A few weeks ago, I wrote about the Perspicuity of Scripture, that is, the clarity of Scripture. As comments and feedback came back from that post, I wanted to take this idea to another level. The Bible isn’t merely clear; it is precise. It is very specific and for the most part, it doesn’t leave a lot of room for leeway or “other interpretations.” I get a LOT of kickback when I say this, and it’s always from those who want Scripture to be open to their ideas. I’ve even had people try to cite 2 Peter 3:16 to show that “Scripture is hard to understand,” and they don’t cite actually hard to understand passages but easy ones like Creation. But when Scripture says it is hard for some to understand, who is it addressing? Unbelievers who seek to distort the Bible from what it actually teaches. When I pointed this out to one such person, he got very quiet about it and didn’t go back to that point. Paul makes the argument that the reason why Scripture is unclear to someone is because it is spiritually discerned, and you will never understand it in the natural mind.
But that said, many unbelievers do understand what the Bible says all too well. Samuel Clemens is noted for saying, “Many people are disturbed by the parts of the Bible they don’t understand. I find I am disturbed by the parts I do understand.” Even Richard Dawkins understands the Gospel. He knows that the Bible teaches a 6-day creation, and that Adam is believed to be responsible for the sin of the world. He knows that Jesus died believing that, too. He is an adamant denier of the Bible, but he knows what it says. I say that knowing that he actively and intentionally misrepresents God in his arguments, but when he speaks against the compromisers, he gets it right. The Bible is precise.
This is a vital doctrine to engage with in this Christian life. We are in a war, whether we want to realize it or not. If we reject the precision of Scripture, its authority, its accuracy, its clarity, its sufficiency, its inerrancy, etc., then we are sitting ducks for the enemy to pick off at will. A few weeks ago I was listening to John MacArthur’s series on the Armor of God and specifically on the Sword of the Spirit. I have my own teaching on that, using the sport of fencing as a visual aid, and MacArthur brought a point that really caught my attention. It’s something I’ve used before but not quite articulated as clearly. To combat the false teachings, the lies, and the temptations we face, we must use Scripture precisely.
Let me use fencing to illustrate this point. In fencing, the body is divided into four areas we call lines. To defend that line, we have specific parries (moves) that protect that area of the body, and then each parry has a riposte (an attack immediately following a defensive parry). We stop an attack and then respond with an offensive attack. Now, if our parries are too big, then we lose the chance to riposte and we also make it too easy for our opponent to disengage and get around our defense. But if the parries are too small, they won’t stop the attack.
The same is true with Scripture when facing false teachings and the spiritual forces of darkness. We must know how our “sword” is used and know precisely where and when to use it. How can we use our best weapon if we don’t believe it works? And how can it work if it’s not precise? How can Scripture be used as the standard for truth of it’s not precise? Scripture is precise when it says, “Man does not live by bread alone.” It is precise when it says, “March around the city once for six days.” It is precise on the instructions for building the Tabernacle and the Temple. Moses spends nearly half the book of Exodus describing the Tabernacle. The genealogies are extremely precise, so precise that I’ve heard of account of tribes in Africa immediately accepting the Gospel because of the accuracy of its genealogies. It is precise on what it means to be a Christian. It is precise on origins. It is precise on every topic it speaks on.
Yet, if we reject the precision of Scripture, then any use we make of it will miss the mark. The devil knows Scripture, and he knows when you are using it correctly or when you aren’t. Trust me, I know this from first-hand experience. I know what Scripture says, but it’s not enough to just know what it says. You have to know it in its power. Jesus knew Scripture in its power. That’s why He succeeded in refuting the temptations thrown at Him from the devil and the attempted tricks of the Pharisees. Jesus relied on the precision of Scripture to handle them.
I hear so many people proclaim they believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, yet when I listen to them argue, they do not accept the clarity of Scripture or the precision of Scripture. The “inerrancy” they believe tends to be not in Scripture but their ideas of it, all the while trying to pin that charge on those who actually believe Scripture. My friend Allen Dunckley, in response to my post on perspicuity, stated that false teachers depend upon the lack of precision and perspicuity of Scripture. That’s how they get their lies in. Whether it be Deep Time ideas, moral issues, indulgences, Prosperity Gospel, or enneagrams, “Christian Yoga,” “Progressive Christianity,” or whatever. There is always a question on the precision of Scripture.
