to chase after you. Neither am I.

In the case of my conversation with this fellow, we both agree, at the least, that "apologetics" are both good and necessary. I think we only part ways when it comes to duration.

I will gladly walk away from a fool and his argument the very instant that I recognize him. This takes longer sometimes than others. He, on the other hand, seems content to argue for as long as some fool will argue with him because he claims that we cannot know who is too far gone to reach, or who is reprobate or who is arguing out of a seared conscience. I had already explained to him that these were all people that I could identify and would not argue with, with the exception of people who think themselves “too far gone.” I don’t know what that means. As far as I know there is no one “too far gone.” People “too far gone” can still be honest. In fact, in my experience, the “farther gone” you think you are, the nearer you are to the kingdom.

But our difference was basically a difference of duration. He thinking that we can never really tell when a person might at any moment suddenly be convinced by our argument and their false belief system collapse like a house of cards (or any degree thereto from sudden to gradual) and therefore we should talk as long as they will. And me thinking that I’ll talk with you as long as I see that you are interested in learning or discovering the truth about Jesus Christ, but no longer. And he thinking that I can’t determine that. And me thinking that I can.

This does not suggest that I think there is no point in talking to such a person at all. Only for how long, to what degree, and especially on what topic. That last one is the most important one because I also know from my own experience that things that people said to me before I was saved did in fact affected me even though I gave them no sign on the outside. But only things that my depraved, fallen soul was attuned to. To the lost, in the total spiritual darkness of their soul, there is only one light shining anywhere in sight – that is Jesus Christ. A lot of them don’t see it and go on cursing the darkness, but the scripture is true – it is there if they will look for it. The scripture doesn’t say that men did not see the light, but that they loved darkness and tried to either hide from the light, or quench it.

This means that Jehovah’s Witnesses talking to me about Jehovah witnessed no response from me. Mormon’s talking about Joseph Smith or The Angel Moroni sparked no burning in my bosom. And the Rosicrucian fellowship meetings, while interesting, never made me see stars.

But one day, a group of guys from “Jesus Saves Baptist Church” (No, really! That was it's name!) started talking to me about Jesus, and I almost could not contain the five alarm fire alarm that went off in my head. Every time they would ask me a question, it was like the universe was sitting back, with folded arms, and screaming “Well? What’s your answer? What are you waiting for?”

Even once that religious fire was lit and raging (it raged for weeks) leading up to my conversion, I still had no interest in those other “religious” people’s things. I learned that Jehovah was God’s “real name.” (Yawn.) I learned that the Mormons even (ahem) “believed” in Jesus Christ. (Great. Thanks for stopping by… not!). Not the slightest bit of interest. And the Rosicrucians? Well, they offered nothing at all and gave not the slightest fight.

But every time someone talked to me about Jesus Christ, the alarms went off all over again, and it always seemed like there were two voices in the room. One from the Jesus Saves crew saying “Do you know that Jesus Christ is the only one that can forgive your sin?” and the other from seemingly out of my own head saying “Wake up and pay attention!”

Alpha and Omega – Beginnings and Endings

All windows have a clear beginning and a clear end. God says seek me while I may yet be found. Why? Because there is coming a time when He can no longer be found. God says he will not always strive with man's sin. In other words, his patience will eventually run out.

"…the Lord hath anointed me to… To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God…" Why? Because the "good year" ends. The Passover comes and goes. The seventy weeks ends. The fields are harvested. The second death comes.

Everything in nature teaches this. All things on this earth - both good and bad - must come to an end, including the earth itself.

That's in the very big abstract. But it's not any different in the one-to-one interactions of human beings. God, speaking through us, will eventually quit speaking through us and leave man to his seared conscience, his reprobate mind, his lake of fire. There's no such thing as an argument that does not end. All arguments end. All debates come to a close.

