[00:00:09] Speaker A: Welcome into the Faint Deeper podcast. I'm your co host, Will Harib, joined by Joe and Jack Wilkie. Excited to bring you another great episode this week. Before we dive into that, we are getting very close to back to school season, which is just very hard for me to believe. Feels like summer just started four weeks ago, but here we are about to head into August. And so again, schools are going to be starting up here very soon.
If you are maybe a homeschool parent, if you're looking for just some good resources for your kids as they go back to school, obviously, we here at Focus Press have a ton of great resources, great books and things that we would steer you towards. And so rather than pushing just one individual item like we've done in the past, you know, the biology textbook or maybe some other convicted maybe, um, we decided to just do a 10% off sale for our entire focuspress store. But you have to use the code, think deeper. So if you use the code, think deeper at checkout, you will get 10% off your order. So that's going to be what we're advertising for this week. We would encourage you at least get on there, take a look, see if there's anything that you think would be helpful. Obviously, we believe in a lot of the content, the books and things that we have out there, but it's an exciting time of year. Not so much, I guess, for the kids. They're going back to school, but yes, our kids. That's right. With as crazy as summer is and as go, go, go as it is generally, at least, I felt life somewhat kind of feels like it slows down a little bit in late August and early September as families are getting settled into a routine. There's maybe a little bit less traveling going on. So I think it's an exciting time of year.
But it, with that. Anyway, we're going to go ahead and get into this week's episode, which Jack has beautifully laid out for us in this outline that we're going to be covering. And that is bad Bible arguments, essentially arguments that people use when they're talking about the Bible, when they're obviously arguing about the Bible, that we are going to come out and say, probably shouldn't use these arguments. These are not good arguments to use. We've got, as I'm sitting here counting 123-45-6789 and even ten. I don't even know if he did that on purpose, but. Perfect. We got ten different.
[00:02:20] Speaker B: Nice work, Jack.
[00:02:21] Speaker A: Exactly. Yeah. We've got ten different bad bible arguments to cover Jack, I will go and hand it to you for any introduction you want to do to this, or if you want to just go ahead and get us into the first one with as rambly as all of us can get, getting through ten, we're going to have to move here. But what would you add to the introduction of this episode?
[00:02:39] Speaker C: Yeah, just briefly. I've been talking to Joe and it kind of hit me. I've been writing online for about 15 years. It was funny. I was just a college kid with a blog spot back in the day and it was kind of surprising the kind of people who would show up and argue with me. And obviously we've been working with Brad Haram. He gets a lot of arguments under his posts of people disagreeing. He had a great one just this week that caused some disagreement. And you just kind of, you start to see ways people think about the Bible and you see arguments that are used, things like that. That it's like that's not, that's not helping our understanding. That is a roadblock to understanding the Bible better. And you see this a lot, and I've used some of these, this is one of these, like you try and be self conscious about, okay, don't do this when I'm approaching the Bible and when you know them, it helps you not do them. And so when you're thinking about the Bible and the kind of things we talk about here on, think deeper. As we said before, there's, there's things we talk about that people just don't like. They think we shouldn't have these conversations or just kind of, they think, well, what about this? And then they kind of think the conversation's over. So we're going to talk about some of those. We'll start with a personal favorite of ours is the tone police. I just, I don't like how you said that.
Okay, well, we can talk about that, but what about the point? What about the, the truth that I am trying to or I'm claiming is a truth, a thing that I'm trying to establish as fact? Let's deal with that. And that's something you see of christians of some things are controversial, some things are difficult, some things you really have to massage and exercise like caution as you tiptoe through them. But I, to some people it's kind of that the tone police really serves as the opportunity to say, let's just not talk about that at all.
[00:04:22] Speaker B: It's interesting to see the level. I feel like maybe I'm wrong on this. I feel like it's really ramped up in the last few years, maybe the last decade of a lot of the qualifiers. I'm not saying this and I'm not saying that and kind of him hawing around it because we don't want to offend. And as the world has gotten way more acquainted with Matthew seven, verse one, judge not lest you be judged, and that kind of becomes their favorite verse. We've talked about that. I think this is where christians have really picked up on the tone police of not wanting to offend, and we don't want to come across as judgmental jerks, and in some ways christians have in the past. But I look at, like, I'm calling out our own churches down here now that I live in Tennessee, but I look at maybe the 1960s or 1970s church of Christ.
Yeah, there was some judgment, no doubt. There was some. There was some direct speech about stupid stuff that caused church splits and caused people to walk away from God and not fantastic. I didn't live in that time, so I don't want to comment too much and have everybody else go, how would you know? I mean, there's a reason the churches of Christ have a very judgmental reputation in the south.
At the same time, I feel like we've swung the pendulum to the other side, where the him hawing and the making qualifiers about everything. And we don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, and we certainly don't want to judge. And everything else has gotten to the point where we water down, water down, water down, water down.
[00:05:39] Speaker A: We.
[00:05:39] Speaker B: We lose the point. And there's a time and place for direct speech that I do think the tone police get in the way of, because they kind of defend the person who can hide behind the tone when it's like we're directly talking about you. There's a denominational preacher called Paul Washer.
One of his famous sermons is, you know, he's speaking, I think it's a youth conference or whatever, and he's speaking and he's just going off on the holiness of God and people aren't holy, if I remember right. And he kind of has a pause. Everybody starts clapping. He goes, stop clapping. I'm talking about you. It's like mic drop moment. And like, that's the. That's what we're talking about here is the tone police go, whoa, come on, Paul. That's really, you know, that's. That's rough. And you look at the apostle Paul. Imagine where the tone police would be with him. With. With first corinthians five, and some of the things that he says, theres a time and place for direct speech.
[00:06:31] Speaker A: I would say, yeah, I was going to bring up, you can just imagine maybe Jesus disciples in the temple after he flipped the tables over and was saying what he said. Jesus, I didnt really love the way that you handled that there. That seemed to be pretty rough, pretty harsh. Or in Matthew 23 when he is just going off on the scribes and pharisees calling hypocrites. And for all these things, Angie, I really, I just really didn't like your tone there. I really, I agree with what you said. I didn't like the way you said it. Of course, that sounds ridiculous on its face. And yet that's how a lot of dialogue is kind of handled and viewed by a lot of people. What drives me nuts specifically about this one is they'll say things like, I agree with what you said, I don't like how you said it, but all of the focus, literally all of the focus will be on the way that it was said rather than what was said. All of the emphasis, all of the conversation, like everybody's focus will shift from, okay, well, what did they actually say? And do we agree with it to all about the tone? And, you know, is there a time and place where somebody's tone might need to be corrected or something like that? Of course, at the same time, if you find yourself, and I think this is where a lot of people unfortunately find themselves, if you find yourself, the first thing that you're always looking for is what's the tone? What's the tone? How, how nice are they being? Then you're kind of looking in the wrong spot again, time and place for maybe correcting somebody's tone. But at the same time, if that's the focus, we've got to get back to where is, are they speaking truth? If they are, let's start there and let's focus on that. Uh, versus always trying to police, always trying to correct the, the tone for. And the, at the heart of it, Joe, no hand to you, is the fear that someone's going to get offended, is the fear that the world is not going to like us quite as much is the fear that, that so and so might me. And maybe that's going to drive them away. And it's like, like at some point, truth just has to be spoken. But Joe, I think you had a thought to add.
[00:08:23] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, I was just gonna ask a question actually of both of you, and I'll, I guess I'll ask you to Jack here, first, there is a, there's a line here, and I want you to kind of get into the line because we can go to first corinthians 13 one talking about if it's not done with love, right? Like if I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I become a noisy gong or clanging symbol. You can go to Colossians four six talking about, um, gracious speech seasoned with salt, as seasoned with salt. So there is a way to address people. And this is where we may have some people that go, whoa, whoa, whoa. You know, the tone absolutely matters. And we're not saying the tone doesn't in terms of bringing people around to Will's point. What we're talking about is those who would take a very true statement and would just bash the tone. And a lot of times the tone police that we're speaking of have a very sensitive sensor, basically, whatever you want to call it, where the moment that.