That was Satan’s first lie: “Has God indeed said?” You better know what God said if you are going to be able to answer this, because if you don’t, you are doomed. Satan has had such great success in this field over the last two hundred years just by getting the majority of Christendom to question what the word “day” means in the creation narrative. The Bible is precise, and God did not leave that basic fact up for debate. Yet the deception is so strong that it’s even overtaken some of our good men. Why? Because it has been deemed a “secondary issue” and as a result, they turned the whole Bible into a free for all, either by they themselves or by the next generation.
If you are going to survive the persecution to come, you had better know Scripture and beyond that, know the God of the Scripture. You had better be well trained in the spiritual weapons we have. The bulk of the opposition won’t be coming from oppressive governments but from within our ranks. Be ready.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Steve Risner
Last time, I discussed the strawman fallacy and why no one should ever use it, but we all tend to on occasion. You can read about that here if you’re not familiar with it. What I’ve been doing is going over a post in a group I’m a member of where another member (an unbeliever) tried to explain to creationists some things they should avoid doing when debating about origins. We had preaching, circular arguments, and the ad hominem argument, followed lastly by the strawman. I gave a few examples of strawman arguments that unbelievers use against creationism and explained very briefly why they are, in fact, strawman arguments. But in the post I’m drawing content from, this person also gives 5 examples of strawman arguments he says creationists use too often. As I said last week, creationists do, in fact, use strawman arguments sometimes. That is because everyone uses them on occasion.
Today I wanted to begin looking at his examples and explain them a bit. Some will likely be more fun and informative than others. Here goes:
1. EVOLUTION IS ‘ONLY’ A THEORY. True, but the ‘only’ implies a theory to be something inept or suspect. However, a theory in the scientific context does not mean a simple supposition. A scientific theory is one that has been rigorously tested and, so far, has passed all tests and, importantly, all these tests are in the public domain for anyone to scrutinize and challenge with equally testable alternatives.
I like this one because it’s complex. This is because while the idea that “evolution is only a theory” is an argument often used by creationists, it’s not true in the real sense of what a theory is. Using his own definition/explanation for what a theory is, we can see evolution does not even meet that standard. Let me explain.
A theory begins as an idea—a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation made based on limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. Darwin published a book in 1859 that hypothesized life and its diversity erupted from a common, less complex ancestor long ago. He wrote in a letter that he believed life may have begun in some warm little pond. In essence, he believed that pond scum changed over time into people and everything else we see alive around us. This was a hypothesis because at that time, it had very little evidence and required more investigation. However, how difficult is it to investigate past events? In this case, we’re talking about past events that allegedly happened millions or billions of years ago under conditions we have very little understanding of.
Over time, a hypothesis can gain support after a great deal of experimentation and testing. How do you test if fish evolved into amphibians? How do you test if reptiles are descendants of amphibians (older, simpler reptiles, of course and not today’s modern reptiles)? How do we test if a common ancestor existed that connects humans and other “higher” apes several million years ago? There is literally no way to test these assertions. They happened in the past under conditions and for reasons we cannot possibly know.
After a hypothesis gains a great deal of support, it may begin to be referred to as a theory. This is because the idea accommodates most (if not all) of the available information, it has been rigorously tested, and there is no other viable explanation for whatever the hypothesis claims. In other words, the idea seems to explain a lot, was tested a lot and passed all the tests, and there’s no other way to explain the phenomenon. Is this true of universal common descent (what some simply call evolution)? Not by a long shot.
Sir Francis Bacon, the father of modern science and the scientific method, would be a good person to look into. He developed the scientific method as we know it today. His description of how science works looks like this: Observation leads to induction which leads to creating a hypothesis. Once we have a hypothesis, we test that hypothesis by experiment. This will either lead to proof the hypothesis was correct or disproof. Once we reach this point, we often can make knowledge claims. Where does universal common descent fall in here?
Many evolutionists will, at this time, employ the classic “bait and switch” fallacy. The specific type of bait and switch is usually the motte and bailey fallacy which I covered here. In short, you say one thing (like evolution meaning small observable changes in a population over time) and then switch your meaning to something else (like evolution meaning the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form). This happens in nearly all (not all but pretty close) conversations I’ve had with evolutionists. This is a logical fallacy and it is deceptive, although often times I believe the evolutionist doing this is unaware they’ve done it. They’re usually parroting what they’ve read or heard others say. If creationists would make sure to point out this fallacy whenever it is used, it might go a long way. However, evolutionists may counter with the idea that small changes in a population over time is what leads to extremely large changes over deep time. This is not true and, again, is just extrapolation or speculation. Small incremental steps cannot account for huge leaps.
