Debating

Since the first century, members of the body of Christ have never shied away from debating. Paul found himself challenged practically everywhere he went by Judaizing teachers. He spoke the truth that Christians are not under the Law of Moses. He declared that Jesus had made peace between Jew and Gentile by "abolishing in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of the commandments contained in ordinances" (Eph. 2:14-15). The Law of Moses was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). Neither Jews nor Gentiles are bound by it any longer; the whole world is under the New Testament of Jesus Christ.

Preachers have often issued debate challenges to various denominational leaders so that the public might see what the arguments are on both sides of a theological issue. Many debates relate to God's plan of salvation, which is crucial to every soul on earth. If we do not know what the Scriptures teach about the way God expects us to respond to His grace, then we will remain lost. But we have also discussed instrumental music because it pertains to what is acceptable worship to God. We have argued against the concept of denominationalism itself, which has no support from the New Testament for existing. Brother Warren's debates against atheists remain classic and worthy of study.

Obviously then, preachers, elders, deacons, and members are not opposed to debating, provided that the focus of attention stays on the issue. The leadership in various congregations must equip its members to be able to give an answer of the reason of the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). Of course, one of the best ways to equip people is to make certain that they know the Word. If members of the body of Christ are the people of the Book that they ought to be, they can answer questions that originate in private conversations.

However, every member is not obligated to engage in formal debate with anyone who asks. Yes, there is a context underlying these comments. Some members of the Lord's church traveled to Michigan last September to hear Daniel Denham debate Holger Neubauer. This writer was among them. So far as I know, brethren were very satisfied with brother Denham's efforts to expose error and defend truth, and a second debate is scheduled for April 20-23 in Pensacola, Florida.

In the meantime, I wrote two articles on some key issues covered in the debate, but to thoroughly have analyzed it would have taken many hours more; so the gist of the arguments was reported. I sent a copy of the articles to Holger Neubauer, which he shared with his moderator for the first debate, Steve Baisden. About five or six weeks ago, I received a call from him challenging me to a debate. He wanted us to debate before the forthcoming debate in April. I explained to him the project I was working on and told him I could not possibly be ready for a debate before April.

The Review of the Review

Last Saturday (January 14, 2017), I received a review of my debate review. It was one-sided (as I expected), but it was also aggressive and judgmental. Below are the first and last paragraphs in their entirety.

Time and space does not permit a detailed response to Gary Summers review, but it is important that we illustrate how easy it is to refute his (futurist) reasoning and show the arguments employed by brother Neubauer are logical, reasonable, and true. The very fact that there were people in attendance at the debate that changed their futurist perspective illustrates more than words can convey. Also, I need to mention that I called brother Summers after receiving his reviews and challenged him to debate. He declined "at this time" claiming he is "too busy." He promised to discuss the possibility of him debating me at the next Denham-Neubauer debate scheduled April 20-23 2017 in Pensacola, FL.

Friends, many other things are worthy of mention but we just do not have the time and space with this format to present everything Summers said in his review(s). It is obvious though, how easy it is to answer these men and prove them to be in error. I think it is blatantly clear as to why Gary Summers would not agree to debate me… don't you? – [SB] [Any grammatical mistake above is Steve's, GWS).

His explanation of the phone call is a bit skimpy, as well as the time frame. He called three months after the first debate. When he did call, the odd thing was that I had just talked to Daniel that morning. He had told me about a written exchange with Steve—and how that he had embarrassed him into silence. In fact, it is not unusual for him to suddenly quit a discussion. Notice that Baisden put quotation marks around "too busy," as if to indicate that I was offering an excuse. Then he implies cowardice is the reason for not scheduling a debate in his final paragraph. Apparently, he is a legend in his own mind and thinks that if he issues a challenge, it should be accepted immediately. If anyone fails to debate him at the drop of a hat, then he is obviously offering excuses and is cowardly.

Well, here's the truth of the matter, and Steve knows it because I explained it to him: I have been working on the 5.5 Chronological Bible Study for almost ten years. We are on our second time through the material here at South Seminole, and I am nearly finished with all eleven books which cover the entire Bible. I am currently revising the ninth book (each of which contains around 100 pages), with the final two to follow. Some brethren are awaiting these, but it may take until April to finish them.

For that reason, I told Steve we could in April consider a debate date, but he apparently "forgot" what I told him and made it look as though I was offering up an excuse. However, since it is "blatantly clear" why I won't debate him (at least, to him it is), it seemed that some points on this subject are worth exploring.

