Recently we came across something called “Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement” (pictured below), which was based on an essay written by Paul Graham called “How to Disagree.” The essay resonated with us, as it highlighted many of the observations we have come to in our own lives when it comes to discussing and analyzing the Bible — so we thought we would share it with our readers — and hopefully it will help us to have more fruitful discussion on the matters of Christian doctrine.
During the course of writing our own Bible studies and moderating the comments, we have noticed that essays may be flooded with disagreement. That does not present a problem in itself, but much of the disagreement doesn’t address any of the central arguments of our theses. We do not want to discourage anyone from disagreeing, as we can all benefit from an honest and robust discussion — assuming we each act in good faith toward one another.
We have considered that perhaps we all need to get better at disagreeing in a more constructive and mutually beneficial manner — to which end we wrote our article on begging the question — an informal fallacy we often see used in Christian doctrine. Unfortunately, that essay seems to have made very little impact on those who disagree with us and each other, as many continue to routinely use “begging the question” in their comments about Scripture — suggesting that they really do not understand their own logical fallacies.
Similarly, we found Graham’s essay useful in differentiating between productive and unproductive disagreements. As Graham rightly observes — many people may even be unaware of the weakness of their own disagreements and arguments. We must all acknowledge the truth and warning of Proverbs 21:2,
“Every way of a man is right in his own eyes”
Therefore, the threshold of proof that we demand of our own positions is naturally lower than what we expect from those who disagree with us.
Hopefully this essay will help us all to reflect on our own underlying motivations — if each of us can honestly apply the pyramid to our own arguments. Furthermore, Graham’s hierarchy may help us better identify dishonest — whether witting or unwitting — arguments in others:
NAME-CALLING
Paul Graham writes,
This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We’ve all seen comments like this: “u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!” But it’s important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like “The author is a self-important dilettante.” is really nothing more than a pretentious version of “u r a fag.”
Admittedly, such comments left by CFT readers never live to see the light of day — that is, they do not pass moderation — and we regret to say that we receive such comments almost daily. Hopefully everyone can agree without any deliberation that this form of disagreement doesn’t help anyone ever — neither us, nor any reader, nor the commenter. For anyone who does believe that such comments are useful, we don’t really have much to say.
Unfortunately however, many of us may agree with this in principle — but when we find ourselves disagreeing in practice, name-calling might seem like a viable and legitimate strategy of disagreement.
AD HOMINEM
Paul Graham writes,
An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators’ salaries should be increased, one could respond: “Of course he would say that. He’s a senator.“
This wouldn’t refute the author’s argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It’s still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there’s something wrong with the senator’s argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn’t, what difference does it make that he’s a senator?
Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn’t, it’s not a problem.
Probably the most fascinating thing about ad hominem disagreement is that the one who uses it more than likely believes what they are saying. In other words, when we are subject to ad hominem disagreements, we can usually assume that the one who disagrees is not being dishonest — at least in their own minds. Usually we are caught off guard when characterized by the one we disagree with, because we almost certainly will disagree with their characterization of ourselves.
For this reason, ad hominem is a very week form of disagreement — it immediately alienates the two parties from one-another. In other words, ad hominem is not very persuasive for the one we engage in ad hominem disagreement with. As such, ad hominem disagreement will usually work very well in convincing bystanders who already agree with our characterization of the one we disagree with. It will suffice to convince someone who was already looking for reasons to disagree.
The mechanism by which ad hominem disagreement does this is to mischaracterize the intention of the one we disagree with. This might take the form of, “I believe A is the truth. Person X disagrees with A. Therefore, Person X hates the truth.” Fundamentally — when we disagree with someone — they do not agree with our own beliefs. Therefore — in many cases, the ad hominem attack was inevitable — because we presumed the truth of our own argument without trying to convince the other party of our own argument.
Oftentimes we fail to convince them not because our characterization of them was necessarily true, but rather because we simply did not engage with them in a particularly persuasive manner.