But the size of the change isn’t even the most important part of the objections to universal common descent. Untold amounts of information must be added to the genetic code for the “simplest” life forms like single celled organisms to evolve into “higher” life forms like hawks, horses, dogs, or eventually humans. There is no natural process of any kind that can add specific, complex information into the genetic code, creating new functions or anatomy. Any example given is generally a loss of information or a regulation change of some sort.
Universal common descent is not a scientific theory. Adaptation and genetic drift would qualify as science since we see extremely small changes in some populations of organisms over time. These changes are generally due to epigenetics, degenerative mutations, and population isolation among other things. These things are known to occur. What we don’t know and cannot know is if that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source, which itself came from an inorganic form. This is the definition of the General Theory of Evolution as stated by Dr. Gerald Kerkut.
Creationists have frequently pointed out that the topic of origins, while important and interesting, is not a scientific field. It cannot be. It’s philosophical or religious in its scope and can be supported with science, but it itself is not a scientific inquiry no matter how badly evolutionists want it to be. Evolutionists will occasionally hint at this sort of thing but it’s sometimes by accident. The program on PBS called Evolution said this: “The evidence for Evolution is all around us, if we choose to look for it.” This was marvelous! They’re stating that the evidence doesn’t speak for itself, but one needs to choose to accept what evolutionists say it says. We’ve been saying this for years. Creationists and evolutionists have always had the same evidence. We choose to interpret it based on our preconceived ideas and worldview. This is impossible to overstress.
For those who want to believe that science and evidence are unbiased, we need to review something that Dr. Richard Lewontin, an outspoken evolutionist himself, said in 1997: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
That quote is what an honest evolutionist looks like. Unfortunately, it was likely only for a moment, but it’s refreshing to hear an unbeliever who understands the debate for what it is—a debate over worldviews. I believe an accurate paraphrase of his statement would be this: “Even if it seems ridiculous to do so because it has failed so miserably so often and the conclusions we draw are so absurd, we must draw them from a materialist position. Even if it’s extremely obvious that another explanation is as good or even much better, we cannot allow anything of the supernatural into our thinking. Science doesn’t demand this but we, the scientists, do.”
Is universal common descent only a theory? No. It’s not really a scientific theory at all. The genetics associated with biological entities and their minute changes over time generally are. But beyond that, it’s pure speculation. Creationists have warned other creationists for many years not to use the argument that “Evolution is only a theory.” But this is because it elevates the General Theory of Evolution to something far more than it is. I’ve run out of space here, so we’ll say goodbye until next time when we’ll be looking at how a species changes in our next addition. Thank you sincerely for reading.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
“In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.” -Hebrews 1:1-4
As I wrote about last week, we do not know who wrote the book of Hebrews. But whoever the author is, he starts right in with some great theology! While Hebrews is generally considered to be a letter, it doesn’t start out with the usual letter format of initial greetings, including who is writing and who is the intended audience. Instead, the author starts right into Jesus and His saving work.
The author begins by telling his readers that God is active; He has spoken, and He still speaks. This is a common theme throughout the Bible, starting all the way back in Genesis 1:3 when God spoke light into existence, and He continued speaking the rest of our world into existence throughout the Creation account. God spoke to Moses in the burning bush, God spoke to Elijah in a still, small voice, God spoke to Isaiah in the temple, etc. God can convey His message to His people in a variety of ways, and speaking is just one of the ways we see God communicating with us.
This initial phrase in verse 1 of explaining how God spoke to “our ancestors” is one of the ways that the audience of this book may be identified. All of these people to whom God had spoken (at least as far as we have record of) would have been of the nation of Israel, so the author and readers of this book were likely Jewish, hence the name of the book as Hebrews.
The author builds on the past speaking of God and shows that still continues today. The phrase “in these last days” in verse 2 may sound to our ears like the author thinks the end of the world may be upon them. But that phrase is more literally translated as “on the last of these days.” This phrase is found in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) where it refers to the time of the Messiah. Here in this context, it means that we are now living in the new age where the Messiah, Jesus, has come. This connects the times of old where God spoke through the prophets and the current time of the letter where God spoke through His Son Jesus.
Next, the author goes on to explain who this Son of God is. He gives 8 different truths about this Son:
1. He was appointed as heir of all things (verse 2)
2. God made the universe through Him (verse 2)
3. He is the radiance of God’s glory (verse 3)
4. He is the exact representation of God’s being (verse 3)
5. He sustains all things through His word (verse 3)
6. He provided purification for sins (verse 3)
7. He sat down at the right hand of God in heaven (verse 3)
8. He became superior to the angels (verse 4)
What do all these mean?
