I can't tell you how many times I have come across people with whom I agree who have bad arguments. Let me just say, this isn't helping.
Take, for instance, the recent Strange Fire conference from MacArthur. One of the speakers was arguing against so-called "new revelations". He was arguing that the canon of Scripture was complete and those who are suggesting new truth from the mouth of God are false prophets. He spoke of a series of stories in the recent past of people who have gone to heaven and come back to tell about it. "As if prior to their information we didn't have a complete picture of heaven?" he argued. Now, look. I agree that those who offer new revelation as if it's from God are false prophets. But the argument that people received revelation from God that provided new insight into the truth is biblical. I mean, all of Scripture is progressive revelation. If the argument is that new revelation from God (which, by the way, occurred from Genesis through Revelation) is false, then all of Scripture is false. Did I disagree with the speaker? No. But that argument was poor. I would recommend dropping it.
Or take the recent kerfuffle over Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty. Robertson stated in an open interview that homosexual behavior was sin and sinners need Christ. Phil, I'm with you. Sinners need Christ. And the Bible is abundantly clear that fornication, adultery, homosexual behavior, drunkeness, bestiality ... on and on ... is sin. But Phil offered an argument in there that just has no place in this discussion. Phil decided to call up the "ick" factor. He pointed (in words too explicit) to female genitalia versus male genitalia and explained that no normal male would prefer male over female. Now, I know that there are a lot of heterosexual folk who think of the "ick" factor when considering the question. "Is that behavior moral? Well, no! It's icky!" But I need to point out that this is not a good argument. First, the temptation to sin doesn't constitute sin, so mere desire for someone of the same sex (or desire for someone of the opposite sex) does not in and of itself constitute sin. Second, just because you consider something "icky" doesn't mean that it's immoral. So quoting Scripture to demonstrate that God counts homosexual behavior (among other things) as sin is a good approach. Explaining that you find a particular behavior as distasteful is not a good approach.
I remember (and it appears to still be floating around) when the story was going around that NASA computers had located a time anomaly that correlated to Joshua's extended day. "There, see?" they argued. "Proof that the Bible is right!" Of course, the story was bunk and the reasoning was horrible and the whole thing didn't help the fact that the Bible is right.
It seems that bad arguments are actually really easy to come by. Christians will tell me that C.S. Lewis had faulty theology so what he said about something that is not related to his faulty theology is not to be considered. That's ad hominem. Tell me what's wrong with what he said, not what's wrong with him. Others assure me that the Doctrine of Election is the Christian equivalent of the KKK. "We're better than you because God chose us and He didn't choose you!" That's known as a strawman argument (since the Doctrine of Election specifically does not make that argument). Give me Scripture to show that God does not choose whom He will save and make it correlate with the Scriptures I offer that says He does and we have something to talk about. It just keeps going and going, like an Energizer bunny of poor arguments.
Whether or not I agree with your position, I'd like to just make a suggestion. Check yourself. Arguing poorly for something that is true is not helpful. Offering faulty proofs of the genuine article is not furthering your position. Even a heart for God and a passion for His Word is not aided by poor exegesis and mistaken proof-texting. We ought, instead, to "be diligent to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15). See? Not my words.
2 comments:
Your mention of "Strange Fire" reminded me of this wise post which I saw on the Net. It was by someone who was responding to a person who hears straight from God.
"If I experienced some extraordinary event (for example, god spoke to me and wanted me to tell the world something), my first reaction would not be to tell the world what he told me. My first reaction would be to figure out a way to prove he is who he says he is, and also prove that he spoke to me. I would do this for at least a couple of reasons. First, I would consider it unreasonable to expect others to believe such an extraordinary claim without some good evidence to back it up. Second, I would also want to prove to it to myself, to make sure I wasn’t fooling myself or falling victim to one of my cognitive biases. Only after I had sufficient proof would I tell the world what god told me. If I couldn't come up with sufficient proof, I probably wouldn't tell the world what he told me (and I might be a little displeased with god for putting me in such a situation, because it would probably be near impossible for me to provide sufficient proof, but would be a trivial matter for god to provide such proof).
It is not that others on the site do not want to hear about your relationship with god. I would love to hear about it, but only if I was first provided sufficient evidence that a) your specific god exists, and b) that you in fact do have a personal relationship with him (and because the claim is so extraordinary, the proof should be pretty definitive). Until these two things have been established (and probably only god can actually establish these things, and has thus far apparently chosen not to do so), it is unreasonable for you to expect others to put much stock in your posts about your relationship with god (and if god has indeed put you in this situation, you have cause to be a little displeased with him)."
All well and good, I suppose, except for the undefined, absolutely vague use of the standard, "sufficient evidence". What is "sufficient evidence"? Believers and unbelievers can't even agree on what constitutes "evidence", let alone what is "sufficient". It's vague enough that "sufficient" is usually defined as "enough to convince me", which is basically an impossible standard since there doesn't seem to be "sufficient evidence" to convince everyone of anything (for example, Evolution, Global Warming, or even a common understanding of the history of the United States).
And if the Bible is true and the heart set on the flesh is hostile to God, there would by definition be no possibility of "sufficient evidence" because prior biases (based on "hostile to God") would prevent the acceptance of both "sufficient" and "evidence" ... you know, kind of like it turns out to be in everyday life.
Post a Comment