Rules of Engagement for Theological Combat

by Stephen Atkerson

It is OK to be rougher on heretics than on one's Christian brothers. Note that Jesus was dealing with Pharisees, and Paul was dealing with hymanean heretics, and Peter and Jude were dealing with heretics also.
Public discourse may be much rougher than private discourse. Note how kind Jesus was to the Pharisee Nicodemus, who came to Jesus in the middle of the night to talk privately to him. Compare that to how nasty Jesus was to the Pharisees who challenged him publicly. There is a reason for this. When the public is listening, if the truth gets trampled, the public gets hurt.
The greater the issue involved, the rougher may be the rhetoric. Note how important dealing with legalism was to Paul, and how roughly he treated the legalists (and their temporary sympathizers, Peter and Barnabas).
One who is attacked may respond proportionately. Note that Jesus was constantly provoked and challenged by the Pharisees. The Pharisees, in response, got from Jesus exactly what they deserved.
It is best, when on defense, not to use more artillery than was used by the offense. A proportionate response is a just response.
The more people affected by the error, the rougher may be the rhetoric used against them. There are far too many errors floating around in the public domain to warrant blasting them morning, noon, and night, if nobody is listening to the errorist.
No ad hominem arguments. This should go without saying.
One's opponent must be quoted fairly. All moderating context and qualifications used by the opponent should be acknowledged.
No straw men. One should understand thoroughly the position of one's opponent, and present it fairly, before attacking it.
If no one is credibly opposing the errorist whom you are opposing, your rhetoric may be rougher. Exploding rhetorical bombs might wake up the lazy-bones on your side who know the truth, but have got other things on their mind that are more important to them. It makes it easier to ride to the sound of the guns if your fellow soldiers' guns are firing.
If one's opponents are skilled in debate, one may treat them rougher. Opponents like this are more likely to carry off the overwhelming majority of good folks who depend on their instincts rather than their learning and logic to ward off error, and to embrace truth. It should be shown to the sheep that are being protected that the opponents of the truth are blowing smoke, and that they are not nearly as clever as they seem.
One must be utterly convinced to a moral certitude and beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is correct. That does not make him correct. However, this rule screens out those unpleasant people who like to argue trivialities that they do not really believe in merely for the sake of arguing.
If one is shown to be wrong, one publicly recants. I recall once inadvertently writing something that compared hyper-preterist heretics to "sleazy lawyers." I was called on it publicly. As much as it pained me, I publicly retracted the statement with an apology. (Looking back on it, I probably should have apologized to the sleazy lawyers, not the hyper-preterists!)