At that point, continuing to argue with a fool is pointless and actually counteracts God's own preemptive action. To continue to call worthy what God has clearly called unworthy is futile. And yes, I am making the claim that I know and recognize those people whom God has so seared or abandoned. I was very close to being one of them myself.

I'm not talking about ignorant people. Ignorant people can be educated. I'm not talking about merely stubborn people - they can be convinced. I'm not even talking about stupid people. They can grow up. In fact, I'm not even talking about EVIL people. With the help of the Holy Spirit, they can see the error of their ways and repent.

I'm talking about people who have, for all practical purposes committed the unpardonable sin. They have taken the knowledge of God and have attributed it to Satan. They have used their God-given “measure of faith” exactly the way that God gave it to them to be used. They have seen the light of the Lord. They have tasted. They have partaken. They have been enlightened. They have even seen the heavenly gift, they have known the truth and have deliberately desecrated it, with full knowledge of what they are doing.

How do we know this? Because they are clearly and deliberately blind to the truth. They argue, not because they want to be convinced. Not because they want to know the truth, but to destroy it.

People such as radical Islamists, and flagrant homosexuals are not "sincerely deceived." They crossed the threshold of belief in the wrong direction, yet absolutely intentionally and with full knowledge. They are antichrist. Their fruit states it plainly. Their minds are clearly clouded and bent. And all the while that they wish to hurl their insults and engage in their silly arguments, I, again, will just draw in the sand.

It’s not my word they ignore – nor my argument. (“…he that despises you despises me, and Him that sent me…”)

The discussion that I had with this fellow has prompted me to put down on paper, as best as I can, why I feel that debate with people outside the church is futile, and why inside the church it should be carefully limited.


The wisdom of Gamaliel

Gamaliel was a Pharisee, an extremely learned man, and the mentor of Saul of Tarsus. But this did not prevent him from recognizing one important fact. When the Apostles had been brought before them and charged with preaching the Gospel, these men had it in mind to kill them. It was Gamaliel who recognized an important truth.

If this work is of man, it will fail.
If it is of God, nothing can stop it.

And there, in a nutshell, is the rest of this article.


Flesh and Blood

Jesus asked His disciples, “whom do men say that I am?” They said “Some say this, and some say that, and some say the other.” But when Jesus then asked them, “but whom do you say that I am?” Peter answered “You are the Christ.” And Jesus replied, “flesh and blood have not revealed it to you, but my father in heaven has revealed it to you.”

It is very similar to another statement that he made to His disciples concerning the parables that he often taught. “To you it is given to understand the mysteries of heaven – but to them it is not given.”

This is precisely the pattern followed by the Holy Spirit to this very day.

It must be revealed to unbelievers also, just as to the disciples themselves, by His father in heaven. Jesus is not trying to exclude anyone. In a different way He is simply repeating himself, for he has already said to them: “…all those whom the Father has given to me will come to me. And not a single one of them will be lost.”

Jesus spoke in parables so that Holy Spirit inspired revelation could work in the hearts of those to whom “it is given”, but not to those to whom “it is not given”.

In other words, thinking, reasoning, rationalizing, and reckoning, while entertaining, have nothing to do with salvation. How else can it be that both idiots and nuclear physicists can be saved? Because it depends upon revelation of truth and understanding in the mind of man, not the capabilities of the mind itself.

Jesus then adds, “Oh, by the way, keep it to yourself.”

Why? Because the work of God’s salvation is revelation, not instruction. To simply tell the truth plainly will enable, and even encourage some people to profess the truth without ever really believing it, or making any attempt to actually understand it. Our churches, in America, are full to the brim of people just like this. We are a nation of professors, not a nation of adherers. A nation of hearers, not doers.

Also, making salvation a matter of knowledge will make it possible for men to withhold it from others. If salvation is a matter of knowledge, then other men can withhold it, hide it, or worse yet, charge money for it. The pre-modern Catholic church is a supremely fine example of this.

