Religious Dialogue 101: For the Lazy and Dishonest (Part 4 of 4)

16. A False Dilemma is created when one offers two extremes as the only alternatives to a position, when there are actually other options. In response to an article I had written on 1 Cor. 14:34-35,¹ an anonymous critic accused me and other conservative Christians of inconsistency, because Paul’s admonition for “women to keep silent” in the assemblies and not “to speak” would prohibit them from singing (cf. Eph. 5:19); so if we allow women to sing in our corporate gatherings, we ought to let them preach. These limited choices form a false dichotomy, because it’s really not an either-or option. In context, the silence (sigáō) and the prohibition to speak (laléō) are also enjoined on male tongue-speakers (when there is no interpreter, v. 28) and on male prophets (when someone else is talking, v. 30). That is, they were not to speak as to lead the assembly. The silence here does not forbid singing (v. 15), saying “amen” (v. 16), or public confession (1 Tim. 6:12). The admonitions concern public speaking in leading the corporate assembly.²

17. Making a mountain out of a molehill is an overreaction or an overstatement that makes too much out of a minor issue. It has been alleged that among the surviving New Testament manuscripts there are up to 400,000 variations, leading many to infer that the scriptures have been substantially distorted over the centuries to the point they are no longer trustworthy.³ On the surface this may seem quite alarming until it is reasonably assessed from an informed perspective. The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of these variants are so trivial as to not even be translatable. For example, the most common occurrence is an anomaly known as “the moveable nu,” where a word sometimes ends with the letter nu (the 13th letter of the Greek alphabet) and sometimes it does not. Either way the word’s meaning is exactly the same and the sense of the passage is entirely unaffected. But every time it appears in the multiplied thousands of pages of Greek manuscripts, it is counted as a textual variant. Most other variations involve relatively minor details, such as spelling, reduplication, and word order, but no fundamental doctrine of the Bible is in doubt because of textual uncertainty (see Changes in the Bible Part 1).

18. Ad Hominem is an attack on someone’s character or motives in an attempt to dismiss the person’s stated conviction rather than directly addressing the argument itself. If one objects to female leadership roles in the church, some will accuse him of patriarchal misogyny and oppressing women. To reject gay marriage and to oppose the homosexual lifestyle makes one susceptible to the charge of homophobia and hate speech. If, however, we could discuss these issues sympathetically and fairly, we could see that it’s conceivable to love and respect women while complying with scriptural guidelines on gender roles (cf. Eph. 5:22-23).³ It is also possible to be concerned and genuinely care about homosexuals without compromising biblical morality (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9-11).⁴ Since only Jesus could legitimately know what was in a person’s heart (Matt. 9:4; 12:25), if a disputant attributes questionable motives instead of addressing the issue at hand, he is guilty of an ad hominem attack and not honest dialogue.

-- Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Let the Women "Keep Silent" in the Churches. Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are from the NKJV.

     ² In 1 Corinthians laléō (to “speak”) is used with reference to public speaking, particularly in the exercise of a spiritual gift (cf. 2:6, 7, 13; 3:1; 9:8; 12:3, 30; 13:1, 11; 14:2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 18, 19, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 39).

     ³ Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (San Francisco: Harper, 2007): 7, 10, 89, 90.

     ⁴ See Wes McAdams’ I’m Tired of People Demeaning Women in the Church, <Link>.

     ⁵ See Adam Faughn’s A Personal Letter to My Homosexual Friends, <Link>.

Related posts: Religious Dialogue Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Related articles: Forest Antemesaris' More Bad Reasons to Reject Christianity

Image credit: http://theprincetontory.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CoupleFight-e1371308984845.jpg

Religious Dialogue 101: For the Lazy and Dishonest (Part 3 of 4)

11. Anachronism means to attribute something to a period of time to which it does not belong. In discussions about immorality and female deportment in ancient Corinth, how many have made reference to “the 1,000 cult prostitutes in Corinth’s temple of Aphrodite”? While the observation may be relevant to ancient Corinth, it is anachronistic if applied to the Corinth of Paul’s day. The description comes from Strabo’s Geographica 8.6 (7 BC – AD 23) and pertains to the Greek city-state of Corinth prior to its destruction in 146 BC. Because the Romanized Corinth of Paul’s day was very different (see Ancient Corinth), we should seek contemporary data to shed light on the Corinthian correspondence rather than anachronistic information that could paint a distorted picture and lead to faulty conclusions.

12. Eisegesis is reading one’s presuppositions into the biblical text, in contrast to exegesis, which means to draw out of the text what the inspired writer intended to convey. In religious circles where Martin Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith ‘alone’ has been embraced, it is not uncommon for Rom. 10:13 to be cited (“For ‘whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved’”)¹ to affirm the acceptance of Jesus into one’s heart through prayer as salvation’s sole requisite, independent of and prior to baptism. However, Paul had already penned the words of Rom. 6:1-18 (inclusive of baptism in the salvation process) before writing chap. 10. Therefore, whatever is stated in chap. 10 does not cancel out and must be understood in light of what was previously affirmed. In fact, Paul’s own baptism for the forgiveness of sins was an integral part of his “calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16; cf. 2:21, 38-41).

