A Case for Debate Revisited

A few of the texts I didn’t have time to discuss on the last podcast (“A Case for Debate”) was the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, Paul’s second missionary journey in Acts 17:1-5, and Apollos in Acts 18. Here’s the text:

But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”
The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
(Acts 15:1-7 ESV)

Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. But the Jews were jealous, and taking some wicked men of the rabble, they formed a mob, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the crowd.
(Acts 17:1-5 ESV)

Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures.  He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.  And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed,  for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus. (Acst 18:24-28, ESV)

I also didn’t provide the objection/response series that I wanted to. So here’s a summary:

Objection: Debates are bad because they encourage arrogance and pride.

Response: Depends on who’s debating. That’s why the church must encourage the right people to be doing debates and encourage the wrong people to debate not to debate.

Objection: Debates are bad because they are useless.

Responses: Not according to Scripture. Jesus and Paul and the other disciples found public debate to be a tremendously valuable use of their time. That’s not to say all debates are worth time. Some debates about peripheral issues aren’t worth your time not because the topic is irrelevant but just because the participants aren’t prepared/mature enough to handle it.

Objection: Debates are useless because they never convert the other person.

Response: That’s not the purpose of debates. This whole idea that the purpose of a debate is to get your opponent to convert is just off. Now would that nice? Yes. But, the purpose of the debate is to get others listening to convert to Christianity or at least see the absurdity of their own non-Christian worldview.