[00:09:16] Speaker A: If it's even slightly forceful.
[00:09:18] Speaker B: Exactly. Then it's like, whoa, whoa, whoa. Whereas there is a time and place where you can take it too far and just be alienating kind of the bowl in the china shop where everything gets broken. Jack, where do you find that line? How do we as christians maybe understand how to walk the line?
[00:09:33] Speaker C: Well, as the listener, your, your goal, and will said this a minute ago, is in everything go, well, is it true? And if it's true, I need to do something about it. And if, man, it's kind of like a doctor with his bedside manner. A lot of doctors have really bad bedside manner, but if they tell you you're sick in a certain way, you can't go, well, I don't like the way he said it, so I'm just not going to accept that or take the medicine.
And so kind of this thing of they turn the argument from what's being said about the Bible to how it was said. And so that way we don't have to deal with about what was said. We don't have to deal with the case being made. And that's just whether intentionally or not, it's dishonest. Like, let's get back to the point. And as the speaker. Yeah. First corinthians 13 of you don't want to be that clanging symbol. You know, you don't want to be annoying or harsh in unnecessary ways, but a lot of times that accusation really isn't all it's cracked up to be. It just is a deflection. It is a, it's not really, the way somebody said it, it's the fact that they did say it. And so you just. You see a lot of that. We need to move on. We do have ten of these. But don't be that person again. Be the kind of person that can parse the argument from the way it was presented. And if you have a problem with the presentation, go through the whole thing about the case being made, and then you can come back to them later.
Hey, you know, appreciate you saying what you said, and maybe I still disagree or whatever next time, if you wouldn't do this, that or the other thing. But, man, as you said, the qualifiers, people really don't want. A lot of people don't want to tolerate somebody just saying a prophet coming and saying, thus saith the Lord, which is a preacher's job in a lot of times. And so tone police is not a good one. All right, let's get to the next one, which is my. One of my biggest pet peeves, one of the things it is, one of my life works to try and get this eradicated from the church.
I'll let you guys talk, and then I'll kind of wrap this one briefly with my. My rant. But I'm going to call it scripture spamming. It's proof texting. It's just throwing verses on, but it's scripture spamming. It is adding a verse to everything. We've talked about this a little before, so we're not going to take tons of time on it, but what do you guys have to say on that one?
[00:11:38] Speaker B: We. Okay, so we've, I think, defined this before on the podcast, but define proof texting for the listeners. We're going, what in the world is proof texting?
[00:11:46] Speaker C: It's. You're using a text of scripture as a proof for an argument. But it's out of context. You just throw a verse reference on and just say, well, this means that.
[00:11:55] Speaker A: Or you throw 14 or 15 different verse references on from all over the Bible.
[00:11:59] Speaker C: Oh, man. I saw a post yesterday about a guy talking about people just not desiring the truth. And it was like this paragraph and a half, and he must have had, like, eight scripture references. People just don't love the truth. Jeremiah 14 six.
Like, that doesn't give your argument authority just because you can tack a verse on. Or I saw.
[00:12:19] Speaker B: Good morning. Genesis 127.
[00:12:21] Speaker C: Well, yeah, I saw a guy making an argument about, like, well, somebody disagrees with me on this. And if you go to ephesians four, it says, we have one faith and one hope, and we don't have the same faith and hope, therefore, he's not a Christian. Like, you didn't explain how anything or any of those mean what you say. And so when you see a preacher, especially, you can see it in writing, but you'll see it in their sermons. You know the ones. Oh, I used 100 verses in the sermons. Like that means you probably did a lot of bad Bible study because you got out of concordance, said, find me a verse that says what I wanted to say and slapped it on there and didn't ask, is that what's being said? Is that what's in the context and things like that. And it's just this, again, scripture spamming. They drown you in so many Bible verse references. It's like, well, that's just an incredibly biblical argument. Not really. Not if you are just making it say whatever you want it to say in that way.
[00:13:08] Speaker A: I want to speak from the perspective of a Bible student here for just a second, because I've sat through plenty of sermons and different types and different styles, and I know for me personally, I learned so much more about what a text is saying. I learned so much more just from a Bible study perspective, when it is, you know, kind of one passage that we're going through that we're breaking down, or that the preacher is breaking down and kind of going through. And there are times where it is helpful to say, well, now let's go and see maybe where this word is used in the Greek in the same, you know, in the exact same way. And it's. It's used to hear. Or like, there's times where you can move around. I would say, though, I. From just. And this, I guess you could say, is purely anecdotal.
The sermons that I have sat through, where it's like 2030 Bible verses on the outline, I learned far less, far, far less.
Because I feel like you're just. There's no context being given. Like anybody can, can, like Jack said, pull out the concordance and say, faith here, faith there.
You know, hope here, hope there. So let's just pull this verse in the sermon. I didn't really learn anything. And so, again, just from the perspective of a Bible student, I feel like if you're somebody who does kind of do this scripture spamming, the proof texting thing, you're kind of hindering and hampering the learning of those who are listening to the sermon, again, especially if you're somebody who's preaching like this. But I know we're also talking about people who kind of use this in their writing. And I don't want to necessarily mean this as harshly as it sounds, but in a way, it's more lazy in a way. I mean, let's face it, it's a whole lot easier to add 30 Bible verses to your sermon than it is to take a four verse text or whatever it is and really kind of try to derive. What. What is the text saying? What's our application? What does that mean? It's a whole lot easier. Just throw 30 verses of something. But I think the malicious way that people use this, um, again, because the biggest point here being ripping stuff out of context, that's. That's really bad way to study the Bible. That's a really bad way to teach the Bible. If you ignore all context, just because the verse, if you kind of hold it in just the right light, just the right, uh, viewpoint, might possibly, maybe support your argument and your position, but you ripped it out of context. That's a, that's a terrible way to study the Bible.
[00:15:26] Speaker B: What? A lot of times, because you're moving so quickly through them, it doesn't give anybody the opportunity to go, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on. Did that just say what I thought it said? It's like, well, boom, boom, boom, boom. And you threw out five. Whoa, that's really good. And what they say is, I'm establishing authority. The problem is four of those had nothing to do with what was just said. But because you threw it out so fast, nobody had time to go, hey, hold on, preacher. Wait a minute. That doesn't say this. That doesn't say that.
[00:15:51] Speaker A: It just like, how did you get to that conclusion? Right?
[00:15:53] Speaker B: Exactly. And you established authority. But where this goes to, is it actually, in my opinion, maybe this is a. I don't know. I don't know if it's hot take. I think this is the problem in using our brains. We get to something with the good, better, best. We had an entire episode on that, right? We get to something like homeschooling. I'm not going to find that in the text. I can't pull out six different, I can pull out scriptures, actually, you know, deuteronomy, six Shmon, things like that. But, like, they want to pull out six different scriptures. I can't necessarily do that. But what I can do is use the brain God has given me and use logic and use a lot of biblical principles, my biblical principles. Thank you. Principles along the way to then establish this as. I think this is the best practice going forward, but because I can't put seven different scriptures that are ripped out of context for this. Therefore, I have an established, proper authority. And so I think it kind of takes away the heart and the brain of Christianity to think about it and go, but is this what is best? Is this what God wants me to do if I can't give, again, 710, 15 different scriptures, a lot of these out of context in order to establish authority, if that makes sense.