13. Inventing “facts” and propagating false information takes place when one attempts to support a claim by citing evidence that is unverifiable or simply not true. In commenting on a view for which he sees vague historical support, Gordon Fee remarks: “it seems to be the case of one scholar’s guess becoming a second scholar’s footnote and a third scholar’s assumption” (First Corinthians 511). While such an argument may appear convincing on the surface, upon further investigation it proves to be empty and misleading. The editors of the gay-friendly Queen James Bible claim that the sin of Lev. 18:22 is not homosexuality but idolatry, “having sex with male pagan temple prostitutes .... in the temple of Molech.”² However, Molech was worshiped with child sacrifice (Lev. 18:21; 20:1-5; Deut. 12:31; 2 Kings 23:10; Jer. 32:35), and there is no conclusive evidence that sex (homosexual or otherwise) was any part of the ancient ritual. Based on this misinformation the QJV editors have altered the biblical text and distorted its meaning to suit a personal agenda (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16-17).

14. Creating God in one’s own image is the result of interpreting the divine will through one’s own subjective thinking and presumptuously speaking on the Lord’s behalf. In a July 2015 interview with Marc Lamont Hill of the Huffington Post, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter stated, “I believe Jesus would approve gay marriage …” <Link>. Without any scriptural foundation for his claim, and in direct opposition to what the Bible actually says (see Delusion of Gay Marriage), Carter equates his own personal judgment with what the Lord allegedly accepts. In the words of Tim Keller, “If your god never disagrees with you, you might just be worshiping an idealized version of yourself” (Facebook post, 15 May 2014).

15. Redefining terms is a cunning tactic that builds a seemingly biblical case on non-biblical concepts. “Love” is a catchword in our postmodern society that is synonymous with the unconditional acceptance of practically anyone’s beliefs and lifestyle. To verbally disagree with the views and behavior of others, even in a respectful manner, is to stand accused of fearing or hating them and discounting the compassionate love of Christ. But the biblical concept of love is not some flimsy emotional state void of conviction and moral principle. It is a conscious decision to pursue the interests of others beyond oneself (cf. 1 Cor. 13:4-7). Genuine love, therefore, does not overlook, justify, or tolerate the sinful conduct condemned in God’s word (1 Cor. 5:1-5; 13:6). It compels us to warn of divine judgment (Matt. 5:29-30; 2 Cor. 5:9-11) and to plea for humble submission to the will of God (Luke 3:8; 13:3; 2 Cor. 7:9-12).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are from the NKJV.

     ² “The Gay Bible,” <Link>; and “Editor’s Note,” <Link>. For a more detailed response, see The Queen James Bible.

Related posts: Religious Dialogue Part 1, Part 2, Part 4

Related articles:

Image credit: http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/yik/49K/yik49K5BT.jpeg

Religious Dialogue 101: For the Lazy and Dishonest (Part 2 of 4)

6. Misuse of comparative analogy. When analogy is used as “proof,” it is taken beyond its intended purpose. Analogy merely illustrates something by way of comparison (e.g. Psa. 1:3; Matt. 13:24); it does not prove it. In an attempt to justify infant baptism, Jordan Bajis argues that in 1 Cor. 10:1-4 baptism is likened to the Israelites crossing the Red Sea; since they took their infants and young children with them (Ex. 12:37), infant baptism is therefore valid.¹ This is a cart-before-the-horse fallacy, where an illustration is used to prove a point rather than illustrating a point already proven. The Red Sea crossing of the ancient Israelites (“baptized into Moses”) was for the saving of their temporal lives, whereas the baptism of Christ’s new covenant is for spiritual salvation (Mark 16:16; 1 Pet. 3:21) and thus applicable to penitent believers (Acts 2:37-38; 8:12) rather than innocent babies (cf. Mark 10:13-16). See Are Humans Totally Depraved from Birth?.

7. Inductive reasoning via “begging the question” is an attempt to build a case by arguing in reverse from an unproven conclusion with premises that seem to support it.² Jesus is recorded as saying, “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 7:12).³ It has been alleged that he (or his followers) plagiarized this golden rule from eastern religions, Greek philosophers, and/or Jewish rabbis, which calls into question the integrity of Christian doctrine.⁴ However, what Jesus says is noticeably different from the popular ethic of reciprocity (“Give to get something in return”) and the negative and passive version, “Do not do to others what you would not want done to you.” While similar sayings have been attributed to Buddha, Confucius, Isocrates, Plato, Aristotle, multiple Jewish teachers, and others, the first on record to express the positive form of this principle is Jesus the Christ. Moreover, “the Law and the Prophets” he cites (N.B. Lev. 19:18) predate the eastern religions, Greek philosophers, and Jewish rabbis. The fact that just about all civilized peoples and religions throughout history have adopted some form of this moral code is indicative of a maxim of human nature endowed by the Creator. In other words, Jesus articulates an eternal and universal truth.

