From time to time, those who disagree with the gospel we preach challenge us to publicly debate some Biblical issue. By debate they mean a public meeting featuring "a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides as a test of forensic ability" (Webster's Dictionary). They inform us that they think it would be good for an audience to hear what they call "both sides" of the issue, and thereby be qualified to settle it.
We must decline for the following reasons.
I. God's Word is not debatable because it is absolute truth (Psalm 119:160): "The entirety of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever." That is, everything God has ever uttered in His spoken Word, or ever inscripturated in His written Word, or ever manifested in Christ His living and incarnate Word, is truth throughout all eternity. Consider:
1. An absolute is not debatable. For example, suppose I should say, "One plus one equals two." But along comes someone who objects by saying, "I do not believe your proposition. One plus one equals three, not two. I therefore challenge you to a public debate on this subject." Should I accept his challenge? Absolutely not! "One plus one equals two" is not a debatable proposition, but an absolute truth. I will not debate it. And I consider him who challenges me to debate this absolute truth to be an absolute fool, and his challenge to be an absolute absurdity. And I consider God's Word to be of infinitely greater importance than a mathematical absolute. He who denies the latter truth may be considered a fool while he lives on this earth. But he who denies God's Word is a fool for all eternity.
2. We must not treat God's Word as a proposition, "something proposed or offered for consideration, acceptance, or adoption" (Webster's Dictionary). God therefore does not offer His Word to us as a proposal for our consideration and acceptance. Rather, His Word is, in whatever form He manifests it to us, a revelation which He commands to be obeyed upon pain of eternal damnation (e.g., John 3:16?18). It is not to be treated like a philosophical or political idea or theory which men may either accept or reject without any eternal consequence.
II. God's Word is not debatable because man is not the final arbiter of it. This we say in response to those who aver it should be publicly debated so that the public can "hear both sides of the issue" and thereafter settle it. They remind us of a certain placard that reads, "God said it! I believe it! That settles it!" No! That statement is not true! God's Word is not settled because we believe it. Holy Scriptures declare, "Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven" (Psalm 119:89). Let us therefore reject the "I settled it!" theology by confessing, "God said it! That settles it! I believe it! I will not debate it! And I am not interested in what the other side has to say on this issue!"
III. God's Word is not debatable because it is indiscernible to the natural or unregenerate person (1 Corinthians 2:7ff). This is why Paul speaks of God's Word as a "mystery" (v.7). This mystery is "revealed ... through His Spirit" (v.10). Therefore, none can properly understand the truths of God's Word except him who possesses the Holy Spirit (vv.11-13). "But the natural man [being unregenerate and therefore devoid of the Holy Spirit] does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (v.14). The unregenerate debater therefore employs "excellence of speech" (v.1) and "persuasive words of human wisdom" (v.4), while the gospel preacher comes "in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling" (v.3) in the hope of a "demonstration of the Spirit and of power" (v.4).
This is the reason why a believer challenged to a public debate should respond with Paul in saying, "For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (v.2). If the unbeliever ever trusts in the crucified Christ for salvation, he will not be so eager to debate God's Word.
IV. God's Word is not debatable because we have no warrant for treating it in such a fashion.
1. We have warrant to preach God's Word. Jesus commands His disciples to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). And Paul exhorts them to "Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching" (1 Timothy 4:2).
2. We have warrant to defend God's Word. Christ's disciples are to imitate Paul when he confesses, "I am appointed for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17). They therefore should obey the admonition to "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).
3. But we have no warrant to debate God's Word. Never does God tell us to do so. Never do we find a gospel minister in Holy Scriptures challenging anyone to a public debate. Never do we find a gospel minister in Holy Scriptures accepting a challenge to a public debate. God's ministers are preachers and defenders of God's Word, but not debaters of it.
Therefore, when gospel preachers have preached and defended God's Word but it is still rejected, Christ requires them to "shake off the very dust from your feet as a testimony against them" (Luke 9:5) - as Paul the apostle did (Acts 13:51).
V. God's Word is proven to be not debatable by the "proof texts" of those who aver it is debatable. For example:
1. Some see warrant for debating God's Word in His invitation, "Come now, let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18). This text taken out of its context is a pretext! Consider the context: "'Come now, and let us reason together,' says the LORD, 'though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool.'" Is the challenger's concept of God so low that he thinks God would debate with sinful men? Is the challenger's concept of himself so high that he thinks he is worthy to debate with God? Is the challenger's concept of God's Word so warped that he thinks this invitation applies to his challenge to others to debate him?
2. Some see warrant for debating God's Word in the example of Paul in Athens (Acts 17:17): "Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there." They equate "reasoning" with "debating". They err in both instances here cited.
i. The nature and content of Paul's reasoning "in the synagogue" is set forth in verses 2-3: "Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 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.'" The subject matter was Christ, not some less important issue (such as baptism, the proper name for Christ's assemblies, musical instruments in worship services, and so forth). And reasoning is equated with explaining and demonstrating, not debating. Any gospel preacher would gladly take advantage of such an opportunity to explain and demonstrate the gospel of Jesus Christ. But gospel preachers are not to participate in a public debate in which those who reject the gospel of Jesus Christ are given an opportunity to vainly attempt to refute it.
ii. The nature and content of Paul's reasoning "with the Gentile worshipers" is set forth in verses 22ff (they having invited him to the Areopagus): "... the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you. ..." Again, the subject matter was Christ, not some less important issue. And reasoning is equated with proclaiming, not debating. Any gospel preacher would gladly take advantage of such an opportunity to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. But gospel preachers are not to participate in a debate in which those who reject the gospel of Jesus Christ are given an opportunity to vainly attempt to refute it.
3. Some see warrant for debating God's Word in the "dispute" regarding circumcision (Acts 15). There was "dispute" regarding this issue both in the church of Antioch (vv.1f) and the council in Jerusalem (vv.3-21ff). In the first instance, the only persons said to be in attendance were Paul and Barnabas and the heretical teachers of whom Paul declared "to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you" (Galatians 2:5). In the second instance, the only persons who "came together to consider this matter" were "the apostles and elders" (v.7). The only other persons said to be in attendance were "Barnabas and Paul" (v.12) and perhaps certain members of the Jerusalem church (v.22). In neither instance was there a public debate on an issue to be settled by the public! God's Word is settled by God, and is to be believed by us.