The Disputer Mentality

Jay Horsley

We must all “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3) When men introduce error we cannot “yield in subjection to them for even an hour.” (Gal. 2:5) We must stand up and fight for truth even if it results in a “great dissension and debate with them” who teach error. (Acts 15:2) But while we do this, we must remember that “the Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome” (2 Tim. 2:24) and we have a solemn charge from God “not to wrangle about words, which is useless, and leads to the ruin of the hearers.” (2 Tim. 2:14)

We are to contend for the gospel standard and debate the scriptures without wrangling about words. To do

this we must argue the right things in the right way.

Studying Arguments Instead Of Studying The Text

There are basic arguments from scripture that we all should know. Putting the plan of salvation together from various passages in the New Testament is an argument from scripture that is fundamental. Knowing which passage(s) to turn to and how it applies to the errors of instrumental music in worship, infant baptism, once saved always saved, etc. is something that all mature Christians should have some knowledge of. But problems come when men study arguments about the scripture more than they study they scriptures themselves.

The passages used to make arguments against error have much more to teach us than just that various doctrines are wrong. The Bible guides Christians in all things regarding the faith and proper conduct. This necessarily shows the errors of men, but if that is all that we get out of the text, and the only application that we make from the text, then we will be lacking much.

We need to realize that all Bible passages have a context, first an immediate context (nearby verses, the paragraph or even chapter) with immediate applications and a greater context (the whole chapter or book). Many times arguments based on Bible texts are based on secondary, although true, applications of the text, not on the primary meaning of the text. We must study to know what the true and primary meaning of each text. This has the great advantage of giving us the ability to detect counterfeit teachings. It is much easier to learn one truth than to learn the thousand errors of men. We don't have to know every last one of the mistakes that counterfeiters make in producing bogus $100 bills, we just have to know what the true one looks and feels like. Everything to comes up short of, or deviates from, the standard is easy to spot when we know what's real.

Arguments From Arguments

Aside from the greater ease and better utility of studying the text more than arguments made from the text, knowing the text keeps us from the fallacy of making our arguments from our other arguments rather than directly from the text. The fallacy occurs when we decide that if our first argument is true, then all arguments that are based on the first argument must also be true. (If A then B, if B then C, and if C then even D.) Consider Calvinism -- it has a great internal logic to it, so long as you accept its premise. Why do people hold to the doctrine of once saved always saved when the scriptures teach no such thing? They accept the arguments on the depravity of man and irresistible grace of God that precede it. Calvinism is a very “Systematic Theology,” but the whole system is based on a fundamental error.

Example: Deity/Humanity of Christ Controversy

The trap of being caught up in our own reasonings rather than guided by the Bible can be seen among our brethren in the controversy over the nature of the deity and humanity of Christ. Some brethren embraced the “continuous cleansing” position” that states that Christians have their sins automatically forgiven as long as they are “walking in the light.” A corollary to this doctrine is that we need this automatic forgiveness because we sin constantly. Some even hinted that we couldn't keep ourselves from sinning. So then the argument shifted to whether or not man “had to sin.” To argue this point, the example of Jesus was cited. Then came a shift away from the gospel -- the argument progressed to say that since Jesus is our example in not sinning, he must be like us in every respect. Some of the men who previously had argued vigorously for the truth departed from it by arguing that if Jesus is not exactly like us in every respect, then he is not an example for us in overcoming sin.

This sad progression is how a heresy developed. Hear the words of John Welch (the man who has been the center of this controversy). Under the heading “Linkage” Bro Welch said, “At the beginning of the discussion we said that “Continuous Cleansing,” the “have-to-sin” issue, and the nature of the humanity/deity of Jesus were all linked together.” (John Welch, “A Proposed Debate,” Faith and Facts, July 1991, pg. 219)

This same “linkage” is evident in an exchange Bro. Welch had in a gospel paper:

Welch: “Bro. Moyer, did Jesus avoid sinning because of his innate holiness as the Divine Son of God or did he avoid sinning through his humanity alone?” John Welch “Jesus Did Not Give Up His Deity,” Gospel Anchor, Sept. 1990, pg. 4

Moyer: “John desperately wants the issue to be whether or not man “has to sin.” He asks me if I believe it, then assumes that I do. For the record, I do not believe that man “has to sin” (I Cor. 10:13). And so that there be no misunderstanding, whether or not a man “has to sin” is not the issue. If John thinks that my position on the deity of Christ is a result from that issue, he is sore mistaken. He seems to think that the whole reason for Jesus coming to this earth was to prove that man does not “have to sin.” This is not why Jesus came; rather, He came in order to save people who were already full of sin. (Lk. 19:10; Rom. 3:23)” Doy Moyer “Response” Gospel Anchor, Sept. 1990, pg. 6

Welch is not alone in pressing this position on the nature of Jesus. His adherents press their issue into every passage.