Jesus has been appointed as heir to all things. This shows us that Jesus holds a supreme place in the ruling of the universe. It may seem unusual that He was “appointed” to this role; we would think that the Son would automatically be the heir. But this active verb shows us that God is actively acknowledging Jesus as the heir.
God is the creator, but we know that Jesus was present at Creation and involved in the process. We see this in John 1:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, and Colossians 1:16. The word used in Greek here for “the universe” also refers to time rather than just the physical world we see around us. Jesus has been involved in Creation and all of time.
Jesus is the radiance of God’s glory. The word used for “radiance” can also mean a shining forth of brightness or a reflection. Jesus shines forth with God’s glory, and He is a reflection of that glory as well. We see the glory of God through the person of Jesus.
The Greek word translated as “exact representation” is actually spelled like “charakter,” and this is the only time it is used in the New Testament. This word originally referred to an instrument used for engraving, then it referred to a mark stamped on that instrument, like the impression of a die. We see the being or essence of God in the person of Jesus as we would see the impression made from a die.
The idea of Jesus sustaining all things is not like simply holding up the universe, but it has the idea of carrying it along and helping it toward a goal. God did not just create the world through Jesus and then let it go and do its own thing; rather, Jesus is actively working in this world. His Word is active and powerful in this world.
The concept of Jesus providing purification for sins is central to this book. This is why Jesus came to earth - to deal with the problem of mankind’s sin. We will see this concept much more as we continue our journey through Hebrews. The word “purification” can be used in the sense of a ritual cleansing, but it can also refer to the removing of sin from our lives.
After Jesus’ purifying work was done, He “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” The sitting posture shows that that person is resting after their work is done, and the right hand is the place of honor. This phrase tells us that Jesus’ work was done, and because of that, He now has the place of highest honor in heaven.
Finally, even though Jesus has always been superior to the angels, the writer tells us He “became” superior because of the work that Jesus did. He was always God, then He became man to defeat sin once and for all, and then He came back to heaven as much superior to the angels because of what He did on earth. His name is even more important now that He has accomplished His atoning work.
So what does all this mean for us today? This magnificent Jesus that the writer of Hebrews tells us all about is the same Jesus who provided salvation for us. We have the amazing opportunity to be in relationship with God because of Jesus’ work. Give God the glory for that by living your life for Him today!
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
“What does your heart tell you?”
This is one of the most common ideas in our modern society and perhaps the deadliest, too. You can’t escape a Disney movie without hearing this and yes, this even got into “The Chosen” when Jesus is helping Nicodemus process His dialogue with him. So while I do like “The Chosen,” it does miss some things. Whenever you hear or ask the question, “What does your heart tell you?” another way you can rephrase this is, “What do you want heard?” It is very dangerous to seek your own heart on any matter because it is deceitful and wicked. Some translations say “desperately wicked.” The prophet Jeremiah even goes as far as saying that you can’t even know your own heart.
Jeremiah had to deal with this issue later in his ministry. After Babylon came and finally conquered Jerusalem, a series of events took place. A man named Johanan warned the appointed governor of an assassination plot, and the governor, Geldidiah, didn’t listen. Johanan went after the assassin but couldn’t catch him. As a result, the fear of a Babylonian retribution, smothered the place. So Johanan went to Jeremiah to seek the Lord about whether they should flee to Egypt or not. Jeremiah spent ten days seeking God out and came back with a message saying, “Stay in Jerusalem and you will be well taken care of” (my paraphrase). Johanan rejected this message and accused Jeremiah of not getting this from God and instead from Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe and servant. He then organized the people and fled to Egypt, forcing Jeremiah to come with them.
Did they just fear Babylon so much that they didn’t trust God? Keep in mind, the whole time Babylon was invading, all the prophets except Jeremiah were proclaiming peace and victory and that Babylon would be repelled. They were proclaiming that God had their back, and then Jerusalem fell. People would have been disillusioned. They could have blamed God for it, or they would have done what many “Word of Faith” people do: accuse the people of lacking the faith for deliverance. But when they get to Jerusalem, we see the real motivation behind rejecting God’s word. This is found in Jeremiah 44.
Jeremiah rebuked them for fleeing to Egypt because Babylon was going to come and conquer Egypt too; this time, there would be no escape. There was no other nation to flee to. The people said (again paraphrasing): “Back in Jerusalem, we worshiped the idols and we had everything we ever needed. When we stopped worshiping them (such as in Josiah’s revival and cleansing), we have had nothing but trouble. So we are going to go back to worshiping our idols, namely to the ‘queen of heaven.’ We will fulfill our vows to our idols.” Let me translate the meaning behind this: “Things were going just fine when we worshiped our idols just as when we worshiped your God. When we left the idols to worship your God, all this trouble came. We won’t listen to you or your God. We made promises to our gods and we will hold to them.”