[00:16:57] Speaker C: Well, the taking the brain out of it. A lot of times people say, well, I don't interpret. I just read what it says. No, everybody interprets. Like, you read what it says and then you go and tell me, well, it means this. Like that's interpretation. Okay. Like I was saying, the Ephesians four, you'll see people do this with two. John nine of, you know, if anyone doesn't basically believe what we believe, they don't have God. And they just use that to basically say, well, if you disagree with me on this, you're not a Christian. And it's like, again, show as a math teacher, show your work. Show me your long division there. I need to see like all the steps you got there. And I've seen this before where people just can post the verse over and over and over. And it's like, you think that means one thing, I think it means another. Explain how you got it to mean what you think of me. I'm not, I'm not interpreting. I'm just reading the text like it's so dishonest. But as you said, joe, like they do it fast enough that it becomes sleight of hand. It's like, well, there are all those verses. It must just mean that. And you don't realize, no, this guy made it say something that it doesn't and never showed how it did. But then he's got biblical authority behind it. It's very dangerous. And I think a lot of bad ideas come through. These guys who consider themselves biblically conservative consider themselves students of the word. But I, they're just going into the word to make it say what they wanted to. Kind of the drawing the bullseye around the arrow thing.
Hey, guys, Jack Wilke here. If you enjoy our work with podcasts like think deeper and godly young men and our books, articles, seminars and want to support the work that we do, the best way to do so is to go to focuspress.org donate. That's focuspress.org donate. Thanks again for listening.
[00:18:37] Speaker B: So point one was tone police. As we're talking about these, these bad biblical arguments or bible argumentation. Number one is tone police. Number two is proof texting.
[00:18:44] Speaker C: Right.
[00:18:45] Speaker B: The scripture spamming. I think I like that term. Number three is scripture wars. Scripture wars. Now, Jack, you put this outline together. I'll kick us off here, but I want your thoughts on this before we go back to Will.
This is Tegan's sermon on the mount. And putting that against everything else, we pit scripture against scripture. And this is actually seemingly coming around more. I've seen this a couple times from people that I would consider Christians. You know, church, Christ, and everything else, where they're taking the classic one is Romans verse, James. Right. Which is kind of broke Martin Luther's brain. Well, they can't both be right type of thing. Like, maybe they're saying two different things. Maybe they're using faith and works in two different ways to establish two different points. But I. He couldn't see that. And now we're seeing some Christians kind of pick up on this argumentation of, well, we know that they're, you know, that they don't even agree in scripture and go, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. So this is a third one of these scripture wars. Jack, take some more into that.
[00:19:39] Speaker C: Well, yeah, it's just anytime somebody says, well, the Bible says this. Well, there's this verse over here that says the other. Like, so is your argument that the Bible contradicts itself? I don't think that's an argument we want to make. And so you have to understand how two verses fit together. And so, like Ephesians two, eight, nine, you're saved by grace through faith and not of yourselves. And then faith without works is dead, and you're justified by works, as James two says.
Again, Paul and James didn't disagree, but you do have to figure out how to fit them together. Now, you see this a lot with, like, the baptism debates.
Well, baptism now saves you. Well, if he confesses, like, all of the above, like, these are not. It's not one or the other. Uh, the sermon on the mount really is a big one and to the lesser extent, the fruit of the spirit, where basically everything in the Bible runs through the sermon on the mount. And like, David Lipscomb, I. I don't know if he said this directly or if it's just kind of. I don't have the quote or whatever, but essentially, christians can't participate in government because you can't live by the sermon on the mount and practice the death penalty. You can't live by. You can't turn the other cheek and incarcerate somebody or whatever. Like, that's. Because that's not for governing. There are different things like that. I mean, I've seen people go to like, well, yeah, David did kill Goliath, but we're moving on past that now because sermon on the mount, like, there was a time and a place to kill Goliath, there's still a time and a place for killing. And, you know, like, not, it's no, we don't go out and kill atheists or abortion doctors or like, some of these things that people advocate for. Certainly not. On the other hand, there still is a time and a place that we've talked about before. John PipeR famously, well, I don't know that I would stop a guy coming in to assault my family in the middle of the night because turn the other cheek. Like, there are so many scriptures that. And just the sensibility of God's word is so against that. But you take one verse like that, and the very meek and lowly and loving people and striving to get along nature of the sermon on the mount, which is so important, and just making that trump every other Bible verse.
[00:21:45] Speaker A: To me, the not to beat the stead horse. But context is so key. Even with this one. Similar to the proof texting, bad Bible argument, the scripture wars is typically people pulling things out of context. And like you said, pitting it against what you're saying. And you have to be able to acknowledge that. Let's say you do. I mean, I will not deny there are verses in scripture where it's like, okay, that does seem to, you know, maybe not contradict, but like, those two don't add up. So what do you have to do? Do you just say, well, I guess they just disagree, which is, unfortunately, as you spoke to what some people in the church are saying these days, what.
[00:22:19] Speaker B: You have to do is you have.
[00:22:20] Speaker A: To take the entirety of the Bible in its context and try to decipher, okay, is, did the Bible contradict itself? Or is my understanding is my interpretation of these things may be wrong. Allah, Martin Luther, as Joe was speaking to. But yeah. And so context is key with, with this one as well. Um, what you want to do is rather than using Bible verses as kind of a weapon, uh, which, you know, in the scripture wars thing is kind of what people do. What you want to do is establish what each passage and what each scripture does mean. Don't focus on what it doesn't mean. Focus on what it does mean. And understand that if you truly believe that the Bible is inspired, which hopefully everybody does, then the Bible does not contradict itself. Like, start with that as the foundational principle of like the Bible is not going to contradict itself, it's just not possible. And then operate from there of, okay, if I come across something that might seem apparent in that way, I need to adjust my understanding, then I need to adjust my interpretation. I need to do some more digging, some more research, whatever it is. And then maybe if somebody's using the scripture against, you know, my position, I need to look at how they're using it. Is that a correct way to use it? And so you need to put the onus on the US as individuals who are using the Bible rather than the Bible itself. Once again, start with the foundational principle of the Bible does not have any contradictions. And so pitting these scriptures against each other in a scripture war, so to speak, is just a, it's a not a great exercise.
[00:23:44] Speaker B: Let me ask you this real fast because this is coming up more. We've recently seen this.
Can biblical authors, before we move on, can biblical authors disagree at all on anything on, on their approach to things? Can they have any level of disagreement within scripture? And I'm not talking on anything for salvation. I'm talking on, is there any way that they could be viewing it from two different angles that might not, I don't say contradict, but this is, again, a question that's kind of going around. I'm curious your guys's thoughts on that where biblical authors? Well, we know that they are, yes, they're inspired, but we also know that they're their own people. And so maybe they look at things in two different ways and maybe they have, they disagree on a couple of things. Is that possible?
[00:24:30] Speaker A: I think they can have different focuses, different kind of areas of emphasis. Again, let's go to Romans and James here. James, those who he was writing to, he was very concerned with the idea that they were just going to say, well, I've got the faith, so I don't really need to worry about anything else. And he's making the point that his focus was kind of the work side of things. Whereas Paul, the people he was writing to, obviously they're in Romans, they thought they were safe from their works and so they were, you know, kind of, that was what they believed in. And so he's trying to emphasize, okay, you are not justified by those works. You're justified by faith. And so, Joe, I know that's not what you're necessarily referring to because I know that you don't believe those two disagree. But I think anytime I'm curious, maybe what examples you're referring to. I think biblical authors can have different areas of focus and emphasis.
I wouldn't think that they could necessarily disagree about some of the things that are in the text, if that makes sense.
[00:25:30] Speaker B: A specific one that's come up and Jack, I want your thoughts on this. A specific one that's come up recently is David. Through the eyes of Samuel and the kings. There are two different ways he's written. One seems to be he's a hero, and the other seems to kind of show him in the low lights, not the highlights, but the lowlights, where it's not as good. And so they'd say, well, those two authors disagree on David's king kingship. This is one that's come up recently. I'm not calling anybody out. I'm just curious your guys's thoughts on that since that has been a discussion.
