Oftentimes when I have been arguing (that is not a bad word by the way) with others on some Bible doctrine or interpretation and I am leaving my opponent of the contrary view unable to answer an argument, I hear him say "I see why you are such a good debater." When I hear that I find myself trying to figure out what that means. Does he mean I am a good Sophist who simply knows how to win an argument even if it is defending what is not true? Or, does he mean I am a good persuader? I hope it is the latter, but oftentimes it is not, but is rather a way for the defeated opponent to deal with his cognitive dissonance and inability to meet the arguments or proofs that refute his view and a way to divert attention away from the argument that overthrows his viewpoint.
All the great men of God in the Bible were great persuaders, people skilled in argumentation and debate. Why? Because they had God-given wisdom, and because they knew their subjects well. So we read these words of Jesus to his appointed ambassadors: "I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist." (Luke 21: 15 nkjv)
Jesus was the master who was able to refute every argument his adversaries brought to him. The apostle Paul was like his master in this regard. Anyone familiar with his apologetic writings will know this to be the case.
Who can read the sermon of Stephen in Acts chapter seven and not see where he spoke with the kind of wisdom Jesus said he would give to his messengers, for Stephen's opponents, rather than rebutting his arguments took up stones to stone him. We see this today in those on the liberal, socialist, communist left who do not want to debate but simply want to kill or otherwise silence their opponents, as was the case in the murder of Charlie Kirk.
Scripture notes that Stephen's opponents "could not withstand (resist kjv) the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking" (Acts 6:10), forcing them to resort to false accusations and murdering him. He made powerful arguments from scripture and reasoned logic that refuted his opponents. They should have opted to acknowledge their defeat and changed their minds and beliefs.
Apollos is described as an eloquent man and "mighty in the Scriptures" (Acts 18:24) and he spoke with great fervor and "vigorously refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus" (Acts 18:28).
Of the apostle Paul's debates we read:
"1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas." (Acts 17: 1-4 nkjv)
"After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth...And he reasoned (dialegomai) in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded (peithÅ) the Jews and the Greeks." (Acts 18: 1,4)
"8 And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. 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. 10 And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks." (Acts 19: 8-10 nkjv)
Paul debated. Paul discussed. Paul argued. Paul persuaded. However, he did not quarrel, nor did he become bombastic, prideful, nor did he debate simply because he enjoyed verbal sparring, nor did he follow the rhetorical methods of the Sophists. In fact, Paul said much in his letters to the Corinthian Christians in condemnation of the tactics of the Sophists. (See this page here that gives some of my articles on this from my series "God's Elect or World's Elite?" which has its own blog; See link on this web page) I cited from a good book by Bruce W. Winter titled "Philo and Paul among the Sophists" which explored how the Apostle Paul interacted with and rejected the rhetorical and cultural influence of first-century Greek Sophists in Corinth. We have many Sophists today, being people who, for hire, try to win a debate for personal gain. We see them among lawyers in courtrooms where an attorney is not trying to find the truth but to help his client win a case, whether the client is right or wrong. We also see it in politicians.
Believers are told to "always be prepared to give an answer (Greek "apologia", apology or rational defense) to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15) Believers are also warned to "avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless." (Titus 3:9) Paul told Timothy that a servant of the Lord "must not be quarrelsome, but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed." (2 Tim. 2:24–25) He also warned against having an "unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words (logomachies), which produce envy, dissension, slander, [and] evil suspicions." (1 Tim. 6:4)
"This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith." (Titus 1:13)
No comments:
Post a Comment