BEREAN.AI ← Ask a Question

Responding to Slander in a Debate with an Atheist

Slander in debate—false accusation, misrepresentation, or malicious characterization—has confronted Christian apologists from the apostolic age forward. Paul himself faced the charge that his doctrine of justification by faith encouraged antinomianism: "And not rather, as we be slanderously reported... that we say, let us do evil that good may come" [9, 12]. The accusation was both persistent and serious, touching the moral implications of the gospel itself. How a Christian responds to such attacks in debate reveals not only rhetorical skill but theological conviction about truth, charity, and the nature of witness.

The Biblical Pattern: Gentle Answers and Silence

Scripture consistently distinguishes between legitimate correction and malicious slander. The latter includes "whispering," "backbiting," "evil surmising," "tale-bearing," and "bearing false witness"—all of which "come from the evil heart" [1]. When Paul catalogs his apostolic sufferings, he writes, "when we are slandered, we answer gently" [2]. The Greek term here suggests a measured, non-retaliatory response. This is not passive acceptance of falsehood but a refusal to mirror the opponent's tactics. The psalmist takes a sterner line in another context: "I will silence whoever secretly slanders his neighbor" [4], indicating that slander merits confrontation, yet the mode of confrontation matters.

Athanasius, defending himself against Arian accusations, demanded specificity: "What place and time does my accuser specify? In whose presence was I so mad as to give utterance to the words which he has falsely charged me with speaking?" [10]. His method was forensic—he pressed for evidence, witnesses, and particulars. This approach exposes slander by forcing it into the open, where it cannot survive scrutiny. The demand for proof is itself a form of gentle answer: it does not escalate but insists on the rules of honest discourse.

The Danger of Mirroring the Opponent

Chrysostom recounts hearing "a Christian disputing in a ridiculous manner with a Greek, and both parties in their mutual fray ruining themselves. For what things the Christian ought to have said, these the Greek asserted; and what things it was natural to expect the Greek would say," the Christian said instead [5]. The warning is clear: adopting the opponent's rhetorical vices—ad hominem attacks, misrepresentation, emotional manipulation—forfeits the moral high ground and obscures the truth being defended. The Christian who responds to slander with slander becomes complicit in the very sin he condemns.

Hermas, in the second-century Shepherd, instructs: "Speak evil of no one, nor listen with pleasure to any one who speaks evil of another. But if you listen, you will partake of the sin of him who speaks evil, if you believe the slander which you hear" [7]. The principle extends beyond speech to reception: credulity toward slander implicates the hearer. In debate, this means refusing to accept an opponent's unsubstantiated characterizations of Christian teaching or history, and refusing to traffic in similar characterizations of atheism.

Argument from Principles, Not Defense of Reputation

Aquinas distinguishes between arguing for first principles and arguing from them. Sacred doctrine "does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else" [6]. Applied to debate, this suggests that the Christian's task is not primarily self-defense but demonstration. When Paul was accused of antinomianism, he did not merely deny the charge; he argued from the resurrection to the general resurrection, from grace to sanctification [6, 12]. The slander became an occasion to clarify doctrine, not to vindicate reputation.

Calvin notes that Scripture condemns "the odious crimination which springs from a malicious and perverse mind," while distinguishing this from "rebuke which is administered with a view of correcting" or "accusation or judicial decision, by which evil is sought to be remedied" [11]. In debate, this means the Christian may—indeed must—correct falsehoods about Christian teaching, but the correction should aim at truth, not at wounding the opponent.

The Limits of Reply

Augustine opens City of God with a reflection on the limits of reply: "If the feeble mind of man did not presume to resist the clear evidence of truth, but yielded its infirmity to wholesome doctrines... they who have just ideas, and express them in suitable language, would need to use no long discourse to refute the errors of empty conjecture" [8]. Some slanders are so transparently false, or so rooted in bad faith, that extended reply dignifies them beyond their worth. The Christian must discern when silence or brevity serves truth better than exhaustive rebuttal. Job's complaint—"Is my debate against man, that I should not have just reason to be troubled?" [3]—captures the frustration of arguing with those who refuse the terms of honest inquiry. Yet even frustration must be disciplined by the command to answer gently.