Jeremiah’s response was in essence, “God’s promise was for those who went willingly into captivity to Babylon and to those who survived and stayed in Jerusalem. But you who disobey God still will perish from the very thing you fear (Babylon) here in Egypt and you will not go back home.” The people wanted to hear what they wanted to hear. They rejected what God actually said and went with what they wanted to do from the get-go. They got what they asked for, to go to Egypt and escape Babylon at Jerusalem, but they also got what came with it: doom, destruction, and no escaping Babylon anyway.
This encounter in Scripture reminds me of Paul’s warning to Timothy that many people were going to reject him and reject Christ because the people would no longer listen to sound teaching and instead pile up for themselves teachers who would tell them what they want heard. Johanan did not actually want to hear what God had to say. He wanted what he wanted to come out of Jeremiah’s mouth. This was Ahab’s problem too. When he was deciding if he was going to war with Syria, he sought to get Jehoshaphat to come with him. All his prophets said to go and he would win. Jehoshaphat knew better and asked for Micaiah to give a real word from God. Micaiah was told what Ahab wanted to hear and the prophet refused to say what was wanted to be heard. He said he would say what God said to say.
We live in times where people do not want to hear truth. They want to hear their ideas coming out of your mouth to “validate” their ideas. And they especially want to hear it coming out of the mouths of Christians. This is one of the reasons why so many false teachers and false converts seek to be in a church where sin is not addressed. They know they are in sin (God does not let someone hide from that fact), and they want someone who is supposed to represent God to tell them they are okay just as they are. This is one of the reasons why I think so many “militant atheists” come to harass Christian and Creation groups, or why those who practice homosexuality constantly berate believers. It’s not because they actually have anything to show us that we are wrong. They really want us to admit we are wrong or to give anything that showcases that we don’t follow what we claim to teach. They are looking for reasons not to have to listen to us and to God. They don’t want “discussion,” so don’t try to give it to them. This is why the numerous false teachings I have addressed throughout the years are so popular - they will allow you be religious without actually having to submit to the truth. And the real challenging part is that some will proclaim to teach the “core doctrines” when what they actually teach is nothing of the sort.
There are two things we can learn from this event in Jeremiah. 1) Not all who come to you for advice are actually looking for your advice or knowledge. They are looking for you to tell them what they want to hear. Tell them the truth whether they will accept it or not. 2) When seeking advice, don’t fall for the trap of trying to get someone to tell you want you want to hear. Be willing to listen to rebuke. If you really don’t want to hear someone’s advice, don’t ask for it. Don’t waste their time or yours. Instead, let us take God’s advice. It will often seem counter-intuitive, but it’s always the right thing to do. If the people of Judah had followed God from the start and not ever turned to their idols, they would have remained in their homes. But because they loved their idols more than God, they lost both. Again, take note of that. Those who kept hold of their idols lost both the True God and their idols, as will be the case of all people in churches who follow false doctrines. They will miss the True God, and they will miss out on what they sought to get. So don’t follow them. Follow God and God alone.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Steve Risner
After a short hiatus, we’re back at it here. We were looking at the advice given in a post in a group on Facebook, which is dedicated to the creation/evolution debate. This particular unbeliever wanted to help creationists debate better, so he gave us a short list of things he thinks we should avoid doing. So far we have discussed preaching, circular reasoning, and the ad hominem attack. Today’s topic is the strawman. We’ve briefly discussed strawman arguments before. Let’s go over what that is and why it’s not a good thing. We’ll follow up with some examples and how to deal with them.
The strawman argument is defined as a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted but instead replaced with a false one. In other words, a person misrepresents another person’s argument, so it is easier to refute. I guess it is fair to say that not all strawman arguments are intentional. You would like to think that none of them are intentional since it means the person doing so is being dishonest. But a lot of the time I think a person may honestly think how they are representing someone’s argument is valid. However, a great deal of the time this happens, it is because the person was lazy or didn’t really care enough about the other person’s argument to investigate it fully. Either way, a strawman is a bad thing.