Generally when we come to believe something, we had certain evidence which led us to that belief. When we present that evidence to another person, we are surprised when that person doesn’t accept the evidence which we ourselves had readily accepted. Sometimes the other person may have seen it in a different way — or they may have extra information which changed their perception of the evidence in some way. Instead of trying to understand the other person’s different view, we presume ill-intent on their part because they didn’t accept the evidence the way we ourselves accepted it.
As such, ad hominem disagreement is generally a lazy form of disagreement. We refuse to apply any effort in understanding someone else’s argument and so we merely presume their intention. When we are wont to engage in ad hominem disagreement, we tend to isolate ourselves from other people — and we gravitate toward echo-chambers where everyone agrees with us.
Conversely, we tend to see those who agree with us as virtuous — because we have conflated agreement and disagreement with virtue and dishonor respectively. Ironically, because we have equated agreement with virtue, we tend to see those who agree with us through rose-colored glasses. We do not realize that this judgement error is a character flaw within ourselves and so we are cursed to repeat the mistake over and over again.
This is a large cause of schisms within echo-chamber-like communities. In such instances, most of us are there only because we agree with one another on a certain topic. As soon as some kind of disagreement occurs, we automatically revert to the ad hominem style of disagreement — because we never advanced to trying to understand our opponent’s argument — merely mischaracterizing them as soon as they do not accept the evidence which we once accepted.
Therefore, such communities are generally conversing with one another on thin ice without even realizing it. They have never learned to disagree properly. They will merely gravitate towards those who agree with them.
Sadly, in such cases we tend to overlook the sins of people who agree with us — at least until such time as they disagree, at which point their sins magically become offensive to us all of a sudden. Conflating agreement on our pet doctrines with virtue to the extent where we overlook one another’s sin amounts to nothing more than the sin of partiality.
In some cases, ad hominem disagreements are inevitable and even correct. However, the thing we accuse someone else of being must first be proven — it must be the result of having worked our way up the pyramid of disagreement in the conversation. The strength of an ad hominem disagreement depends on how well we have refuted our opponent’s central point — and potentially their unwillingness to engage in conversation on the central point.
A classic example from the Scripture would be 2 Peter 2, where Peter likened his opponents with “unreasoning animals” (2 Peter 2:12) — qualifying the statement with an argument on their licentiousness and love of money. In this case, He highlighted why the ad hominem was true. Furthermore, as is the case with all correct ad hominem statements in the Scripture, Peter did not say it based on them slighting him personally — or merely because they disagreed with him.
In the example Graham gives, he states that one must still prove the flaw in the senator’s argument — at which point the ad hominem would hold value. Conversely, the ad hominem should not be used without proving the flaw in the senator’s argument. If the senator’s argument were proven wrong by addressing the central point, one could then point out the conflict of interests by adding the ad hominem point to the overall argument.
Relatively recently there was a discussion in our comments section on the topic of Catholicism. Commenters were discussing whether or not praying to Mary or the saints for help was idolatry or not. One of the commenters presumed that Catholics weren’t aware of the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before Me.” (Exodus 20:3) — and followed the statement up with, “I guess it’s a catholic thing.”
While we do not agree with this Catholic practice, the disagreement itself was very weak. Firstly, the commenter explicitly presumed that Catholics are not aware of the first commandment. Secondly, the commenter tacitly presumed Catholics should see the first commandment in the same way they themselves see it within the context of the discussion.
The first presumption was not useful at all, because it is obviously not true — we’d be surprised if there are Catholics who are not aware of the first commandment. Yet that presumption was that everyone understands the first commandment in the same way.
Even if one were to prove to a Catholic that the first commandment prohibits them from praying to Mary and saints, the first assumption would still not be relevant — because it wouldn’t nullify the fact that they were always aware of the first commandment. Therefore, to claim that not being aware of the first commandment is “a catholic thing” would never have applied. Here is an important lesson: When one doesn’t bother to prove their ad hominem argument, one runs the risk of making a false ad hominem argument. A false ad hominem is also known as slander.