“Was Jesus tempted like James 1:13-15? I believe that he was. If he was not then he was not man because this passage states every man Jesus was tempted as we are and we are tempted per James 1:13-15. Thus Jesus was tempted like James 1 13-15.” Elmer Moore, “The Humanity of Christ,” Gospel Truths, May 1999, pg. 14.

Jas. 1:14 says that “each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.” Was Jesus every “carried away” to the point of “enticement” by “his own lusts?” Of course not. So why do respected brethren say yes? Their argument on one point forced them into a corner on another point. They had to deny the true teaching of the text to keep their own argument.

Mike Willis summarized the whole situation this way:

"Recent discussion about the nature of Jesus has resulted in one group of brethren taking the position that Jesus gave up the use of his divine attributes in becoming a man. The motivation to adopt this position is to show that Jesus was tempted in all points like as we are. We are in agreement that Jesus overcame temptation without resorting to the use of his divine attributes, but not with the arguments made to defend it.

These brethren believe that Jesus made a decision before leaving heaven not to use his divine attributes while on earth. Therefore, the Jesus who came to earth did not have available to him his omnipotent power, omniscience, omnipresence, holiness, and other attributes. The Jesus in which these brethren believe is a Jesus who learned the will of God through the study of the Old Testament. Whatever he knew about God had to be learned through the same channels available to you and me. To believe otherwise would give Jesus an "edge" in resisting sin and, therefore, destroy his example in resisting sin. This concept of Jesus is not true to the biblical text" Mike Willis, “Jesus' Self-Awareness,” Guardian of Truth, March 6, 1997, pg. 2.

Two Preachers Show The Benefit Of Knowing The Text And The Danger Of Over Reliance On Arguments

Consider this living example of the things that we are trying to warn of. Two preachers in the same city worked together on a radio call-in show. The host preacher of the show would give a good short sermon to begin the show. The remainder of the hour was open to questions from callers. The host preacher had a reputation as a debater and a very sharp mind. He always had a very impressive array of arguments on any common religious topic and knowledge of arguments on many lesser known doctrines as well. But can anyone have every argument readily in mind when they are needed? Can you know all the arguments on all the passages that can possibly be brought up by callers? No, you can't, and he couldn't either. Fortunately, this preacher chose an able assistant to help on the radio show. His assistant was never a debater, and while not not ignorant of arguments that can be made on and from various passages, this man was always known for his careful and thorough Bible study. When callers would make strange Pentecostal points from Isaiah or Sabbatarians points based on Ezekiel, who was better equipped to lead them back to the truth? In these cases, the debater's knowledge of arguments invariably failed, but the man who knew the scriptures better could given the meaning of the passage in context, no matter how seemingly obscure that passage was, because he had studied and taught almost every chapter in the Bible at one time or another.

One more sad point must be made before leaving the the radio debater/preacher and his assistant Bible student/preacher assistant. In later days one of these preachers became an advocate of the Welch doctrine on the deity and humanity of Christ, the other saw the error in it and argued against it. You can surely guess which man, based on his mind set, stayed true to the word. Yes, it was the man who knew the word better because he studied it. He made his arguments from, and took his stand on, the truth. The other man began to argue from his arguments.

The Bible Standard For Arguments And Debates

Do we wish to denigrate debates and making and pressing arguments from passages of scriptures? Of course not. But we must be careful to follow what is written, to give a “thus sayeth the Lord” and “speak as the oracles of God.” We must be “set for the defiance of the gospel” and not set for the defense of the arguments that we make from it.

A true Bible argument will not lead us into conflict with any other passage of scripture. A true Bible argument will also be material to our Christian walk. We must “refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrel.” (2 Tim. 2:23) and “shun foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law; for they are unprofitable and worthless.” (Tit. 3:9)

If arguments based on scriptures lead us to the truth and defeat error we are to make them. But arguments that do not adhere strictly to Bible truth form a new teaching, a doctrine unto itself, a teaching of man. Inspired words give us the sternest warning possible to avoid such teachings and men who advocate them. “If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.” (1 Tim. 6:3-5)