We find people making caricatures of other people’s arguments all the time and then refuting this childish version of the person’s argument. Now, this person who has advised creationists to not do this is correct—we shouldn’t do this. I think creationists do this often. Some of us are ill-informed about the Big Bang or universal common descent. This is quite often true because most of us are laypeople. Some of us are not academically trained in these topics, so we may think things about them that technically aren’t true but are sometimes true in the grand scheme of things. But, a good debater will point out your error. If he or she is gracious or truly wants you to understand, he or she will lovingly correct your error by pointing out what the truth is and showing you why what you said is incorrect. Most of the time, in my experience, it’s rare for an unbeliever to want you to understand their position. They just want to make you look and feel stupid.
A common strawman argument that creationists put out there to topple goes something like this: “If humans evolved from chimpanzees, why are there still chimpanzees?” This is not what adherents to universal common descent believe. They believe that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor that split about 5-7 million years ago (depending on who you read). Universal common descent is generally not linear (this evolved into this, which evolved into this, etc.) but very branching, generally going from simpler to more complex over time. Eventually, a population would have acquired traits that would allow them to survive in a particular niche wherever it is they are found.
There are many others that I commonly see when reading online. It’s disheartening to see some of them often, as some are very good at pointing out how little the person actually knows about the topic. However, unbelievers do this very often as well. It is very difficult to find a person who does not believe in creationism as described by the Bible who represents it accurately. In fact, I cannot think of anyone offhand who does. Sometimes a person may get a little piece of it correctly, but even that’s rare.
A short list of examples of the strawmen that unbelievers present to creationists is as follows:
“Creationists don’t believe a species can change. Since we can scientifically observe that a species can change, creationists reject science.”
A short response: Creationists understand that organisms can have variety. We understand that, due to population isolation, degenerative mutations, epigenetics, and other things, a population can demonstrate small changes in its phenotypical expression (how its genes interact with the environment, making the organism appear as it does). Creationists obviously believe in science since creationists invented the modern version of it.
“Creationists don’t believe a mutation can be beneficial. Since we know some mutations can be beneficial, creationists are willfully ignorant.”
A short response: Creationists do think a mutation can be beneficial or not beneficial. If it wasn’t, it likely wouldn’t stick around too long. We do not believe a mutation can add new information, creating a new anatomical or physiological structure. The Lenski experiment showed after many thousands of generations, colonies of E. coli are still E. coli, and that supports this idea. Some of the E. coli demonstrated a mutation that stopped a regulatory process, causing that process to be uninhibited. This made it easier for the E. coli to survive in the artificial environment they were placed in. However, under normal circumstances in their environment, this would actually cause them to be less able to compete and they would soon no longer express this mutation.
“The Bible teaches the earth has literal pillars and corners and other ancient ideas about the earth and cosmology.”
A short response: The language of the Bible is often literal but does contain figures of speech. We use similar figures of speech today. We say the sun rises when, in fact, it does not move; the earth is moving. We say “the four corners of the earth” when we know the earth is a sphere. There are many other examples. This doesn’t mean we’re unaware of reality. It means we use figures of speech or say things in a way that would be understood.
“Creationists think the Flood was real and that water covered Mt. Everest. There’s not enough water to do that. Where did all the water go?”
A short response: Creationists do not believe Mt. Everest existed before the Flood, so we obviously would not believe it was covered by water. There is more than enough water on and in the earth to cover the surface to a great depth.
“Creationists think Noah took 2 of every species onto the Ark. There are almost 9 million different species and even more that are extinct. There is no way a ship the dimensions of the Ark could hold 18,000,000+ animals and no one could feed them for that long.”
A short response: We do not believe “species” were taken onto the Ark. We believe “kinds” were taken on to the Ark. Several species may have differentiated from one created kind. Worst case estimates, based on the best research thus far, shows us there may have been as many as 7,000 animals on the Ark. That’s a lot, but not too much for 8 people to care for, especially since most of the animals were very small, and some wouldn’t require a great deal of work like many reptiles.
There are so many more examples. These were just off the top of my head. I hope that, to any reader who knows anything about what Biblical creationists believe, we can all see how these arguments are strawman arguments. I also hope we might be able to identify such arguments in the future and respond appropriately.
The strawman argument is to be avoided by everyone all the time in any argument. As with the other bits of advice from this unbeliever, it’s no more applicable to creationists than anyone else. I find that a very large portion of strawman attacks are directed towards creationism. Creationists commit this logical fallacy as well. I think we would all do ourselves some favors and really save a great deal of time if we’d take the time to understand our opponent’s position before mounting a rebuttal towards it. In the case of an intentional strawman attack, I have no idea why anyone would lie to attack a position. It means you know you’re incorrect, so it becomes a matter of willfully believing something you know is false. It’s very weird.