The power of the Gospel is it’s work in bringing about belief in the heart, not merely intellectual consent to it’s precepts. This is exclusively the work of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that when he left, he would send the Comforter (the Holy Spirit). This personage, he said, would do two things: First, that he would speak only of Jesus Christ, and second, that he would convict men of sin.

And so he does. With perfect efficacy. Gamaliel was not a Christian (as far as we know), but he was wise enough to recognise one thing: nothing can stand in the way of the work of God, and likewise, man in his own will and intellect is powerless to effect the work of God in accomplishing anything - and trying either is always futile.


Wheat and Tares

Jesus spoke another parable, and explained it to His disciples:

“A man planted wheat in his field. Later, an enemy came and planted a bunch of weeds amongst his plants [to ruin the crop]. When the plants began to grow, the weeds were seen scattered all through wheat. The man’s workers asked him if he would like them to go into the field and pull up the weeds, to which he replied, ‘No, because you may harm the wheat in the process. Let them both grow, and I will separate them at harvest time.”

Jesus later explained that this parable was an analogy of believers and unbelievers in this world, and that he would separate evil people from his people at “harvest time” [the end of the world].

In my opinion, the explanation of this, is more than just a statement that God will separate the good from the bad on judgment day. We know that will happen, but there is more than just that in this parable. Part of the parable addresses something that happens before the end... namely, the desire of some good people to uproot the weeds from among the wheat while it is yet growing in the field before harvest. And this, according to the sower, risked damage being done to the wheat in the attempt.

I ask only this. If the wheat and the tares are analogous to Christians and non-Christians – people – then what harm is there by merely putting Christians in one place and non-Christians in another? How does separating good people from bad people cause either any harm? It doesn’t.

However, when you consider that the “good seed that has been sown” in this parable is the word of God, and it is the fruit of the word that is being harvested, then you see that the parable is also an analogy of good doctrine and bad – the good fruit of the Word of God mixed with the bad fruit of someone else’s word. Good and bad doctrine, in the hearts and minds of people. And the process of separating the two we commonly know as argument, debate, philosophy, and the likes.

Separating good and bad doctrine in the minds of people would involve a lot of “intellectual weeding” during which harm may be done to the carefully planted beliefs and understandings that the Holy Spirit has placed in the hearts and minds of some people.

In my opinion, this parable is also a warning against engaging in theological debate outside the church (where the bad seed is coming from), or in the presence of those “newborn babes” in the church. Perhaps nothing does more harm to faith than endless, pointless, futile theological or philosophical argument.

This is something that I learned the hard way.

I believe that debate and teaching has it’s place inside the church, but not outside. Inside the Church, debate can serve to strengthen and edify the body if it is approached as a form of teaching and correction amongst those who are doctrinally and spiritually mature. But when turned against those who are unsaved, or spiritually weak or immature, or when conducted in their presence, it can be harmful.

This is an opinion of mine partly because it addresses and identifies with my own experience. I’ve spent many, many years engaging in philosophical and theological debate with members inside and outside the church. And I have seen that it’s results are strengthening on me, if attempted within the church, and just plain futile when attempted outside the church.

Sound unlikely? Should Christians not debate, and engage in argument with those outside the church? Should we just let the weeds alone and not try and dig them up? Should we treat mockers and those who are just plain argumentative as though they were the weeds mentioned in this parable?

Should we treat argumentative disbelievers as weeds scattered amongst the wheat - to be (as Jesus put it) “left alone.”

Page forward a bit to where you will hear Jesus continue this teaching on wheat and weeds by saying: “…every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind…”

Again, there is the admonishment to "let them alone." Two times it is re-emphasized in the same subject material.


Counterfeit Christianity

This is sufficiently similar to another topic that it is worth summarizing here. Namely the recognition of counterfeits. Bad doctrine is a counterfeit form of good seed.

In any major financial institution, such as banks, cash handlers are not taught to recognize counterfeits by simply attempting to study all the counterfeits.

