Let Us Reason Together (Isaiah 1:18)

The Context: God speaks through Isaiah the prophet concerning the rebellion and wickedness of his people. Their sinfulness has made their prayers and other acts of worship empty and displeasing to God. He issues an angry rebuke (Isaiah 1:1-15), followed by a gracious offer.

The Call of Restoration: “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow” (vv. 16-17, NKJV).

The Invitation: “‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ Says the Lord ...” (v. 18a). The initiative is taken by God, extending his lovingkindness with a benevolent invitation, “Come.” The qualifier “now” conveys urgency—no legitimate reason to wait. The exhortation “let us” requires a cooperative spirit. The verb “reason” implies the ability to think and to form judgments. However, since fallible human reasoning is often incongruous with the higher ways of God, he graciously invites us into his way of thinking—always right, good, and reasonable. The adverb “together” indicates a relationship in which God allows us to participate.

The Promise: “‘Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool’” (v. 18b). Two shades of red—scarlet (fiery red) and crimson (deep red), the colors of fire and blood—portray the deep, dark, conspicuous, and destructive nature of sin, deserving of fiery judgment. But in his mercy God is willing and able to turn the reddest sin into the purest white, like “snow” and “wool,” symbols of purity among ancient Jews (Psa. 51:7; 147:16; Dan. 7:9; Rev. 1:14).

The Condition of Pardon: “If you are willing and obedient ...” (v. 19a). God does not force himself into our lives. With clear instruction and strong incentive, we are given the freedom to obey and be blessed or to not obey and suffer the dreadful consequences of our own foolish choices.

Ironically, it is blood that God has prescribed as the means of spiritual cleansing, that which turns the deep redness of sin into the pure whiteness of forgiveness. As penitent baptized believers walking in the light of God’s word, let us be counted among the great multitude of the redeemed, having “washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Rev. 7:14).

-- Kevin L. Moore

*Prepared for The Estes Echo (20 March 2026), bulletin of the Estes Church of Christ in Henderson, TN.

Related Posts:

Related articles:

 

Image credit: https://wfuv.org/content/white-driven-snow 

Where's the Proof of God?

     It was June 2012 in New Zealand’s remote Hunua Ranges, southeast of Auckland. Thirty-nine-year-old bioengineer Ronnie Fong set out on what was supposed to be a four-hour walk and ended up lost for three days. In sub-zero temperatures at night, he kept moving to stay warm. Climbing to the hilltops, he could see a dam in the distance, which he focused on as his goal. During the precarious trek, he stumbled across a 24-pack of unopened chlorine tablets (for purifying water) that he believes was intentionally dropped by a rescuer, enabling him to keep hydrated. Ronnie knew he had finally reached safety when he found a dirt road. Not long thereafter he spotted the headlights of a search team, bringing his ordeal to a fortunate end.

     Although Ronnie saw no rescuers for three days, his confidence was maintained by the indisputable signs of human presence. Sighting the dam in the distance, he knew he was close to civilization. While not personally witnessing the dam being designed, built, or maintained, he never questioned that capable human beings were responsible for it. Without actually observing where the chlorine tablets came from, he was sure someone had been in the area. The dirt road, as simple and crude as it appeared, was enough to convince him that he was in an inhabited area. When he sighted the approaching headlights, before actually seeing anybody, he was absolutely certain that people were near.

     Ronnie’s optimism stemmed from the observable effects of human activity. Not once did he surmise that random evolutionary mutations over billions of years were responsible for the efficiently designed wall of earth, concrete, and steel across the riverbed. Upon discovering the chlorine tablets, it never crossed his mind that the symmetrical plastic and foil packaging might be the result of a massive explosion of primordial elements that gradually developed into its current functional shape. He didn’t instinctively assume that the dirt road tracks were formed by a freak accident of nature, nor did he entertain the thought of purely naturalistic causes to account for the headlights.

     It was not scientific experimentation or even direct observation that led to his definitive conclusions. His assurance that preexisting intelligence and ingenuity were responsible for the dam, the chlorine tablets, the road, and the headlights was a conviction of faith, prompted by sensible reasoning and compelling evidence. This is what carried him through an otherwise hopeless ordeal, and unsurprisingly, what wasn’t visible along the treacherous journey was confirmed in the end. “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1 ESV).