[00:25:58] Speaker C: Yeah, I've seen that the kings and chronicles thing, and it is different perspectives, but they don't disagree. It's one is from the prophets talking about, yeah, this is how it all fell apart. And one, I mean, like kingdom's document, like the kind of the official record isn't me. Like, yeah, he was a dirtbag. I mean, like that's. And there, it's not saying that he wasn't. It's just going to focus on the highlights. It's going to smooth over some of the rough edges a little better. And so, yeah, I think that's okay. To wrap this one up briefly, I just wanted to say, getting good at this and not doing the scripture war thing is where you get balance. Because we all are prone to one or two ditches. We talk about that a lot. And for some people it's the truth. And some people it's love. For some it's the faith. For some it's the works. And if you just always are wanting to hammer the verses for your side, when you're able to balance them and go, okay, these two can work together even though they seem to be contradicting ideas. Whether it's the sermon on the mount and turning tables, whether it's the sermon on the mountain killing Goliath, or whether it's faith and works and things like that, you get balance where it takes the side that you're not good at and levels it out with the other truth without just going, well, it does say that, but I've got this verse over here which actually leads us beautifully into our next one, which is a spin off of it. The mic drop, the. Oh, well, you've got that or, I mean, I've seen this before. Like, you wrote an entire book on that, and you researched this for two years, and you did all this stuff and, you know, wrote thousands and thousands of words. Well, did you ever think about this?
Yeah, bet you did.
[00:27:27] Speaker A: One verse reference.
[00:27:28] Speaker C: Like, oh, you know, have the. And there. There's a few different examples. Well, Joe was preaching one time and. Or teaching a Bible class, and he talked about. Yeah, well, the invit. You know, Joe's. Joe's views on the invitation after the sermon are pretty well out there. And they're also pretty biblical. Not out there.
What was I going to say? They're known. They're not, like, out there like crazy, but they're known. And I agree with you. It's not something you find in scripture. And, man, I just remember somebody in the classroom pulls out his Bible. You can just hear.
Hear the pages flipping. He points, and it holds his Bible up in points. Acts 237, 38. Men and brethren, what should we do? He didn't extend an invitation. Like, as if you draw the verse before. Yeah, like, kind of. Oh, wow. I got you there, buddy. Like, no, you don't, actually. Let's have a conversation. But, like. So you see this?
[00:28:17] Speaker A: It's a.
[00:28:18] Speaker C: This one verse. It's over. No, it's not.
[00:28:20] Speaker A: It's a disrespectful way to do it. I think this takes a different level than maybe some of these other ones. It's. I don't want to necessarily say arrogant, but in a way, it kind of is. Like, like you said. Bet you never thought of that before. Like, I promise you I have. I bring this up a good bit, but to me, it's still demonstrative of what we're talking about. When. When my dad, Brad here, posted about the. The women, you know, going and living the Instagram lifestyle and, you know, desiring marriage and, you know, maybe we should sear them towards marriage.
Literally 80% of the comments, first corinthians seven one. Well, Paul says in first corinthians 7171, corinthians seven one, or whatever the verse is. First corinthians seven might drop, might drop, might drop. So you clearly forgot about first corinthians chapter seven. And that's the type of thing we're talking about where.
Listen, it's okay to kind of counter a point with, well, how does. How do you. How do you kind of remedy that with this scripture? But there's a difference in kind of approaching it that way and then just kind of mic dropping it as Jack talked about in that example, or as we saw on Facebook, of like, well, bet you didn't think of this.
What you want to do is kind of look at it and say, okay, you're making this point. My interpretation of this scripture is that it's kind of countering your point. How do you answer that? How would you kind of remedy those two things? That's a much better way to go about it than just this whole mic drop thing.
[00:29:40] Speaker B: All I can think is that Trump meme.
[00:29:42] Speaker C: I didn't know that.
[00:29:43] Speaker B: I'm hearing this for the first time.
[00:29:45] Speaker A: That's so true.
[00:29:46] Speaker B: Are you telling me this for the first time?
Every single time? I think your arrogance point is spot on. Because every single time I hear this, it's like, please assume that the other person knows, even if they don't. Best practice is to assume that they know a little bit about this. And so you. You see, when you walk your way into this, so sorry.
[00:30:06] Speaker A: Then you can finish. You see it with the Calvin, the people who are trying to debunk.
[00:30:08] Speaker B: I was about to say I was about Calvinism is the. Is the.
[00:30:13] Speaker A: They've studied that verse. I promise you.
[00:30:15] Speaker B: You've got somebody like John Piper. Look, I don't agree with John Piper, but the guy's been studying the Bible for like, three times longer than I've been alive, man. Like, he's been around. Okay. He's seen these verses. Well, I bet you just haven't looked at this one. Like, I bet he has. And I bet he's written a commentary on that entire verse. So let's pretend that for a moment, let's just suspend belief that he's actually read this Bible verse before. The arrogance to come in and to go, yep. See, Calvinism. I can debunk tulip in five verses. Like, if you've ever spent any time actually digging into tulip and thinking, I'm not a calvinist, the thought that you can get away with it in five minutes and go, man, I bet they haven't seen this. They have answers for two. Peter, three nine. They have answers for. You know, they have answers for these things. Okay. Like, they. I may not agree with their answers, but they do have answers. And so, yeah, the mic drop moment. And, Jack, I've seen this on a lot of your posts on. On Facebook, is, again, you'll write a novel on something. You'll write this beautiful post, and it's very fleshed out and very good. And somebody will come in with one verse and it's like, once again, if you are this person. I'm just asking, please check the heart, check the arrogance.
You're not the end all, be all. And most of the time, the other person, if they've written any amount on this, probably has seen it so gingerly, walk into this one and go, I've seen this. I'm curious your thoughts on this verse. I'm sure you've run across it, whatever it is. And if they haven't run across like, whoa, that's really good. I haven't considered that. And if they have, you get their side of it. But to go see, you're wrong. Here's the verse. Please don't do that, Jack.
[00:31:44] Speaker A: Ref, Jack referenced the kind of baptism debates that people will do this and they'll do this with this one as well. The Romans ten, nine confess. We no mention of baptism, but with the thief on the cross as well, they'll might drop that one. I was like, well, what about the thief on the cross? I bet you didn't think of that one. And again, it's like, yes, we have. And so once again, I didn't know you didn't. Right, you're telling me. No, you get this from all different angles, again, from the conservatives to the less conservatives and from the less conservatives to the conservatives. Like, it's just to illustrate our point with this entire episode, this is just another very poor way to argue biblically. But Jack, did you have anything else to add or do you want to go and move us in?
[00:32:22] Speaker C: Yeah, just one more example. My kingdom is not of this world. There's a really popular one lately with the christian nationalism debate and stuff like that. Jesus said, my kingdom's not of this world. Like what does of mean? Like what is? Let's, let's discuss that. But I mean, to your point, I've had people literally just comment that verse reference or other verses just for different articles. They won't make a comment. They will just literally comment a verse reference. Like, well, this, like, yeah, I know now what I mean, it's just, it really is crazy.
[00:32:51] Speaker B: It breaks the church of Christ person's brain. I'm sorry not to call it church Christ, but it like breaks their brain to see that somebody else might view the Bible from a different perspective than them. Like, it really does. And I've had these conversations with those in the church, and I'm not saying it doesn't happen outside the church, but you come in with a different understanding of a verse that we've always seen. Like, have you considered from this angle? Like, well, that's just not the way that it is, like. But a lot of people take it this way. It doesn't mean they're right, but it means you do have to wrestle with the fact that I can look at that verse and come away with a different conclusion than you and not be heretical, not be, you know, completely off my rocker to have a different view of that particular verse. But, like, again, it breaks their brain to see that two people can view the same verse in a different way, and one doesn't necessarily have to be a heretic.