Paul tells Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:2, “Be ready to spread the word whether or not the time is right. Point out errors, warn people, and encourage them. Be very patient when you teach.” This gives us some insight into how to approach the strawman argument. The first idea is to always be ready to give an answer. We are instructed in 1 Peter 3:15 to always be ready. But here Paul explains that pointing out an error is a responsibility. How you do this makes all the difference in the world. It’s easy to get caught up and want to attack someone for setting up a strawman. But we are to respond in love. This is the challenge. Responding in love can be hard especially if you know the person you’re having a conversation with is intentionally making your position look foolish and mispresenting it. Paul goes on to say we are to be patient—again, this is tough sometimes but very important. In many cases, regardless of how you approach the error, the person will behave in immature and unproductive ways, but it’s our responsibility to do what we do in love. I am actively working on this with myself.
You can also play with the idea a little. You can accept the strawman and explain why you agree it’s wrong, and then go further to explain why what your position actually states is correct. This might be a little tougher to do, but you can make it go a long way towards showing the person you’re talking with that you know your stuff and they don’t.
What’s exciting for me is that next time I’ll go over some of the strawman arguments this person believes creationists use. He gives a list of 5 and they’re pretty good. Until next time, praise Him and be blessed.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
Our society is slowly opening up after a year of much isolation by a good number of people. Even though I was told by many that this wouldn't happen, I think we can all agree that times have certainly changed. As connected as we are through the internet, it seems that society is as divided as we have ever been, at least in my lifetime. One way I personally see this on display, more than ever, is how so many people these days “fill in the gaps” with things they hear from others or how many now “read between the lines” and make assumptions of what they think they are hearing someone else say. It has been a huge issue in our society for years, but it's now becoming more and more prevalent in today’s world. Many of us just didn't know it how much of an issue this is, and I am included in that assessment.
I was first really exposed to this concept and the phrase of, “Don't hear what I am not saying” was with author and speaker Reggie McNeal in a two-year training through the Churches of God called the Missional Leadership Initiative. It was really quite eye opening for me the first time I heard this phrase. During a session, Reggie said this to someone after he had made a statement and someone in the training started coming at him with all these questions that really weren't related to what he had said or even implied. It was obvious that this person was taking offense or was taking what he had brought up very personally. They were taking what he said and were trying to put it into a specific situation they were thinking about. They were speaking out pretty defensively and being quite aggressive.
It was really masterful how Reggie dealt with this. He just said, “Don't hear what I am not saying.” You could sense all of us in the room pretty much breathe a sigh of relief as he took what could have been quite a toxic back-and-forth and just loved this person with such an easy phrase. “Don't hear what I am not saying.” He was giving this person a chance to really listen to him. He didn't say your concern is not real, but he was lovingly giving this person the opportunity to really hear what he was saying. In essence, he was lovingly telling this person that this isn't about them and their specific situation. At first, this person kept coming at him with some more points they wanted to discuss, but he just keep saying, “Don't hear what I am not saying.”
Personally, I think this is one thing each of us could really take into consideration when dealing with someone who is adversarial or offended by what we might have said. Do I think speakers are responsible for their own words? Well, of course they are, but the listener is also responsible for how they respond to what someone has said. Unfortunately, this can be a very difficult lesson for many to learn these days because of our fallen sinful nature. But I think it is a loving communication tactic that all Christians need to consider implementing if we are going to move forward together in society. And we need to mean it. I know I would like society as a whole to move forward with each person being responsible for themselves. Perhaps you don't agree with this, but I know I like being with and around people when we are willing to put biblical love in action toward one another.
Jesus reminded us in Matthew 7:2 that in the same way you judge others, you will be judged. I encourage all of us to speak the truth in love and don't take offense. Don't hear what someone is not saying. Truly listen, and if another does not want to listen, well, now you have a choice to make.
With that in mind, please consider the following. As many of you know, I cannot wear a face mask due to a medical condition I have after my life-threatening stroke and life-saving brain surgery in 2017. Yet I personally have been told by employees to leave a nationally known restaurant chain and even a large nationally known company I once supported a lot. (For those of you wondering: Yes, I showed them my medical note about my condition from my primary MD, or as I call them “my papers,” and they still told me to leave.)
I bring this up to say that when I encourage healthy people in 2021 to take off their masks and live their lives, don't hear what I am not saying. I am not telling a person who is wearing a mask how horrible they are or are judging them. I have no idea what their situation may or may not be. Just as I would hope all people would not have judged me for being unable to wear a mask, I would hope all people would not judge others who choose to wear a mask. Why? Because neither you nor I know their situation.