8. Circular reasoning is a defective ploy wherein the premises of an argument rely on the conclusion for validation; supporting claims cannot stand unless the conclusion is assumed to be true. Although Jesus is clearly identified in the NT as “the Alpha and the Omega” (Rev. 22:12-13, 16) – an obvious reference to deity (Rev. 1:6) – the Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to accept it because the Alpha and the Omega is descriptive of Almighty God. According to their dogma, Jesus is not God, therefore no matter what the Bible says, it cannot mean that Jesus is God, because Jesus is not God.⁵ A Bible believer might affirm that the Bible is God’s word because the Bible says so, and the Bible can be trusted because it is God’s word. Granted, if the biblical record were void of such affirmations, this would be a strong argument against it. Having acknowledged the self-claims of scripture, however, there must be sufficient proof to support the claims (which there is!).⁶

9. “Apples and Oranges” is an idiom describing the false analogy of comparing things when there is no practical or legitimate comparison. Jesus stated in John 10:16, “And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.” According to the Book of Mormon, the “other sheep” are the Nephites who allegedly settled in the ancient Americas, whom Jesus reportedly visited after his resurrection (3 Nephi 15:21). Others claim that denominational sects are in view, comprising the current global flock of Christendom.⁷ These interpretations, however, are sifting the biblical text through the religious environment of modern times rather than considering the statement’s immediate context and its fulfillment shortly thereafter. Contextually Jesus is referring to the inclusion of Gentiles into his Jewish flock (John 11:51-52; 17:20-21; Eph. 2:11-22; 3:6 = the unified church), not to proto-Mormonism or to modern-day denominationalism.

10. Pitting scripture against scripture is an inappropriate attempt to counter one biblical statement with another. If the Bible is divinely inspired and its message is consistent, obviously one or both citations have been misapplied. A classic example is when Luke 9:50 is used to defend ecumenical diversity and the broadening of one’s circle of fellowship: “… for he who is not against us is for us” (par Mark 9:40). To justify narrowing lines of fellowship, Luke 11:23 is cited: “He who is not with Me is against Me …” (par Matt. 12:30). In context, however, the first passage addresses arrogant apostles forbidding the good works of a fellow-disciple simply because he was not in the immediate apostolic circle of the twelve. In the latter text, the Lord is condemning antagonistic Pharisees falsely accusing him of doing the devil’s work. To ignore the respective contexts, making application to unrelated circumstances, is to mishandle the word of truth (see For or Against?).

-- Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

    ¹ Jordan Bajis, “Infant Baptism,” in Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (1990-1996; accessed 2016), <Link>. Does the analogy of Noah's flood (1 Pet. 3:20-21) prove that animals are to be baptized?    

    ² This is in contrast to deductive reasoning, which relies on true statements of fact (premises) leading to a logically certain deduction. If every premise in the syllogism is true, and the rules of logic are adhered to with clearly defined terms, then the conclusion is necessarily true. In contrast, the inference of inductive reasoning is unproven and most likely unprovable. Nevertheless, beyond the self-evident laws of logic, inductive reasoning can be helpful and even necessary when determining by observation whether the premises of a given argument are valid. For example, by observing certain effects (induction) we can draw reasonable conclusions (deduction) about how gravity will affect an overturned glass of water, the presence of someone on an island by footprints on the beach, the existence of a Grand Designer, et al. See Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004): 62-66; also Mitch Stokes, How to Be an Atheist (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016): 40-41.

     ³ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are from the NKJV.

     ⁴ Brian de Krester, “Pillars of the Christian Faith Demolished: Part III,” in Investigator (May 2010): 133; Dhungarvn the Grey, From Pulpit to Pagan (New York: iUniverse, 2008): 118; Walter Ernest Bundy, The Psychic Health of Jesus (New York: Macmillan, 1922): 10.

     ⁵ “So the evidence points to the conclusion that the title ‘Alpha and Omega’ applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son” (Reasoning from the Scriptures [Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, 1985]: 413). See Questions for My Jehovah's Witness Friends. 

     ⁶ See Divine Origin of the Bible; also Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt, “Reasons to Believe the Bible,” <Link>.

     ⁷ H. R. Reynolds and T. Croskery, “The Gospel of St. John,” Vol. 17 of The Pulpit Commentary, eds. H. D. M. Spence and J. S. Exell (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962): 46, 55.

Related posts: Religious Dialogue Part 1, Part 3, Part 4

Related articles:

Image credit: http://coupledwith.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/rsz_arguingcouple_custom-ddc388d815f1e3dc1343df03078d1041c4927346-s6-c301.jpg