I found that my debate with Unitarian scholar Anthony Buzzard is on google! The debate discussion is “The Bible teaches that Jesus is God”. I affirmed and Anthony denied. You will find the debate in its entirety as far as I can tell. Also there was a lengthy question and answer time with the audience asking the questions and Anthony and I responding. If you’ve never heard of an Unitarian then you might enjoy the debate.
Category Archives: Debate
Come now let us reason together……
Come now, let us reason togther………Who said that? Have you ever heard that before? What does reason mean to you? Are there rules for proper reason? If so who made up those rules? Do good reasoning skills only belong to Christians? Can non-Christians exercise good reasoning? Does the idea of good reasoning presuppose absolute truth? If reasoning is best seen through basic rules of logic does this then presuppose a Judeo/Christian worldview? Can anyone know anything without sound reasoning? Jesus said,
………..” I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14;6
First, one should recognize this as a truth claim. Specifically, Jesus claims to be the way. The way to where or what? How can you answer those two questions? viz. what does Jesus mean when he says, “I am the way”?
Next, Jesus claimed to be ‘the truth’. Does your worldview contain the ability to recognize truth and false propositions? This is a good starting point when determining what Jesus meant when He claimed to be the truth. If your worldview has no working distinction from truth or error then you will fail to see the significance in Jesus’ truth claim in being ‘truth’. So tell me, what is the context of Jesus’ claim to be ‘truth’?
Finally, Jesus claimed to be the life. Don’t you have life? Animals, insects, trees, etc. do they have life? Is life recognizable as being distinctive among humans compared to other things that have life? Can your worldview make this basic distinction? If not then Jesus’ truth claim of being ‘the life’ may escape you. If Christians and non-Christians have life then what makes Christians life different from non-Christians? And if Christians do have life differently than non-Christians then what is the source of that life?
See, we are reasoning together aren’t we? However, I believe your presupposition of what it means to ‘be’ will predetermine your answers to the above questions. So do you believe Jesus’ words? If not, why not? If so, why so?
Oneness Debaters
I have on my shelf many Oneness Pentecostal writings ranging from the very articulated UPCI parliamentarian David Bernard and the first Oneness theologian to ever give a decent apologetic tone to the theology, Robert A. Sabin. Yet tucked away between my Oneness and Trinitarian section in my library are a few writings of D.L. Welch. Who is D.L. Welch? He was a very eccentric Oneness evangelist that came through the Northwest Fl. area teaching the Oneness doctrine. He was very aggressive in his presentations on what he thought to be ”the truth concerning God and His name.” In fact he was a very accomplished debater, having debated over 200 times publicly on the subject. He also has left the Oneness legacy in Pensacola, Fl having the largest Oneness Church there. His debates remain available and sometimes you can come across some of his small books, as I have, on the subject. I have been told over and over recently that our Oneness friends in the Calhoun County area believe that debating is wrong according to the Bible. (See my “Is Debating Wrong”? article) Yet for proof that the pioneer of the local Oneness movement overlooked this theory, I have listed a photo of Welch and one page out of his booklet, “Let Us Make Man” c. 1973. Read through the article and you will read about his thankfulness for all of his debates and how he has benefited personally for participating in them. Of course he is wrong about Constantine being the originator of the Trinitarian doctrine and misunderstands the reason for this council, and incorrectly states that not one early church father taught the Trinity before 325 A.D, etc., etc. But this posting is not for me to interact with and refute. I only post it to demonstrate that Rev. D.L. Welch, perhaps the greatest all time Oneness debater, was not afraid to demonstrate publicly, alongside a Trinitarian, the Oneness of God teachings. I only ask, “Where are the D.L. Welch’s today”? If you know, have them email me at drewstine@gtcom.net
Is Debating Wrong?
I remember when I was about three years old riding along with my Mom and Dad. I was seated anywhere in the car as such was my custom seeing that there were not any laws concerning seat belts nor did anyone seem to care. On this particular day I was picking my nose and landed a big booger on the tip of my finger! So, I rolled it into a nice little rolly polly shape and ate it. Yummy, I thought, until my Dad said, “Drew just ate a booger!” I immediately denied the charge! Then my Mom explained to me that we shouldn’t eat boogers. I again denied the charge. So my Dad, being the rational thinker, asked me to produce the freshly picked booger. Why didn’t I deny picking the booger? I don’t know? I could have, but just didn’t think about it. I was ashamed and that was the hindrance to my potential rebuttal’s. I was caught and there was really no way out of it. I determined at that point to be more careful when eating boogers. So what does all of this have to do with debating? I’m glad you asked. Recently I read an article reporting bizarre research in England. No doubt, our fellow English speaking friends can be a bit weird at times but this article was very interesting. The article contained the latest research on the benefits of booger eating among toddlers! The research indicated that booger eating children had a higher immune against common colds, and other mild illnesses. Wow!, I thought. If this is true, then there could have been a health argument offered to my Dad, nearly 35 years ago. Of course this would have been wrong, because children shouldn’t argue with their parents, but at least I would have had a reason for my booger eating. But now, I could confront my Dad with the evidence that reveals booger eating can be healthy. He could counter with the obvious fact that this habit is gross, and unsightly to all those opposed. In other words, it would take systematic reasoning to conclude that booger eating may not be the best thing to do. However, I am not advocating having your three year old debate with you everytime you correct your child but as they get older reasoning will need to be incorparated in their thinking. So as adults, how do we change our minds on subjects? Do we do so because some expert in a particular field of study tells us what to believe? Or should we research an argument out and make informed decisions based on the evidence? Those questions lead me to the question, “Is debating Wrong”? The camp that says that it is usually does so from the conviction that God bypasses our reasoning when dealing with us. This mysterious zapping power is good for the Christian and non-Christian alike. Some Christians believe that the Bible explicitly forbids debating. I will now examine each of these claims.
