You’ve seen it online in some forum or on someone’s page and on the spur of the moment you decide to respond. To you it is plainly wrong and needs to be called out. But the response comes back, entrenched as ever. Then it starts to go back and forth and gets more and more shrill. In other instances perhaps you overheard something in conversation and all your instincts for the truth rose impulsively to the challenge. Other times an issue may so grip a minister or other Christian that they really just have to write defending the truth and attacking the arguments of others so that everyone can come to the right view. In either case was it edifying? Did you win the argument? Did you speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15)? Did you say anything that was less than true and did you say anything you regret? How difficult it is to have our speech full of grace at such times (Colossians 4:6)!

When James Durham was pastoring, the main way to reach a wide audience was through a formal public debate. Such debates are still held today, but our individual interactions on social media are public in a different way than James Durham could ever have imagined. Yet his wise counsels on the care we should take in public debates still hold good. We may have a due call and need to contribute but we should pause before we launch in. To apply the old words in a different context, debate should “not be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in fear of God.” The following is an extract from Durham’s writings in the book The Scandal of False Teaching.

Public debates may be appropriate in some circumstances.

We say that there are some times and cases in which public debates are not altogether to be shunned. I will not say that every person should accept a challenge to a public debate, in case by doing so the truth would be wronged (neither is it always the most gifted person who manages such an activity best).

However, in general, a public debate is necessary in situations where, for example, errors seem to be new among the people. Or when those who promote the errors become insolent, daring to come to the light boldly with their deeds. Or if putting up with them and being silent on the issues would risk people thinking that there is something acceptable or worthy of respect in these insolent boasters and their opinions.

In cases like these, there is some necessity for a public debate for the church’s edification. This is apparently what Paul advises to Titus when he says, ‘There are many who are unruly and vain talkers (such as vainly boast of their own ability, to maintain their opinions), whose mouths must be stopped, lest they get advantage to seduce others’ (Titus 1:9-11). And the reason given why ministers should be qualified with abilities to convince gainsayers is because sometimes the insolence and vanity of some makes this necessary. And on this ground we find our blessed Lord, and Stephen and Paul, frequently disputing, even in assemblies and synagogues.

This does not mean it is necessary for every minister to dispute at all times, even in a situation where error is rife. Sometimes the responsibility of holding a public debate may be referred to others, for if truth is maintained and error refuted, it may stop the gainsayer’s mouth, even though not every minister actually engages in the debate.

Public debates are unhelpful in other circumstances.

Yet there are some cases when entering into debates is neither necessary nor expedient.

(a) If the errors are not new, but have been sufficiently refuted already, perhaps in other places not far off, or not long before. For if there is continual debate, no truth would be acknowledged to be settled, neither would people have opportunity to carry out other and further duties.

(b) If those who promote the error are known for vainly and purposely seeking to put everything in confusion by multiplying such debates, and engaging in them irreverently, as if they made it their calling to do so. In that case, answering such fools according to their folly would implicate the minister in their guilt of taking the blessed name of God in vain, and would imply that they were acting more to satisfy people’s whims than for the great end of edification.

(c) When people become unreasonable, and in their debates show irrational contradictions and blasphemy. Then the debate is to be forborne, or broken off, with indignation and with zeal to the glory of God, as we see Paul and Barnabas do (Acts 13:45–46).