Sources

  1. Torrey's Topical Textbook “Torrey's Topical Textbook: Slander — An abomination to God -- Pr 6:16,19. Forbidden -- Ex 23:1; Eph 4:31; Jas 4:11. Includes Whispering. -- Ro 1:29; 2Co 12:20. Backbiting. -- Ro 1:30; 2Co 12:20. Evil surmising. -- 1Ti 6:4. Tale-bearing. -- Le 19:16. Babbling. -- Ec 10:11. Tattling. -- 1Ti 5:13. Evil speaking. -- Ps 41:5; 109:20. Defaming. -- Jer 20:10; 1Co 4:13. Bearing false witness. -- Ex 20:16; De 5:20; Lu 3:14. Judging charitably. -- Jas 4:11,12. Raising false reports. -- Ex 23:1. Repeating matters. -- Pr 17:9. Is a deceitful work -- Ps 52:2. Comes from the evil heart -- Mt 15:19; Lu 6:45.”
  2. I Corinthians “I Corinthians 4:13 (BSB) — when we are slandered, we answer gently. Up to this moment we have become the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world.”
  3. Job “Job 21:4 (DRC) — Is my debate against man, that I should not have just reason to be troubled?”
  4. Psalms “I will silence whoever secretly slanders his neighbor. I won’t tolerate one who is haughty and conceited. -- Psalms 101:5”
  5. CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 & 2 Corinthians: were great in wisdom and admired for their excellency of speech, let us allow that all on our side were uneducated; for it will be no slight overthrow which they will sustain from us in that respect also: and so the victory will be brilliant indeed. I have said these things, because I once heard a Christian disputing in a ridiculous manner with a Greek, and both parties in their mutual fray ruining themselves. For what things the Christian ought to have said, these the Greek asserted; and what things it was natural to expect the Greek would say, ”
  6. theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part (Prima Pars), The Nature and Extent of Sacred Doctrine, Art. 8: Article: Whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument? I answer that, As other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences: so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else; as the Apostle from the resurrection of Christ argues in proof of the general resurrection (1 Cor. 15). However, it is to be borne in mind, i”
  7. Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 2: Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria — ON AVOIDING EVIL-SPEAKING, AND ON GIVING ALMS IN SIMPLICITY.: He said to me, "Be simple and guileless, and you will be as the children who know not the wickedness that ruins the life of men. First, then, speak evil of no one, nor listen with pleasure to any one who speaks evil of another. But if you listen, you will partake of the sin of him who speaks evil, if you believe the slander which you hear;(3) for believing it, you will also have something to say against your brother. Thus, then, will you be guilty of the sin”
  8. Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 2: Augustine — City of God, Christian Doctrine — CHAP. I.--OF THE LIMITS WHICH MUST BE PUT TO THE NECESSITY OF REPLYING TO AN ADVERSARY. (part 1): IF the feeble mind of man did not presume to resist the clear evidence of truth, but yielded its infirmity to wholesome doctrines, as to a health-giving medicine, until it obtained from God, by its faith and piety, the grace needed to heal it, they who have just ideas, and express them in suitable language, would need to use no long discourse to refute the errors of empty conjecture. But this mental infirmity is now more prevalent and hurt”
  9. Romans (Baptist/Reformed) “John Gill on Romans 3:7: And not rather, as we be slanderously reported,.... These are the apostle's own words, in answer to the objector he represented; and it is as if he should say, why do not you go on? why do you stop here? "and not rather" say, as we are evil spoken of, and our doctrine is blasphemed: and as some affirm; ignorantly and audaciously enough: that we say; and teach: let us do evil that good may come; a slander cast upon the apostle's doctrine of unconditional election, free justification, and of God's overruling the sins of men for good; and is the same which is cast o”
  10. CCEL (Patristic) “Athanasius of Alexandria, Select Works and Letters, section 270: 5. No possible time or place for the alleged offence. Now what place and time does my accuser specify, at which I made use of these expressions according to his slanderous imputation? In whose presence was I so mad as to give utterance to the words which he has falsely charged me with speaking? Who is there ready to support the charge, and to testify to the fact? What his own eyes have seen that ought he to speak 1302 1302 Prov. xxv. 7 , LXX. , as holy Scripture enjoins. But no; he will find no witnesses of that which never took ”
  11. CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 44: God takes an interest in it. Wherefore, evil-speaking in general is undoubtedly 354 condemned. Moreover, by evil-speaking, we understand not the rebuke which is administered with a view of correcting; not accusation or judicial decision, by which evil is sought to be remedied; not public censure, which tends to strike terror into other offenders; not the disclosure made to those whose safety depends on being forewarned, lest unawares they should be brought into danger, but the odious crimination which springs from a malicious and p”
  12. CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 20: ground of our justification. 140 7. This still further and most decisively appears from the grand objection to his doctrine which Paul was constantly called upon to answer. That objection was, that if our personal goodness or moral excellence is not the ground of our acceptance with God, then all necessity of being good is denied, and all motive to good works is removed. We may continue in sin that grace may abound. This objection has been reiterated a thousand times since it was urged against the Apostles. It seems so unreasonable and so”
Ask Your Own Question
About Terms Privacy Contact

© 2026 BEREAN.AI. All rights reserved.