Have you been zapped? You know, you were once a non believer in Christ and now you are? Of course I am not denying God’s Spirit enabling us to make formative decisions concerning Salvation, but is your salvation just a product of you being zapped? Or did you hear the gospel message and think about what you heard, and then respond appropriately? Is your salvation experience based on faith alone or did your faith in the gospel message involve reasoning on your part? When you read the Bible do you think about what you just read? Do you do research into the proper meaning of the text? Or maybe you just wait on God to give you a zap of special knowledge. Have you ever believed in Santa or the tooth fairy? How did you come into the knowledge and conviction that these are just fairytales? Did you get zapped into that new conviction or did you reason through the evidence for and against such a notion? You see, it is hard to deny that we use reason to work through our convictions. So you ask, “what is reason”? Here are a few of Webster’s thoughts: 1.) an explanation or justification of an act, idea, etc. 2.) the ability to think, or draw conclusions, etc. 3.) to think logically about; analyze. Considering those definitions, is it wrong of me to assume that you use reason to think through your convictions? It is true that many people will adhere to a particular opinion because of experience, tradition or just preference. For example, I know plenty of people who are Christians that are against debating but will debate with you to prove that the Florida Gators is better than the Florida State Seminoles. Seldom do they appeal to anything other than their preference or tradition. It was only until a Civics class in High School that my mouth was shut concerning my blind proclamation that Florida State Seminoles are better than the Gators. Mr. Daniels, the teacher of the class said that he would demonstrate why he believed that the Gators were better. He numbered each year for the past twenty years with two columns, one for the Gators and the other for the Seminoles. He then noted in each year what team won when playing one another. Now, for once, I had an objective reason to determine why I liked Florida State better. Daniels conclusion was that if you want to go for the team most likely to beat the other, then Gators was the team for you. If you still rooted for the Seminoles then it was possible that you had other reasons. Some people were very upset for Mr. Daniels bringing reason into the discussion but it was very helpful nonetheless. Yet most people will argue for eternity when it comes to whether a Ford, Chevy, or Dodge is better. When it comes to Religion, we will not dare say a word! I have a few theories for this strange reaction, one being is that most people who claim to be Christian really have no solid argument for the reason that they are. Most cannot answer the Mormon’s when knocking on their door, instead they hide. Most have no idea what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe. And many a Christian despise the Atheist. I am told, “Im not wasting my time arguing with them, I can’t change their mind anyway”. I believe that most Christians are just plain lazy! That’s right, lazy. Many of these lazy and indifferent Christians have adopted the theory of Fideism. Fideism argues that matters of faith and religious belief are not supported by reason. It is interesting that Fideism actually uses reason in support of their belief that one should not use reason in matters of religious discussion. Isn’t that self-refuting? One need only turn in their Bible to Isaiah 1;18 and Matthew 22;36-37 to find that it supports using reason. So what does this have to do with debating? Up until now I have allowed you to keep your own understanding of debate. So how do I define debate? Let’s consult Webster again. He says, 1.) to discuss opposing reasons; argue 2.) to take part in a formal discussion or a debate. Is it wrong to discuss opposing reasons; argue? Not when it comes to Dodge, Chevy, and Ford or maybe the favourite football team. This leads us to another objection for debating all together. The Bible teaches that debating is wrong.
Does the Bible really say, “thou shalt not debate”? Well, not exactly. The theory comes to us mainly through the King James Version of the New Testament. Consider Romans 1;29 ” Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,…” Notice the word debate? There you go, we know the context here in Romans 1 are homosexuals and all other reprobate minded people. So if you want to discuss religious differences in a formal or informal setting then you must also be reprobate! But what do other translations provide here? The New King James Version has “strife” instead of debate. Why is this? Please look under our translations section here on the blog to get an idea of how words change in meaning. Strife seems more appropriate with today’s english speakers in light of the Greek word in verse 29. is epidos and means strife, discord, contention. We are not limited in using the Greek here to demonstrate that our word debate is a poor example of the authors intent. We can look at the life of Jesus and his interaction with the religious leaders of his day. He certainly could not be looked down upon for His consistent reasoning with them. You may say that was Jesus! Well turn in your Bible to Acts 19;8,9.
Verse 8 says, “And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. Verse 9 But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.”
Notice that Paul reasoned with them daily? In the KJV it says, “disputing”! Interesting isn’t it? Notice that their hearts were hardened? I can only imagine that Paul, by the power of the Holy Spirit, was able to bring their religious convictions down to a rubble. What is more interesting is that this school mentioned comes from the Greek word skolay. It is understood that this was a lecture hall where a variety of beliefs were held. What better place for Paul to inter and persuade men to come to the Christ!
Finally, it should be noted that many formal debates among Christians and Atheist, and Cult members have been very fruitful. Consider Willow Creek Community Church that hosted a debate with Christian Scholar William Lane Craig arguing against an atheist in front of a very large Atheist crowd. That night many Atheist came to Christ, to God be the glory. What about the famous debate that took place between Trinitarian scholar Walter Martin and Oneness Pentecostal theologian Robert Sabin? That discussion aired for six weeks on the John Ankerberg show and as a result many heretical Oneness came to know the true living Saviour. Finally, consider Martin Luther nailing his 95 thesis to the wall. Aren’t we grateful that he was willing to debate the Pope himself! He should be thanked that we no longer have to belong to a Mother Church. You see, it is impossible to say debating in all forms are wrong, and that reason is a hindrance to the cause of truth. For we all debate our cause, whatever it may be, and we all reason daily. I invite you to embrace Peters command given to us by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;” (1 Peter 3;15)