[00:33:35] Speaker C: There was a really popular book that essentially made the case that if you disagree with me, it's because you are ignorant or dishonest. And a lot of church Christ folks read that book. A lot of them know exactly what I'm saying.
That's so bad. Like even the most dyed in the wool Calvinist, it's not because they're dishonest or they're bad people or they're ignorant of their bible. I strongly disagree with their interpretation. I'm happy to say they are wrong about those things. But I mean, come on, don't treat people that way. Give people a little bit more credit there. So.
All right, we're gonna have to move on. This one actually comes up quite a bit as well.
That's Old Testament. And we mentioned the sermon on the mount earlier. A lot of the stuff in that is people go, well, it was different then. It was okay for them to do things like that, or we're really distancing ourselves from those things that happen in the Old Testament. But even last week we talked about childbearing. Be fruitful and multiply. We got a few times. Well, that's Old Testament, though. That's. That wasn't repeated in the New Testament. In fact, I just taught Bible class on this the other day. You guys were in there for the question of, does the Old Testament not apply unless the New Testament says it does? Or does the Old Testament apply until the New Testament says it doesn't?
I think it's the latter. It's that the Old Testament gives us so many great principles and commands and ideas and thoughts that the New Testament explains why we don't sacrifice anymore. The New Testament explains the Sabbath and circumcision and some of those things and changes them. But so many of the other things, the moral sense, the kind of who God is and what matters to him, his priorities and what he has instilled in us, that carries forward really well.
[00:35:15] Speaker A: Once again, I feel like this, not to keep using this word, but is a pretty lazy way to argue your way out of something if it's just, well, you know, that's Old Testament essentially. Lets discount whatever percentage of the Bible the Old Testament is. Its 39 of the 66 books. Well, we kind of have to discount that because thats in the old testament. We saw this as Jack referenced with the be fruitful, multiply, even though that is a creation order thing that was given at creation, just like marriage was, just like work was, and so many other things. The kind of command and purpose of a married couple having children was given right there at creation. But, well, that's Old Testament, so it doesn't really apply.
There are obviously things in the Old Testament that are no longer applicable to the way we live today. Look at a lot of the levitical law and things like that. But as Jack spoke to, those are not applicable because the New Testament has essentially told us that they're not applicable for various reasons. To just throw out all the principles in the Old Testament, to just throw out everything that we get in the Old Testament other than, well, it's a good, you know, there's a lot of good, good stories in there. There's a lot of good characters in there that we need to learn from and all these things, like, there's a lot more than that. And for you, for somebody to just, you know, say, well, the Old Testament is physical, New Testament is spiritual.
That's pretty lazy way to look at it when that's just not the case. When we're, I mean, we're taking the Lord's supper every single week. That's a pretty physical thing that I would say. Jody, what thoughts do you have?
[00:36:43] Speaker B: So this is a play devil's advocate, while at the same time making a point, I suppose you get into this where they look at mixing, what is it, linen and wool, they're gonna look at that and then they're gonna look at, let's see, homosexuality, they're gonna look at other things that I don't know that they want to get away with. And they're gonna equate the two and go with, see, this is Old Testament. Like, you stone the homosexual and you'd stone the person who, which I don't actually think is what it's called for, but they would throw out something like you'd stone the person who mixes wool and linen. I can't remember exactly the two. I think it is it wool and Lenin. Um, you're not supposed to like cross those when you're making these garments and such.
So, fellas, what are your thoughts on this? What, what would you say? Because this is where the Old Testament, this is kind of where this art of this argumentation lands and, and why it is difficult for the average person to work through is they go, okay, I don't really think it's wrong to mix those anymore. And so I feel like that's gone, done away with. And we don't necessarily see that in the New Testament where that particular part's been done away with. And so homosexuality is an easy one because you can go to romans one. So that, you know, from that sense I understand, like, we can, we can say that, but there's other things in the law that they may say, well, we're free from in this situation. So what would you say to that argumentation of those who kind of use the argument that they want what they want and, you know, they're using it, such as homosexuality or whatever it may be, and they're using the, like, I don't know what you want to call it, but kind of the, I don't want to call it ridiculous law because there's nothing ridiculous about it, but those that we would consider, like, way down on the, you know, there's murder and then there's, don't mix linen and water.
[00:38:20] Speaker A: Hierarchy, so to speak.
[00:38:21] Speaker B: Yes, the hierarchy. So, Jack, you're the one that's been teaching through this. What would you say to that argumentation for those that go, that's Old Testament.
[00:38:29] Speaker C: I mean, we said there are things that are left behind, obviously, some of the cleanliness laws and some of these things that were directed toward not being like the peoples around them or just things to separate them in that way, aren't really things that apply still today.
But there are principles of, you. Can you take that principle of not being worldly, not wanting to conform to the peoples of the world and dressing like them, or whatever it may be, that you can bring over and make broader application in those ways? And so some of the other things are repeated in the new testament that you were saying about, like homosexuality. It's much more direct. And I know it's not solely things that are repeated in the New Testament that we have to women's roles is.
[00:39:08] Speaker A: Another one that usually falls in that vein.
[00:39:10] Speaker C: Yeah. And so, but there's things that are based in creation order that were long before the law of Moses and things like that.
And so all that's there. One of the other things briefly on this is you just look at proverbs, how much practical use it has for day to day life and when you're just like, old Testament, that's like, that didn't change. None of that changed. It's basic human wisdom. And it is just so weird where it's kind of, because the New Testament really isn't as focused on some of those things. It does not follow people's day to day lives in the same way the new or the Old Testament did. It does not get into some of the nitty gritty the way the Old Testament did. And so it's very ecclesiastical. It's very much at the, looking at the church and how the church is supposed to operate, which is great. But as far as, as we always say, Monday through Saturday, you're going to get a lot more of that in the Old Testament.
[00:40:00] Speaker A: And this is why I love the Bible. There's so many different. You read through the psalms, you read through the proverbs, you're not getting a lot of that stuff in the New Testament. You can say, well, James and proverbs, sort of, but not really like you get. So you can get so many different things out of your Bible study, out of your just personal walk by looking at, as Jack spoke to all the wisdom principles and proverbs, you've got a whole book of ecclesiastes that's got a ton of great wisdom principles in there. You've got the psalms, you've got, I mean, we've been studying the levitical law and Bible class now for what, four or five months with Jack and Joe at our congregation. And so, you know, to just throw all that out with, well, that's Old Testament, so there's really not a ton we can do with. That is a bad way to argue. But, fellas, we are five. We have five left, and we're 40 minutes in.
[00:40:45] Speaker B: Let me just say this, because next one we're going to go through very, very, very quickly, because we discussed. Let me just say this on the mixing lens, this shout out, focus plus. This is all on focus plus. Oh, go check out our little bit of class and let us know what you think about it. But the mixing of the linens and such, the principle and Jack got. At this point, I wanted to come back around to that because you mentioned it quickly. The principle is don't mix that which is not supposed to go together. And back then, that's not supposed to go together for various reasons. When you study it, God has a reason. This is how homosexuality and those come together is don't mix that which is not supposed to go together. Two men are not supposed to go together. These are not supposed to go together. These animals are not supposed to go together. You're not going to cross breed these things. Um, you get all sorts of stuff of like, these things don't go together. And so the principle at Playdead very much applies. And anytime we throw out that's Old Testament, we just, we blow right. By any principle or anything as to why it says what it says. Go check out our class on focus. Plus next one, fellas. I believe number six, like I said, we talked about this before, so we're going to be be brief on this, but that is, you can't bind that or is it a sin?