Likewise — as Graham stated, we should not be too quick to challenge the authority of another on an ad hominem basis before we have refuted their argument. At this point, challenging their authority on an ad hominem basis might have more weight. A great example of this error in the Scripture would be the blind man who was healed in John 9.
The blind man attested to the Lord Jesus having come from God on the basis that He healed him: “If this man were not from God, He could do nothing.” (John 9:33) Pharisees replied, “You were born entirely in sins, and yet you are teaching us?” (John 9:34) They challenged the man’s authority without being able to prove the man wrong.
Ultimately, the lesson we must learn is to address the argument first. If we go straight to ad hominem disagreement, it looks bad for ourselves — and we isolate ourselves from others. Proving the ad hominem disagreement first may strengthen the case — after we have engaged on the central point.
RESPONDING TO THE TONE
Paul Graham writes,
The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author’s tone. E.g. “I can’t believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.“
Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.
So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you’re not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.
We’ve noticed two different kinds of responding to the tone disagreements:
- Someone may find the thesis itself shocking and criticize it based on its shocking nature — regardless of the tone. The thesis itself becomes conflated with the tone.
- The thesis may be delivered in a tone which someone may find distasteful.
The first kind is probably what Graham refers to when he says, “Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic…” We’ve noticed that some commenters take issue with our essays on this very basis — leaving comments along the lines of, “You should not tell people they will not attain to eternal life.” Those who leave these comments rightly interpret our message, but they ascribe to it a tone based on their personal prejudice against being “judgmental” or “legalistic.”
In this case, we did not move into the second category — delivering the message in a distasteful way — but rather they conflate the tone with the thesis itself. Conversely, to those who agree with the message — as Graham pointed out — the tone comes across neutral.
For example, in the Will All Israel Be Saved — Or Just A Remnant? article, one commenter said,
The righteousness is a result of the choice. The choice is not a result of the righteousness. Except your own doctrine of “racial salvation” has failed to produce the righteousness necessary to identify the children of the promise. You still haven’t addressed that aspect.
To which another replied,
Unless you’re the most high judge, how can you state this with such authority?
This is my opinion, and take on the scriptures, that proving to an Israelite that they will receive eternal death, and telling them that their beliefs bring forth no righteousness (hence condemning their current state to that of eternal destruction), is not the way to win over an Israelite.
If what the original commenter said was true, then the tone of the message is irrelevant. However, the one who replied did not like to hear that their own doctrine failed to create the necessary righteousness — so they criticized the tone of the argument — without bothering to address the argument in a Scriptural or doctrinal manner.
In such instances, the truth of the message is far more important. Grave messages are easily justified based on their truth. For example, if one’s life were in imminent danger, the one warning them should take all measures to make this fact known to them. We would argue that if one were convinced of another’s imminent danger, to not warn them by all means would be evil.
Imagine calmly warning someone of imminent danger — showing them evidence of the danger itself — but they keep criticizing the tone of delivery, merely because their sensibilities refuse to acknowledge any reality where they might be in danger at all in the first place. In such cases, any warning offered to them would provoke the same criticisms of one’s tone. If only the evidence itself could be reviewed and discussed, then either the one could be saved from danger, or the other could be relieved that there is no danger.
Sadly, this kind of disagreement also isolates one from the discussion itself. It is akin to someone blocking their ears and refusing to hear. Moreover, the one who disagrees would silence the conversation itself on the basis that they have been offended by it. Ironically, this kind of disagreement is very similar to what progressives use — “Your rights end where my feelings begin.” In the end, they would have truth become taboo, lest anyone get offended by it.
We’ve seen some commenters take this even further by claiming that we have some sort of morbid desire that people do not have eternal life — as if we have some sick fantasy over our brethren dying for all eternity. In line with the progressives example, this would be like accusing someone who is anti-abortion of hating women. Or like when white-nationalists express a desire to have segregated ethno-states, they are accused of hating other races.