Conditions

First of all, although every Biblical position must be defended, no one is obligated to debate a specific person on a topic of interest. As an example, I would not debate Bob Ross (not that he has asked), as some other faithful brethren have chosen to do. The reason is the way he debates. He spends his time boasting instead of making arguments; he wasted the audience's time talking about how he was treating the week like a vacation. He was a show boater who had nothing substantial to say. Probably this fact is noticeable to anyone reading one of his debates.

Another person I would ignore is Dan Billingsly. He calls and writes all over the country, challenging practically anyone breathing to a debate. He has been debated and soundly defeated. He does not deserve to be given a voice. No one is obligated to debate him just because he throws tantrums when people refuse to submit to his demands. He was on a radio program in Memphis, calling an area preacher a coward for not debating him (even though he had never asked him specifically to do so). Most people who know the Bible know he is in error; so nothing is to be gained by rehashing what has already been discussed, is in print, and can be studied by anyone interested.

Second, some are better debaters than others. If a public debate is being scheduled, brethren usually ask who would be available to represent the Lord's church. It may be someone local, or someone may be asked to come in from another location—especially if he has prior experience with the subject at hand.

Third, the vast majority of debates do not take place less than three months after a suggestion is made. One brother was challenged to meet an atheist, but he estimated that, with all the materials there were to consider on the subject, he would need a year to prepare. The debate between Denham and Neubauer was scheduled more than a year in advance. For someone to say, "Hey! You need to debate me—and in just three months!" is both presumptuous and rude. It assumes that the person invited has no other responsibilities or commitments, which is seldom the case. It also assumes that the one doing the inviting is the best representative of the opposition's side, which may or may not be the case.

Fourth, will a debate on a certain topic do more harm than good? Is the false teaching creating a problem in a particular area? If so, then it would be wise to discuss it. If not, why give it exposure? Atheism is a concern everywhere, as is salvation by "faith only" or the "once saved, always saved" error.

As it relates to the AD 70 doctrine and all of the conditions mentioned, we do not know anyone in this area who is seriously considering that heresy (though of course there could be). We do know of several other false teachings in this area, however, such as the 100% grace doctrine, handclapping in worship, using women to lead in worship, instrumental music in worship, and problems relating to the Holy Spirit. Discussions on these matters would be far more helpful.

Those interested in the AD 70 doctrine already have debates from qualified men, and they are available on the Internet. Some who hold this view, like Don Preston, are actually fellowshipping Universalists. If folks cannot understand Matthew 7:13-14, they are probably not going to recognize explanations for more complicated passages. As for me, I do not respond favorably to bullying and intimidation tactics, nor will I be deterred to get out in the plains of Ono before accomplishing a great work to which I have devoted ten years of time. Furthermore, I am not inclined to debate someone who assigns hidden motives to what I say—especially when I already have provided the explanation. Steve is just grandstanding to whomever reads his words. By the way, is Baisden a coward for not debating Denham in a written debate for three years? He has had that challenge for a long time now and has ignored it.

Those Being Persuaded

Baisden brought up the same point in his review of my review that Neubauer made in the debate—namely that, in the course of the debate, some had changed their minds in favor of the AD 70 position. The way Baisden put it was that this change "illustrates more than words can convey." This "change" is not necessarily as significant as he asserts. Of the 40 or so attending the debate, most were already in agreement with one side or the other and did not change their minds. The number of those who did must have been quite small.

But were they a blank slate when the debate started, or did they know something of each position? How undecided were they? Did they make a complete reversal of commitment—a 180 degree turn? Or were they pulled partly in one direction and partly in the other? And how did they feel when Neubauer referenced the two individuals who had changed their minds and then boasted, "We're whippin' you very well"? Most sincere souls would have been embarrassed.

But two people is scarcely a groundswell of support for the AD 70 doctrine. To say that the change of two individuals "illustrates more than words can say" is about like overstating that a molehill is like Pike's Peak. Almost every false doctrine gains adherents, such as Scientology, 7th-Day Adventism, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Mormons. Are they all "whippin' us very well"? No, some just reject the truth they once believed and taught. Perhaps Baisden has heard of Rubel Shelly, who denies practically everything he once affirmed concerning salvation and acceptable worship. Truth settles the matter, not a popularity poll.