     How, then, can our knowledge of the Grand Designer of the universe be any less certain? From the tiniest microscopic organism to the vast solar systems, the physical world demonstrates clear signs of intricate design.¹ Specified complexity and fine-tuned patterns of activity do not simply emerge out of nothing or consistently occur by accident. Where there is a painting, there must be an artist. Without a poet, there is no poem. A house does not build itself, and a book does not write itself. Where there is functional design, there has to be a designer.

     The cosmos is real and must have come from somewhere. It obviously did not create itself. Every effect requires an adequate cause. Moreover, the evidence of deliberate design in the natural world implies a creative and proficient designer. Those who stubbornly reject the necessary inference of the intelligent design model have theorized any number of elaborate proposals (cosmological constant, cosmic cataclysm, oscillating universe, et al.). But none can reasonably explain the mystery of life and the uniform patterns of functionality across the universe, much less where and how it all originated.

     The Bible provides a credible answer for anyone not blinded by anti-theistic prejudice. “For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4). “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork” (Psalm 19:1). “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible” (Hebrews 11:3).

     The God of the Bible is outside of time and space, without beginning or end.² He is the Grand Designer and Creator in whom we have conviction of faith and assurance of hope.³ Without him we are lost, though he is not far away, and what is not visible along life’s journey is sure to be confirmed in the end.⁴

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See I.D.E.A. Center’s “Evidence for the Design of the Universe,” <Link>; “Cell Positioning Uses ‘Good Design’,” <Link>; William A. Dembski, “Design Inference vs. Design Hypothesis,” <Link>.

     ² Eccl. 3:11; Psa. 93:2; Prov. 8:23; Rev. 1:8.

     ³ Ex. 20:11; Psa. 8:3-4; 33:6; 102:25; 115:15; Jer. 51:15; John 1:1-3; Acts 4:24; 14:15; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:1-2, 10; Rev. 4:11; 10:6.

     ⁴ Acts 17:24-31; Heb. 11:1-6; 1 John 3:2.

Related Posts: Why Should I Believe in God?, Proclaiming God's Existence to the World, Human Suffering?, Religion Explained?

Related articles: Wayne Jackson’s “The Elephant in Evolution’s Living Room,” <Link>; Jeff Miller’s “Cosmological Argument,” <Link>.

Image credit: http://bhrettmccabe.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Footprint.jpg

Religious Dialogue 101: For the Lazy and Dishonest (Part 1 of 4)

     We interact, we converse, we discuss, we disagree, we argue, and we debate. We’re humans …. that’s what we do. But there are productive and unproductive ways to engage in these exchanges, whether in a public forum or in private conversation. One may be absolutely right in a position he holds, but with a mean-spirited and abrasive disposition he weakens his case and drives people further away. One’s views might be completely erroneous, yet he wins folks over with a more alluring approach. Assuming disputants are both rational and civil, how can the correctness or the wrongness of a case be determined, particularly in a religious discussion? Here are some logical and interpretive fallacies to recognize and avoid.

1. “Cherry picking” occurs when selected data are highlighted that appear to confirm a particular viewpoint while ignoring related information that suggests otherwise. How many have sought justification for something by instinctively reciting: “Judge not, that ye be not judged”? I would venture to guess that for many, this is one of the few biblical texts they have bothered to memorize, even if they can’t locate where the words are recorded in scripture. To “judge” is to make a judgment or assessment about whether something is right or wrong, true or false. If one cannot judge an idea or behavior to be wrong, neither can another judge it to be right. The fact of the matter is, the context of Matt. 7:1-5 (only a brief portion of which is quoted above from the KJV) merely denounces hypocritical judging. Righteous judgment, on the other hand, using God’s word as the standard, is biblically enjoined (John 7:24; cf. 1 Cor. 2:15; 5:3, 12; 6:2-5).¹ All information must be gathered and evaluated before valid conclusions can be drawn.

2. Quoting references out of context is a logical fallacy in which statements are excerpted from the qualifying information surrounding them so that their intended meaning is distorted. A man once told me that he would never go to church because Christians are a bunch of hypocrites. When I asked him to justify his allegation, he replied, “Christians don’t drink, but the Bible says, ‘Eat, drink, and be merry’!” He was confident in his biblical assertion, yet he refused to examine the text to verify his position. By reading the immediate context of Luke 12:13-21, it is clear that Jesus, in addressing the problems of greed and materialism, tells a story in which the words of v. 19 (“take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry”) are attributed to a misguided rich man. The Bible does record this expression, but the context determines its meaning.