This is a favorite one of a lot of people that I would say, Jackie, actually, you just had a great post on this that are spiritually mature, in my opinion. That doesn't make us the ultra mature people. And so don't get us wrong. Like, there's ways we're maturing still, but this is a rather immature approach to go, but can you bind that like good better best? We had an entire episode, so go back and check out our good, better best episode on it. I think that's just, it's the wrong question to ask when we're coming to, again, a biblical argumentation. We're coming to the Bible, we're coming to scriptures to discuss these things. That is the base level. Yeah, we want to know if it's a sin, but there's like multiple levels on top of that.
[00:42:21] Speaker C: We called the episode rejecting brain free Christianity for lack of a better title. But it's also just this idea of, like, I don't want to think. Just give me the list. Oh, it's not on the list. I don't want to talk about it. I'm not interested in good better best. I'm not. Just tell me if I have to. Tell me if I'm not allowed to. No, you've got to grow past that. So again, we did a whole episode on that and will, unless you have anything to add, figure we'll move on past that one.
[00:42:44] Speaker A: No, I'll just say if you're curious about our full thoughts, go. What was it, two months ago? Now somewhere in there, go. About 810 episodes back. You'll find it.
[00:42:51] Speaker C: Yeah, I was a fan of that one. Just a topic we're passionate about.
Hey, folks, I wanted to tell you about our new christian book combo. It's two books
[email protected]. dot. The first is Sunday school catch up. It's 150 bible basics. For those that maybe didn't grow up in the church or feel like they're lacking in the fundamentals of the Bible. And then starting line by Doctor Brad Harab and of course by will on that one as well, on the basics of the christian life, of what it means to be a Christian, to be part of the church, why the church does what it does, some doctrinal basics and things like that. And so with those two books, we've got them at a discount on our site when you buy them together. A great starter pack for anyone who wants to know more about the christian faith. So check that out
[email protected]. dot the next one is arguing with a closed bible. And this is common in especially like kind of nominal christians, people who are not real big church attenders. And this is one of those things I do want to pat the church of Christ on the back. We don't have a lot of people like this. There are some, but this is much more common in community churchianity and things like that. I don't think God would want me to.
Well, what does the Bible say? Or you just follow your heart and God will tell, no, no, that's what the Bible is for. Like, he has spoken to you, he has revealed himself through the scriptures, used them, and there's just a lot of bad ideas that can come out of that, of even just kind of assuming, you know, the character of God. And again, people who are just hammering the sermon on the mount or the fruit of the spirit, very good things. But it's like, so that means God wouldn't ever want me to disagree with somebody like, let's open the Bible and see what that has to say about that.
[00:44:32] Speaker B: I don't think God would want me to be unhappy. I've heard that so many times and I heard that from hockey buddies and such. I just don't think God want, like, okay, and this sounds mean, not to be judgmental here, but like, you haven't been in a church in four years and you're telling me that I don't.
[00:44:46] Speaker A: Think you don't get to speak to what God wants.
[00:44:48] Speaker B: Right. I don't think you know what God would want. Like you're. Because you're not doing anything else that God would want. So why would you say, I don't think God want me to be unhappy, to find happiness, to find what, you know, like, you can't speak from that perspective when you keep a closed Bible. Yeah, we ought to be prepared to open the scriptures. Obviously approach them appropriately as we're talking through the rest of these, the closed Bible approach is.
I agree with you, Jack Church. Christ, I think, does pretty well on this.
[00:45:12] Speaker A: It's interesting with this one, some of these other ones that we've talked about, the scripture wars, the mic drops, there's not really any emotion involved. It's all just, well, here it is. Here it is. Here it is. Even if it's misapplied, obviously, to me, this one is heavily emotion based.
You're not looking at anything from the text. Your Bible is close to the point. And so everything is based off of emotion. I don't think God want me to be unhappy or you're, you know, I've seen it where, you know, you're. You've got somebody who's maybe thinking of going down a path that they shouldn't go down, divorcing their spouse or whatever it is, and the support that they're given by maybe a family member or somebody is. It's all emotion based. Again, I'm. Well, I, you know, I think God would want XYZ. Or, you know, maybe God does, you know, has this in mind for you or whatever it is. It's like, okay, I appreciate that you're thinking spiritually here, but at the same time, you don't want to counsel somebody who might be about to get a divorce or somebody who might be about to make a big career change or whatever it is with a closed Bible with, you know, a heavily emotion based argument. So I don't have a ton to add to that. If you guys don't have anything else, one of you wants to. That was number seven, so we got three more to cover.
[00:46:20] Speaker C: Yeah, this next one, I'll just. There's not a lot to say on it, so I'll just cover it briefly. Debunked anecdotes, stories that are made up or things that.
So the one about the atheist professor is asking, can anybody prove God? And he gets embarrassed by a student, and that student's name was Albert Einstein. Like, we don't need to do that.
Or on Darwin's deathbed, he recanted the whole thing. Like, stick to things we can. I think the truth that we have is good enough that we don't need to rely on that thing that may or may not probably did not happen. But you do see things like that. This is one of those Facebook shares. Be very careful with the kind of things you share, the claims that are made, because when you share things that are untrue, it damages your ability to get people to listen to you. When you have things to say that are undeniably true are.
[00:47:10] Speaker A: That's a great point.
[00:47:11] Speaker C: So every one of those somebody shares just. Is a setback. So just covering that one briefly, we got two left.
Not knowing the other side's beliefs. This is really, really important. Who wants to jump in on that one?
[00:47:27] Speaker B: Sure. This is a. It starts with the phrase. So you're saying.
Right, you know, XYz. And a lot of times persons like. That's not at all what I'm saying. We just presume. There's a lot of presumption on this, on our part to just assume. Presume whatever you want to say. That's what they're saying. That's what they mean.
Listen to the other side. And we got into this a little bit with the calvinist perspective. Once again, for the third time, we're not Calvinists. We don't agree with Calvinism. But it does make a really good point in this particular episode as to how we approach actual Bible study when we don't know the other side. And when we assume that, again, they're dishonest and we assume that they have no idea what they're talking about. And so we don't really spend any time trying to understand their other side, we just jump to the conclusion like, so you're saying this. So you're saying that everybody's going to hell, uh, if, if, uh, God didn't choose, like, maybe that is what they're saying, but we need to flesh that out a little bit more before we just jump to the conclusion. Pigeons kind of, then people get really, really upset about that.
[00:48:29] Speaker A: It's kind of either intentional or unintentional. Straw man of setting up, uh, you know, so you're saying, da da da da. And again, some people can do that unintentionally just by maybe misreading or, you know, not applying it very well. There are a lot of people who do that very intentionally, who purposely take something that deep down they know that the individual is not really arguing. Again, I'm kind of thinking of Jack's writing and my dad's writing on social media where people will say, oh, so you're saying that single people are in sin, or, oh, so you're saying that a married couple that can't have kids, that something, that they're in sin, it's. That is a very malicious thing to do. That's a straw man argument that, you know, that that's not what they're saying, but you are setting that up as a straw man argument so that you can easily debunk it. That's. That's kind of what this one made me think of when, when, you know, not knowing the other side's belief is very much a. Can be an intentional thing to just kind of strike down their, their argument, if that makes sense.
[00:49:25] Speaker C: And even if you're right, it can make you look so bad to a neutral observer that you might lose them, uh, because they can tell you haven't done your research. You don't know what the other side says. Um, there's some really, we've talked about the new heaven, new earth thing, which some people are very tuned into, other people they don't care about at all, which, good for you, honestly.
But the idea that instead of disembodied, spiritual, eternal existence, it's going to be a physical, spiritual existence. And without getting into that too much, you see, some ridiculous claims that one of them was one of the anti new heaven, new earth people said, well, I I don't believe in that because I want to spend eternity with God. Like, yeah, they, they do, too. That's part of the plan here. Or, well, that just, uh, these are just materialistic people who don't want to get rid of, you know, give up the things of this life and don't want to go to heaven and be like, I don't know about you, but.