Could they be fearful? Possibly. Could they be sick? Possibly. Could they have a compromised immune system? Possibly. Could they be perfectly healthy? Possibly. If they're not you, it's really none of your business. This goes both ways as well, though. If you see someone without a mask on… Could they be a jerk? Possibly. Do they just want to live their life in liberty? Possibly. Could they have some reason medically that they cannot wear a mask? Possibly. Could they be vaccinated? Possibly. Could they not be vaccinated? Possibly. If they're not you, it's really none of your business.
Don't let The God Complex get the best of you. Now, go live your life that God has given to you, and if anything I've shared here offends you… don't hear what I am not saying.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Chad Koons
I hear this quite often, which I guess is a good thing: “Worship was great today” or something to that effect. And I greatly value any feedback! Yet every single time I hear someone’s approval of our worship service, I just can’t help but wonder what factors made the person feel that way.
I’m glad that they felt something, really I am. And I know what they mean when they say it. But infinitely more important than our assessment is what did the Lord think about it?
Full disclosure: I am a worship leader. So, over the next few minutes you’ll be reading about worship from a worship leader’s perspective.
Let’s begin with an affirmative statement. I thoroughly believe that worship services can be “great.” When we gather together in unity as a body of believers, singing as one, in all sincerity to the Lord, it will be very powerful. The atmosphere will be sweet, the Lord will be glorified, and His presence will be among us. Worship like this is engaging and transformative. The Lord will move prophetically during such worship, touching lives right then and there as we seek only to honor and reverence Him.
Having said that, let’s go a bit deeper into it. And if I may, I’ll challenge us on the matter.
Are we qualified to accurately judge how worship went? Seriously. If I’m completely transparent, I wonder if we have ever stopped long enough to give real thought to our worship. Do we lack the language, tools, and intimacy necessary to be the true worshippers that the Lord requires us to be?
Why do I pose this question? Well, ask most Christians what makes for great worship, and you’ll probably hear something like this:
The MUSIC! Yeah, that’s it. This is just my style. I like the singer. I love the guitar player’s parts. The drums are killing it on this one. Those keys are heavenly. This song moves me and I feel something!
The LYRICS! Now there’s some truth! This song speaks to my current situation, and I’ll repeat that bridge 10x no problem. Here’s some fighting words, I will sing with attitude. This hymn is ancient, and these old words make me feel super grounded. Finally, a song with theology that I 100% agree with!
The PARTICIPATION! The energy is high in this place today! The whole crowd is singing along so I feel part of something bigger. Most of us are super excited right now and that makes me feel excited, too. The people are lifting their hands and responding to the music so surely the Spirit is here!
So if… and follow me here… IF our worship service manages to hit all three of these things, I’ll call them the three “worship drivers” of music, lyrics, and participation, then will we feel that we have achieved “great worship”? This, my friends, is the sad truth of how we judge the quality of our worship.
Let’s have a good look at the problem. Those three things are mostly feelings-oriented, subjective, external, and they may be applied to any sort of live music setting, even a secular concert. And worst of all, these three worship drivers are exclusive of the Spirit. Being moved to good feelings is wonderful, yet that is not the goal nor the proof of a good worship service. God have mercy, worship is not even about us. We do not worship our feelings, we worship the Lord.
Quite frankly I don’t care if someone thinks the worship was great or not. Oh, I care if we did our job as a worship team; it matters that we put in the proper preparation, expression, sincerity, motivation, prayer, and the right content. All of these things will make for a good ministry, so to speak.
Yet let me be abundantly clear: we did not and will not worship the people, nor do we plan to be worshipping someone’s current idea of what they think worship should look like. We worship Him; therefore, we are responsible to create a space and provide songs for the body to worship through. The rest is up to you. What you do with that either creates or negates the worship. I can’t do it for you.
What I do care about is the condition, attitude, and willingness of your heart towards God DURING worship. Your praise and worship are a gift, response, and sacrifice to the Lord. If you continue to just stand there waiting to be moved by the three worship drivers I outlined above, then you are sadly and gravely mistaken. It’s not up to the external motivators, it’s what YOU bring that matters!
Do you know what makes for great worship, Child of God?
This one and only thing right here…
The expressive heart of the worshipper towards a Holy God.
Burn the stage, shut off the power, trash the fancy décor, smash the expensive instruments, remove all of our wildly talented singers and musicians, and tell me if we still have “great worship.”
Give me a room full of genuine worshippers and we will always have great worship.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