3. A “straw man” argument involves misrepresenting facts to make something seem more extreme or simplistic than it really is so that it can be more easily refuted. John Shelby Spong, in his Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism,² challenges the integrity of Genesis by accusing its author of being “quite confused” about the nationality of those to whom Joseph was sold into slavery. In one reference they are identified as “Ishmaelites” (Gen. 37:25), while a few verses later they are called “Midianites” (v. 28). The fallacy of this charge is that of twisting a “both-and” situation into an “either-or” predicament. The caravan was comprised of Ishamael’s descendants who lived in the land of Midian (cf. Gen. 25:12, 18; Ex. 2:15; Judg. 8:1, 22-28). According to ethnic descent they were Ishmaelites and according to their place of residence they were Midianites (cp. Deut. 26:5). A fair-minded person sees no dilemma here, and upon closer examination Spong’s belittling accusation is not as compelling as it might have first appeared.

4. Emotional appeal is an underhanded maneuver that seeks to manipulate emotions in an attempt to strengthen one’s case rather than employing logical reasoning with factual evidence. Citing Matt. 7:17-18 in his God and the Gay Christian,³ Matthew Vines maintains that condemning same-sex relationships has historically been destructive to gay Christians, producing the “bad fruit” of guilt, depression, and suicide; whereas loving, committed, same-sex relationships produce the “good fruit” of joy and companionship. Objectively evaluated, this is not a reasoned argument drawn from careful exegesis of the Bible but a subjective emotional appeal. Contextually the “bad fruit” of Matt. 7:17-18 is applicable to false prophets and their corrupt teachings and sinful living. Vines’ emotive analysis is based on his own biased perception and a shrewdly misappropriated proof-text. Compassion, kindness, and upholding biblical morality are not mutually exclusive.

5. A “red herring” is something irrelevant and diversionary thrown into a discussion that distracts from the issue at hand. Renowned atheist David Silverman has argued against the Bible as an objective moral standard because Hitler’s Nazis murdered Jews in the name of the God of the Bible.⁴ Similar arguments have included the Catholic inquisition and crusades, sexual perversion of priests, immorality of televangelists, hypocrisy of professing Christians, ad infinitum. But surely we understand that violating and misconstruing biblical teachings have nothing to do with the validity of the Christian faith or the integrity of the scriptures. Legitimate evaluative criteria of any philosophy or moral standard cannot to be sought in its abuse.

-- Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are from the NKJV. The Bible addresses two types of human judging; one is denounced, while the other is enjoined. (1) Wrongful judgment or unfair criticism (Matt. 7:1-5; Rom. 2:1-3; 14:4; 1 Cor. 4:3-5; Col. 2:16) involves hypocritical assessments, or trying to discern another’s intentions and motives, or drawing conclusions without having all the facts, or making judgments based on misinformation, or using oneself as the standard (cf. Jas. 2:13; 4:11-12). (2) Righteous judgment (John 7:24; 1 Cor. 2:15; 5:3, 12; 6:2-5) relies on God’s word as the standard, evaluates observable actions and substantiated facts, and sincerely has the person’s best interests at heart (cf. Gal. 1:9; 1 John 4:1; 2 John 10-11). While making judgments (decisions) and condemning error is necessary and expected (Matt. 7:6, 15-20; 18:15-17), one’s attitude and behavior must be in line with the divine will (Matt. 6:14-15; 18:23-35; Rom. 2:21-23; Jas. 4:11-12).

     ² John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Harper, 1992): 107.

     ³ Matthew Vines, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-sex Relationships (New York: Convergent Books, 2014): 5-20. For a brief response to his main arguments, see Postmodernism and the Homosexual Christian Part 2.

     ⁴ “Examine Reality” was a debate between David Silverman (president of American Atheists) and Christian apologist Frank Turek on 18 April 2013 in Shreveport, LA, <Link>.

Related posts: Relativism Vs Objective Truth, Religious Dialogue Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 

Related articles: Forest Antemesaris' Christianity that Appeals to Atheists, and Bad Reasons to Reject Christianity

Image credit: https://thethinkingmuslimdotcom2.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/argue.jpg