[00:50:22] Speaker B: I want to go to.
[00:50:23] Speaker C: Yeah, yeah, I want to go. Yeah. It's just total straw man. And as my good friends over at a certain. I'm saying that tongue in cheek over at a certain christian newspaper have done about 50 podcast episodes on christian nationalism and how dangerous and scary it is. They have not talked to one person who's a proponent of it. And it's just kind of like this. Again, you can beat up this thing. Oh, they're, they're wanting this. They're wanting that. Well, are they? Have you asked? Have you talked to them? Because I'm pretty sure they're not. But you, you can sound really great when they're not in the room to defend themselves. And so really, instead of doing this, it's really important to get into the habit of. And this is something that premarital counseling, hopefully, will teach you. Teach married couples, be able to say what the other person thinks in words that they will agree with, like, oh, so I understand you to be saying this, and if they say, no, don't argue back against that. Wait until you can say something. They're like, yes, that's what I'm saying. Then you've got it. Then you can understand how to address it. But when we're talking about interdenominational stuff, we're talking about intra church stuff, you've got to know what the other brother. You got to have enough respect and love for the other person to listen to what they're saying.
[00:51:34] Speaker A: That's all I was going to say is like, then you can go argue. Then you can, you know, go have the discussion about it. I, I'm the one two episodes ago who threw the, um, throughout the question that was on the outline that kind of threw us for a loop. I do have another one of those that I'll save till the end. I just want to kind of forewarn you guys. I've got another question I want to ask. It probably will nothing near as long as the therapy one did. But, um. Joe, did you have any other thoughts on this one or did you want to move us into number ten?
[00:51:58] Speaker B: Yeah, I think we can move into number ten. Um, and that is the denomination adjacent, I think is how you put it on here, Jack. Uh, you'd mentioned Calvinism, Holy Spirit, things like that. If I'm, I'm going to come across as bashing church Christ a lot on this one. This is something I get very frustrated with in the church of Christ, which is, if it even sounds denominational, just, nope, nope, cut it off. That, you know, we can't fully understand the working of the Holy Spirit, so we're going to relegate him to just the word. And we're not really going to discuss them too much because we just can't know. We really just can't know. So anything that comes close to, well, we're not holy rollers. Like, I'm not saying we're pentecostal. There's a huge difference between word only and pentecostal. I think there's a median middle ground here. We don't really want to discuss the middle ground because the moment you come off of maybe word only or whatever it is, is the moment that you start becoming pentecostal. That is incredibly hurtful. I feel like to those who are really trying to do a good Bible study, to pigeonhole everybody into, you're just going denominational, you just want to do this. Or you ask a question around Calvinism, you ask a question on like the foreknowledge of God and how much that plays into. Do we actually have free will? And you, what, you know what? That's just calvinist. No, engage the question. If you don't have an answer to the question, maybe do some research before you just send me down the river as this denominational person. That's, hey, give me two weeks and I'll be a Calvinist. No, but I have legitimate questions and it drives me nuts when we shut down biblical discussion because we don't want to look denominational. Like, let's stop being worried about that and start being worried about what the Bible actually says.
[00:53:36] Speaker A: I was just going to say, Joe, I think you did a sermon like a year and a half ago maybe about some of these things literally in the Bible, lifting holy hands. And I, you know, the end of James five talking about, you know, anointing with oil. And, you know, those are things that a lot of people, you know, that that's, that sounds pretty dominational. That sounds like you're moving in a certain direction. It's like that stuff is literally in the Bible or in the New Testament rather. So let's, let's have the discussion without just jumping to man. Kind of sounds a little bit like denominationalism there because there are things that you need to be careful of there. I think there is such a thing as a slippery slope of, you know, maybe you can't necessarily condemn mic and people up in the audience or something, but as all three of us have come out and said, we think that that kind of leads one place. Same thing with the praise team. All these things that we would not agree with. So this one, I think might have maybe a little bit more legitimacy than some of the others, but just discounting something off, you know, out of the. Just completely, without ever really engaging in it, just because, well, you know, that kind of sounds nominational. Look at it from the text and look at it from maybe other positions first before just making that your number one counterpoint, I guess.
[00:54:45] Speaker B: And, and what I'm referring to is biblical discussions like surrounding the will of God or the foreknowledge of God or the Holy Spirit, things grounded in scripture, micing somebody's like, well, we just want to do it because we think it's going to sound better. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Where is this scriptural argument for those things? I'm not saying that you can't, look, I'm not going to go into that discussion of hermeneutics and what we determine from it as much as to say this is shutting down good legitimate biblical discussion because it sounds denominational. I agree with you. There's absolutely a slippery slope. Like, well, what about, you know, women in a, you know, what about deaconesses and we go to romans 16? That's not where to discuss here. But you know, you can get into those things and that's, I think, I guess that is a biblical discussion. It's worth having the biblical discussion, but that is the point. It's worth having the biblical discussion. You can't just go up that denominational, shut it down. Maybe we get into it and go, okay, let's define terms. Let's discuss that. Let's get into the Greek, whatever it is, instead of just immediate wall goes up. That's denominational, never talk about it again. Like, that's what I'm railing against, Jeff.
[00:55:46] Speaker C: Is the important thing of not straw manning, as we said with the last point of, oh, sounds like Calvinism. Sound like the new heaven, new earth thing. Well, that sounds like Jehovah's witnesses and like they have something that sounds similar, but in the end it's incredibly different. And so just writing the whole thing off of like, oh, I've seen this before. No, you haven't actually. Pay attention. Make sure that it is what you think it is. But I mean, pattern recognition is a human thing to like, it's a blessing God gave us to protect ourselves, whether, you know, like physical protection of like, hey, this is an unsafe situation. Or like things like this, of doctrinal things like that, of just kind of the feel of, wait a minute, is this guy leading us astray? And so you got to be careful and hear it out. And sometimes if they can open up the scriptures and so show you in the scriptures, you might think, well, this sounds a little, well, okay, but Calvinists also have church buildings and pews. Calvinists also eat, drink, and sleep. I mean, like everything they do is not like a dangerous thing. There are certain things that it's okay to agree with them or do similarly, not because they do it, but because it's the right thing to do.
[00:56:49] Speaker B: All right, fellas, any other thoughts on this?
[00:56:51] Speaker C: Yeah, what's the. I think that wraps our list of ten. And so let's recap ten arguments not to use and then we'll will catch us off guard here flat footed with a question. So the first, don't be the tone police. Second, don't scripture spam. Third, don't engage in scripture wars. Fourth, do not do a mic drop. Fifth, do not just say, that's Old Testament.
6th, don't ask, is it a sin or can you bind that? 7th, don't argue with a closed bible. 8th, don't use debunked anecdotes. 9th, do not argue without knowing the other side's beliefs. And 10th do not just say it's denominational.
[00:57:31] Speaker A: Good stuff. I want to thank Jack too for putting this fantastic outline together, coming up with a lot of these and get.
[00:57:37] Speaker B: Those into a graphic on Facebook. Jack.
[00:57:39] Speaker A: Yeah, that'll be really good.
It should see what arguments are engaged in about this one.
[00:57:46] Speaker B: No.
[00:57:46] Speaker A: So my question is essentially, how aggressive do you think we as christians should be arguing about this stuff in general?
There are christians that are super argumentative.
There are christians that just want to jump up and be a keyboard warrior.
And whether it's in person, I guess I'm mainly referring to social media and kind of debates online and stuff.
How aggressive do you think people should be with that?
