Thread: Rules of Engagement in Theological Discussions

Question....how Biblical is such debates? Just wondering how we are to avoid passionate concern in discussions where souls are at stake? It's hard for me to non nonchalantly walk away when I do KNOW in my heart of hearts a theological belief is false and potentially destructive? So imagine someone dying and finding themselves in hell, thinking back on our last 'discussion' and wondering...why did the let me go so easily?

Is there a difference in a theological debate 'about theological beliefs' and actually speaking to people we are watching slip backward....embracing things as truth that are spiritually deadly? It's hard for me to pat them on the back and say, 'No biggie bro...'

Kind of playing the devil's advocate here but are there times when we can't just 'agree to disagree' as if eternal consequences are potentially at stake? When should we get passionate and persuade with passion....

Originally Posted by Ezekiel 33

Is that a Purpose Driven Interview?

I'll have to give you TWO points for that one. :)

Originally Posted by Quest

Question....how Biblical is such debates? Just wondering how we are to avoid passionate concern in discussions where souls are at stake? It's hard for me to non nonchalantly walk away when I do KNOW in my heart of hearts a theological belief is false and potentially destructive? So imagine someone dying and finding themselves in hell, thinking back on our last 'discussion' and wondering...why did the let me go so easily?

Is there a difference in a theological debate 'about theological beliefs' and actually speaking to people we are watching slip backward....embracing things as truth that are spiritually deadly? It's hard for me to pat them on the back and say, 'No biggie bro...'

Kind of playing the devil's advocate here but are there times when we can't just 'agree to disagree' as if eternal consequences are potentially at stake? When should we get passionate and persuade with passion....

You make a valid point, which is about the CONTENT and CATEGORY of ones beliefs.

E.g., Does the belief deny fundamentals like the divinity of Christ?

In that case, we should be more strident that the person know the truth, in love, because the stakes are too high for us to miss correcting a belief that will affect their eternity.

Originally Posted by Quest

Question....how Biblical is such debates? Just wondering how we are to avoid passionate concern in discussions where souls are at stake? It's hard for me to non nonchalantly walk away when I do KNOW in my heart of hearts a theological belief is false and potentially destructive? So imagine someone dying and finding themselves in hell, thinking back on our last 'discussion' and wondering...why did the let me go so easily?

Is there a difference in a theological debate 'about theological beliefs' and actually speaking to people we are watching slip backward....embracing things as truth that are spiritually deadly? It's hard for me to pat them on the back and say, 'No biggie bro...'

Kind of playing the devil's advocate here but are there times when we can't just 'agree to disagree' as if eternal consequences are potentially at stake? When should we get passionate and persuade with passion....

we're to plant and water.

The Holy Spirit uses what He uses.

sometimes demeanor goes a lot towards how people will react to what we're saying.

Remember, while you're passionate about what you think/believe, so is that other person. If everyone goes into a discussion bent on changing hearts and minds RIGHT THEN.. it's not going to end well.

Originally Posted by Jonathan david

Do you have any stories, principles (rules of engagement), examples or videos that serve to show "how its' done" in excellence?

If the other party isn't getting in agreement, use ALL CAPS.

He He, John. For me, just a tool I use for visual emphasis. I learned a long time ago, don't expect people to carefully read your every word. Underline, italics, bold all part of my communication toolset. :)

Originally Posted by Jonathan david

He He, John. For me, just a tool I use for visual emphasis. I learned a long time ago, don't expect people to carefully read your every word. Underline, italics, bold all part of my communication toolset. :)

We actually lack a good portion of our communication tool set when engaging online. It's an attempt to use something close to business correspondence in a social way.

Originally Posted by John

We actually lack a good portion of our communication tool set when engaging online. It's an attempt to use something close to business correspondence in a social way.

Can you elaborate? What is your take?

Originally Posted by Jonathan david

Can you elaborate? What is your take?

We have very little insight into our audience when engaging online. In person, we can sense many things as to how a message is being received and calibrate our tone, facial expressions, etc., become more persuasive so to speak. Online we only know how something is received when someone (not everyone) replies back but that feedback is limited.

I use the term "business correspondence" because that entails a more formal approach to communication because again, you don't really know your audience. With social correspondence you already have some prior relationship/knowledge of the recipient so some of your more subtle messaging may be clearly understood.

Another thing in public debate (online) is that you may end up debating many people at once. It would be the equivalent of wandering into a full restaurant and making some sort of declaration. Some will agree, some won't.

Closer to home now, here is Michael Brown debating, with grace, yet forthrightly, as he points out weaknesses in the Strange Fire "Inquisition"