Why? Because there are just far too many ways to counterfeit. It would be futile to try to learn to recognize all the fakes. Instead, tellers learn to spot counterfeits by becoming intimately familiar with the characteristics of the real thing.

When they grab a particular bill, they can tell it almost immediately without even looking closely at it. It doesn’t feel right. It’s not wrinkled in the right way. It doesn’t have the right texture. It’s not the right colour. It doesn’t have the right smell. It doesn’t have the right size or shape. It doesn’t have the right ink. It doesn’t have the right picture or number.

Notice that all these identifications are made possible because they know what is the “right” characteristic. And they can do it quickly - not because they have seen this type of counterfeit before (because they rarely, if ever see the same counterfeit twice) but rather they recognize it because of their familiarity with the genuine material.

In the presence of the genuine article, the counterfeit is very easily recognized!

I wish the church, above all else, would recognize this fact. Stick close to Jesus Christ, and you will know his voice and follow him. If every Christian did this, there would be no purchase for the counterfeits of the devil, and every fiery dart of the enemy would find it’s target drenched in water!


My Sheep Know My Voice

For some reason, over the past few months, there was something really on my heart and mind. It was the question of what it is that I like the most about my wife. You have to understand that at heart, when it comes to my wife, I am a true idolater. My life revolves around my wife aven though I am quite aware of the fact that God must be first. I like to think he is, but I know exactly what I think and feel about my wife. Without her, I would be lost. If I had to choose, between my wife and my kids, I'd pick my wife. I can make more kids. I can't make another wife - God brought her to me, just like He brought Eve to Adam. (Only she doesn't tempt me to do evil things. ;-)

So picking a particular attribute is difficult.

Of all the things it could be, it is her voice that I like the best. (I knew it was on my heart for some reason… and here it is.)

It now occurs to me that this is one of the most difficult, if not impossible things to counterfeit about a person. My wife’s voice is, to me, very familiar. I would recognize a counterfeit right away.

Jesus says “My sheep know my voice, and they follow me.”

In biblical times (and still today in some places), where shepherds gather their flocks together, they are sometimes all put in a single large pen, where they mix with the rest of the sheep from everyone else’s flocks. When it is time to move on, the shepherd opens the gate and calls his sheep. And because they recognize his voice, they come out and follow him, while the rest remain behind (because to them, his is the voice of a stranger. We don't teach in church anymore, else we might have learned that to many people - most people - the voice of Jesus Christ is the voice of a stranger.)

They follow the shepherd because they are familiar with his voice, not because they have been trained to recognize everyone else’s voice and ignore them.

Again. “Flesh and blood have not revealed it to you…”

It is the Holy Spirit who works on men’s hearts when they hear the Gospel. For every hundred that hear, ninety-nine hear nothing.

But there is, perhaps, one who hears something else. This one hears a voice in his heart saying “This means me. I need to do this.” This is the one who recognizes the voice of the shepherd. All Christians are such people. And there are no Christians who have not heard this voice and answered it’s call.

To the ninety-nine who hear nothing, no amount of argument will convince them. To the one who hears, he is practically saved already – there is nothing that can stop him from being saved. I’m tempted to, and I want to add “with perhaps the exception of his own sheer will” but I am constrained by the scripture.

They do not come because they have been convinced to come out of the pen. They come because they recognize the voice of the Shepherd when He calls for them. Again, “…all that the Father has given to me will come to me, and not a single one of them will be lost…” I cannot, and will not argue with it. It’s a hard saying, but it’s said. And I’m content to leave it at that. They will come.

This is why I feel that debating non-Christians is pointless. Why? Because you are arguing with someone who does not recognize the voice of the Shepherd. The Holy Spirit embodies the people inside the church, and it is completely missing from those arguing outside.

However, it should be understood that I most certainly do believe in preaching the Gospel. But that’s completely different from engaging in debate with people whom you know are only being argumentative.