There's some stuff like with dad's post yesterday, one particular comment, I think it was one of the comments that actually said, well, we all know the Old Testament physical and New Testament spiritual. It's like, no, we don't. First of all, it makes me so frustrated. I just want to get on there and argue with whoever it is and say, well, no, you don't know what you're talking about.
Sometimes I find that less than useful, I guess, if that makes sense. And then better, for me in particular, just stay off of it. Jack, I know you engage with far more people than neither myself or Joe does. And so I'm just kind of curious y'all's thoughts on kind of the usefulness of this and how much should we be doing this arguing thing in general? Obviously, I think if we're trying to truly have a Bible study with somebody and convert somebody to Christ, maybe some of these things will come up. But as far as just the going back and forth on again, new heavens, new earth, or whatever it is online, or maybe even, I don't know, what are your guys's thoughts on how aggressive we should be with this kind of argumentative style in the first place, or should we just kind of try to steer clear as much as possible?
[00:59:23] Speaker C: You really got to know this is one of the hardest things of, like, what are first level, what are second level doctrines? And I'm not a fan of making everything first level, but some things are first level. And there are times where I've just kind of come out guns blazing because, like, you can't say this and lead a church and you can't come out and tell your people the Bible has contradictions. Therefore we can't really say anything about homosexuality or abortion. Like, retire your new career man. Like, that's not okay. On the other hand, there are things that I think are second or third level issues that some people think are first level, as we found out so strongly last summer. So, I mean, it really is going to come down to what you think is worth arguing over. But again, if you think every last matter of interpretation comes to that level, and, like, your, your circa fellowship is going to be about three people, and so you got to be careful on that. And, and within those things that are not like fellowship level threatening, realize these are your brothers. Realize these are people you're going to spend eternity with. Realize these are people. That is christian family. And as people have seen on the podcast, Joe and I can go at each other and like, really have it out. And, you know, we had people ask us in real life, are you guys okay? Like, we're family. We do this all the time. And then we got up and went.
[01:00:43] Speaker B: To the gym the next day with him.
[01:00:44] Speaker C: Literally, literally saw him the next morning. Like, all right, I get it, you know, like what, you see the game last night kind of thing.
[01:00:48] Speaker A: We're all working out extra hard just because. To work out the frustration.
[01:00:52] Speaker B: Yeah. Throwing the weights around it, Jack. Oh, sorry. That would hit you.
[01:00:55] Speaker C: Yeah, no, but it's just kind of like, it's okay to be passionate about these things, but you do have to keep that in mind. Like, this is my brother. This is somebody I love and I'm told to love and care about and, and all of those things. So I was talking about christian brothers, you know, as well.
[01:01:11] Speaker B: Oh, sorry. Touch.
Feeling good. Feel warm, man.
[01:01:15] Speaker C: Let's not get too squishy here.
But, yeah, so it's you, you do have to, like, keep those distinctions in your mind. But I think it's. I love that people are passionate. I just think you have to be measured with your passion.
[01:01:29] Speaker B: What I was going to say is, I am usually, I don't jump on very many. Usually when I do, it's usually for other people. Like, it's not for that person. Look, their mind is made up. They're not going to. There's some things, as Jack said, you can't let stand, and it's not, it has nothing to do with that person. They're not changing their mind. It's for everybody else reading it that I want them to know there is a second side to this that they do need to consider. So sometimes it is for the 50 people that are going to see this thread that are going to go, oh, that's an interesting argument. Like, yeah, but there's another side of it that you really need to consider as well. I think those are worthy of engaging in when it is for the, you know, I hate to say, like the little children type of thing, but you know what I mean? Like, the people that are going to come along that don't necessarily know both sides, and they go, wow, that must be the way that it is. Like, nah, hold on, hold on. There's a second side to this. So, you know me, I rarely get into those, if at all, because I do find that arguing with people have better luck one on one. And I don't call people out one on one too much. I just, you know, I enjoy talking to people as, as my job is. But, um, yeah, online, rarely does it ever change the person you're arguing with. Therefore, I would say, if it's going to harm somebody else, comment on it, in my opinion.
Yeah, that's my, yeah, Will.
[01:02:45] Speaker A: Yeah, my thought.
My thought is kind of largely, I don't think I've ever necessarily seen anybody change their mind. I've seen some good discussion come out of it and, you know, maybe cause some people to think. And so that's, that's probably a good thing.
I just think largely overall, there's not a lot of mind changing. There's a lot of, because the other thing is, I don't necessarily agree with all the people that are like, man, what are people gonna think of the church of Christ if we, they just see all of us arguing online all the time? It's like, there's a bit of that that makes sense, but then some of that's also like, okay, but if there's stuff that needs to be called out, we need to call it out regardless of what other people are gonna think. And so that's one of those, like, it's partially true, partially not, in my opinion. So, yeah, I was just, the reason I brought that up is just because it's like, man, there's a lot of these kind of arguments that are used. How aggressive should we be with this arguing in general? And I think, I think in person, I think I would say you're going to have better luck, most likely. You can, you can read body language, you can read tone, you can read all those things a whole lot better as opposed to, you know, on a Facebook thread or whatever. And I think the other thing is, people are way more confident to use these bad Bible arguments online when, you know, it's a little bit maybe in.
[01:03:54] Speaker B: Person, they're going to be, exactly.
[01:03:57] Speaker A: They're not going to get called out necessarily near as much as they were if it was a Bible class or in person, all these things. So in a general. I mean, it makes for great content, great reading, enjoyable content online, I would say. But when it comes to changing people's mind about the Bible or really trying to, you know, help them understand, like, that's a very poor way to study or anything like that, I don't see a lot of use for it. It's just. But then again, I think instilling some kind of discussion online and really kind of stoking that can be a good thing, too.
[01:04:27] Speaker C: So I do it a lot. Not for the person I'm arguing. I mean, obviously I have a point. I would hope they would come around or agree. It's for the people reading a b. It might be people who agree with me. I know you're saying that, but, like. But people who agree with me need to be told, hey, it's okay to believe this.
[01:04:45] Speaker A: Yeah. Like, other people believe this, too.
[01:04:46] Speaker C: It's not a heretic.
[01:04:48] Speaker A: Yeah.
[01:04:48] Speaker C: So. Right.
[01:04:49] Speaker B: You're not alone.
[01:04:49] Speaker A: That's a good point. That's a good point.
[01:04:51] Speaker C: So.
[01:04:51] Speaker A: That's all I had. That's. Yeah, yeah.
[01:04:54] Speaker B: Good question. Good question. It's. It's a riveting discussion. If you have more to add, if you disagree, obviously comment, let us know. But if you miss.
[01:05:01] Speaker A: If we missed one, one that you dealt with.
[01:05:04] Speaker C: Yeah, that's right.
[01:05:05] Speaker B: And we'll. We'll add it to the next time we record one of these. I was gonna say, jack, you should do just say the top ten. And that makes it sound like there's like 50 of these out there.
And then people go, what's next? Like, I know these are the ten, but I'm sure there are probably others out there. A lot of this comes down to logical fallacies. I think that's something that we learned. Mom made us learn in school, and I'm very grateful for, even though I make some of those myself, I'm not great at it. But, Jack, you're well versed in logical fallacies. Everybody kind of needs to study those, but it's just dangerous when you bring it to the scriptures. We want to make sure that we're all about following Christ and following the scriptures as much as possible and being honest in our approach to them. And so that's all this is. And again, we'd love to know your thoughts, so make sure to comment those in the deep end. Please get your comments in before Wednesday night. We will. We'd love to address those. And if you're not part of the deep end, join the deep end. You'll get an extra. I think we just recorded, what, 40 minutes? Another 40 minutes episode. I mean, seriously, you're almost getting two. Two episodes a week of your comments mainly made up of your comments if you want to get them in. So just another shout out to focus plus. But, fellas, anything else before we wrap up? All right, we will talk to you again next week. Thanks for listening.
