Hello all,
After considering certain verses of the Holy Bible, its made me wonder if debating non-Christians is really a fruitful Christian practise. Consider the following verses in the light of the following commentaries and comments drawn to my attention by a very wise friend of mine, and tell us what you guys think.
1) "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear…" (1 Peter 3:15)
First of all, Saint Peter says to be ready to give an answer. Then he says, “to every man that asketh you”. He gives a direct order to be ready, but only to someone who comes up to you and asks for it. It is not a direct order for anything, other than to know your faith. He also said with “meekness and with fear”, and those are extremely important as well. It means that we should not be able to speak casually about the mysteries of our faith. If we dare to speak of them, we should speak of them with absolute reverence and awe! We should not be able to say casually that we lost a debate about our faith, that should not be something we take lightly. That is why he told us to sanctify the Lord in our hearts – not in our tongues, or internet posts. We need to know our faith, we do not need to parade it.
If it was meant to be argued because Saint Peter apparently said so, then Christ would not have warned us not to give what is holy to the dogs. Only God is Holy, we do not just hand him out haphazardly, as He Himself warns of what happens when you give the faith to non-believers. They take it and throw it back at you, and you have become an offense, not a blessing. When you lose that debate, they take it back and parade their victory. What good have we done then? Absolutely none, and for no good reason. Remember also that Christ compared the Kingdom of heaven to a hidden treasure – not to one that was on top of the hills. It is not something that is incredibly obvious, so we should not be arguing about it.
2) "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." (1 Cor. 12:3)
This is very important. The only reason we know that Jesus is God, is because it was revealed to us by the Holy Spirit, which we have received. We do not know it by logic, we do not know it by books or debates, we do not know it because Saint Athanasius wrote an incredible book about it, we know it only because it was revealed to us. We cannot pride ourselves in something that didn’t come from us. That’s why Jesus responded to Peter the way He did in this dialogue:
3) "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 16:16-17)
He told him directly that it was revealed unto Him, it was not something that Peter knew on his own. For that reason, arguing is pretty futile. It would be as absurd as me, a law student, arguing with an engineer on his design. I have not been given the basis/foundation of that knowledge to even consider discussing that with him. For him to entertain my arguments would only be helpful if I had the rational capacity to do so. The analogy fails there, because humans can learn that kind of knowledge, but spiritually, if only the Holy Spirit can reveal that to someone, then no matter what I say will not be helpful to that person. It is for that same reason, actually, that Saint Paul did not give that verse condemningly. He simply said that a person that calleth Jesus accursed is not speaking by the Spirit, and those that call Him God are speaking by the Spirit. He did not condemn because in both cases the action is based on an act or non-act of the Holy Spirit, not on that person. That is why an Atheist can convert and become a Christian, and why a Christian cannot boast that he knows that Jesus is Lord.
4) “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:44)
It could not be more direct. Our Lord said that nobody will come to Him unless He is drawn. That means no matter how much I discuss things with the person, even if I win every single debate, if I expound the Logic of Logic, if I can speak with more eloquence than Saint Cyril of Alexandria on Christ’s unity…it will do nothing. Zilch. Why? Because the Lord said that the Father has to draw that person. Any discussion beyond this point, with that knowledge is a bit presumptuous. Only God can draw this person. If we keep talking after that, we are now looking at idle words, which we will be judged for (Matthew 12:36). There is no reason to debate after that.
Now, I anticipate a couple of questions based on that:
Q: If the Father draws them, does that mean that people go to hell because God did not draw them?
A: No, it doesn’t. Why? Because the Lord gave another promise,
5) "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you…" (Matthew 7:7)
That promise is equally valid to His other promise. That means that if the person is really honestly seeking Him, then the Lord will draw Him. So it is in every person’s hand to try, it just takes honesty.
Q: Does this mean we should not preach?
A: If by preaching we mean debate, then yes, that has to stop. The real preaching, however, is by living Christianity. This never fails and is the most effective way of preaching Christianity. We always have an obligation to do this. I am a member of a church that has a very significant number of converts: former Atheists, Muslim, etc. Not a single one of them was lured in by debate. Every single one of them had been honest in their seeking of God, and that is obvious. Many of them have not been married (or even married people from my church), and they are active in the Church. Others that did get married are still very active members (they did not convert for marriage). Others that were interested in marriage before converting did not have the religion taught to them by their potential fiancés, they were taught by a third party. They wanted God first, and God revealed Himself.
So, in summary.
1. We do need to know our faith.
2. We do not need to argue because:
a. We cannot speak about such things without meekness and humility.
b. The Lord said not to give what is holy to the dogs.
c. Only those with the Holy Spirit are given to actually know these things.
d. No amount of words will convince people of the faith. The Lord must draw them
3. We have to preach Christianity properly – but living in constant struggle for Christian perfect (the living example):
a. Honesty with God.
b. Honesty with self.
c. Honesty with others.
Hope that helps clarify why I disagree. So, I would rather someone be a devout Muslim, who is seeking God, then to possibly lead someone else to harm...But all of that is irrelevant, I think, in the context of the arguments I made above. Because we won't make them know Jesus is God, but we can definitely turn them off of Christianity through debate.