Conclusion

This fellow I had been talking with claimed:

“I was convinced by rational argument, not to mention Norman Geisler, C. S. Lewis, Augustine, Justin Martyr, and many others. Granted, intellectual assent cannot save - but seeing as how we're commanded to defend the faith as, or more, often than we are told to evangelize, and that Paul the super-apostle made it his habit to do so I think your conclusion is flawed!”

I’m not sure what commandments to “defend the faith” he is referring to. I happen to think that any such command will turn out to be nothing more than a command to be a Christian. Be instant, in season and out, to give an answer for the hope that lies in us? That’s not a debate. That’s an answer. Renounce the dark works of unrighteousness? That’s a personal command for you to do something to yourself.

I do not believe people when they say that they were convinced and became Christians because of "argument" or "convincing."

I think it may look like that to them, but I think they were simply not self-aware enough to notice that a change of heart was taking place well before then that made them even willing to listen to the argument in the first place.

Again, in my experience, this change began weeks ahead of any rationalization that I may or may not have applied to the situation.

And Lewis does not claim to have been converted to Christianity by argument or debate. He claims to have argued himself into "theism" and then adds that he had been “checkmated” into Christianity by God himself in a long series of experiences that left him, as he put it, no alternative.

That's a lot different than "argument and debate, or apologetics."

There’s no mention of such a ministry in the Bible. And Paul tells us what the ministries are: Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers. No mention of “apologist” or even any office that would seem to describe their work. Or is there?

An apologist, by my definition, is someone arguing against one person in the defense of a third. That is, we protect the church (the believers in the body of Christ) by defending it's members from the wiles of an enemy who seeks to devour them. An apologist is not someone arguing with an unbeliever for their benefit. The Evangelist, and the Holy Spirit are their benefit, if they will see and hear, and both of them will only point them to Jesus Christ – to the gate. And both of them will use only revelation found in the Gospel to do so.

Inside the church, there are many people who are weak or immature who need to be protected from the roaring lion and encouraged in the faith. This is the work of Pastors and Teachers (and the Apostles at that time).


So, what do we do with “apologists?”

Ultimately, I believe that people who call themselves “apologists” are more accurately called “prophets.” It was the prophets that God sent to the unrepentant and unbelievers and this is what I think those that we call (or who call themselves) apologists actually are. It was the prophets that God sent to contradict those in error. It was the prophets, such as Elijah, that challenged people to “put up or shut up”, and “prove yourselves to be true.” I’m imagining an altar, utterly drenched in water, and a prophet saying “Where is your god now? – Hey, maybe he’s asleep. Yell louder, perhaps you can wake him up!”

But I've never seen an apologist, Lewis or other, who engaged in Apologetics for the benefit of the roaring lion. His many books were written to believers to aid them - not the frauds, deceivers and ignoramuses he wrote about.

God "reveals" himself. He is not "discovered" in logical arguments or rational debate. In Elijah’s case, God revealed himself in quite a stunning fashion!

There’s no debate to be had wherein one person makes a strong argument, or perhaps another makes a weak argument resulting in "Oops! I slipped. Dang, now I believe in Jesus!"

Nobody finds themselves suddenly worshipping the Lord in spirit and in Truth because they lost an argument and had no other logical choice. “Drat! Why am I praising God? If only I’d made a more forceful presentation none of this would have happened…”

I know I’m being sarcastic, but that’s what “I was convinced by rational debate…” ultimately boils down to. A worship of God because you were intellectually cornered into doing so.

“These people worship me in words, but their hearts are far from me…”

Clearly, we should weed out of the church the obvious “damnable heresies” as Peter called them. But that is best done by teaching good doctrine (planting more good seed) not by attempting to “weed out” all the bad.

It’s one thing to water and tend the wheat. But trying to convince the weeds that they ought to behave like wheat is quite another matter. It is also uncalled for.

Jesus does not say to us elsewhere “Nevermind what I said earlier. Go in and get the weeds.”