We would argue that this kind of disagreement takes responding to the tone to the extreme — and as such it becomes name-calling. Those who disagree in this way hypocritically emulate Marxist methodologies. In all of the above examples, one who disagrees would do far better by refuting the central point — which if true, there’s no need to discuss the tone — and one may avoid danger. If the central point is untrue, the one doing the warning could cease their warning. Like Graham says, “if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.”
On the other hand, if the delivery of the message truly is distasteful — according to the second category we highlighted above — it may actually be a relevant disagreement within the Christian context. The Lord Jesus says in Matthew 7:15-16,
15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits…
Ironically, Christians do not pay enough attention to this form of disagreement. Paul gives us quite a practical list of good fruit in Galatians 5:22-24,
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
Conversely, he gives us bad fruit in Galatians 5:19-21,
19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: sexual immorality, impurity, indecent behavior, 20 idolatry, witchcraft, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
In other words, if someone who exhibits any of these bad fruits delivers us a message, we have a very strong case that they are false prophets and ravening wolves. In such cases, responding to the tone is a very powerful form of disagreement. At the very least — whether the message is correct or not — the one who displays these bad fruits should change their behavior in order to support their message. Until such time as their behavior changes, their message should not be taken seriously by anyone.
Unfortunately many Christians believe such ravening wolves merely because they like what they here. In such cases, if only they could look at the fruits of the one they are listening to, they could save themselves a lot of trouble.
For example, Donald Trump has been lauded by many as a kind of world savior, yet the fruits he produces in his personal life show that he should not be trusted. However, many people are blinded by how they think he will improve their material lives to look at the fruit he produces. On the other hand, we see televangelists greedy for money — yet there are those who place their trust in them.
CONTRADICTION
Paul Graham writes,
In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.
This is often combined with [responding to the tone] statements, as in: “I can’t believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.”
Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it’s right. But usually evidence will help.
We see this form of disagreement all too often on our Bible studies — and we find it rather strange. For what purpose would anyone document their views and place them in plain view? Firstly and primarily, that it might be a benefit to anyone who might read and agree with the views presented. Secondly, we expose our views to criticism and disagreement — and to this end we allow an open forum of comments.
We believe that our work should be exposed to criticism and that everyone should make up their own minds. As such, we do allow comments — so long as they aren’t entirely unproductive.
Anyone who may want to openly disagree in a comment is in a privileged position. Being able to read, examine and understand another’s argument provides a fantastic opportunity to disagree in the best possible way. With this in mind, we struggle with the sheer pointlessness of merely stating an opposing argument without even providing supporting evidence.
To make matters worse, we’ve noticed in many cases that when some commenters leave a contradiction type disagreement, they seem reticent to provide supporting evidence even when requested to do so. Incidentally, the same applies to ad hominem and responding to the tone type disagreements. In all three cases — if that’s what someone believes — they should be willing to provide supporting evidence for that claim. Otherwise it serves literally no purpose — nothing constructive can come from it.
All three cases betray the same problem: A lack of desire to understand another’s argument and address it directly. We suspect in many cases one may feel frustrated that an article may disagree with their own view — and they want to share their frustration — yet they are unable to support their frustration with their own evidence — or by addressing the article which frustrated them.
In such cases, if one refuses to at least provide supporting evidence, it’s probably just better to say nothing at all.
One of the best examples of this kind of disagreement can be found in the statement, “I don’t believe that a loving God would do that.” It’s the epitome of a contradiction disagreement and it comes in many different forms. As such, usually contradiction disagreements come from a place where a statement has merely disagreed with our own sensibilities.
Moreover, the worst forms of begging the question are delivered via a contradiction disagreement. In other words, when someone conveys a contradiction disagreement, they have usually presumed their own truth rather than proving their own truth. They have conflated the disagreement itself with the justification for the disagreement — the logic is completely circular. This may be what lures us into brazenly making contradiction type disagreements — because we expect that logic which appealed to us at face value should appeal to others in the same way.
As with the above example, how would you define what a “loving God” is? No one should disagree that “God is love” (1 John 4:8) — but where in the Scripture do you find justification for your own version of a “loving God”? What is it about the assertion specifically that contradicts your version of a “loving God”? Our disagreement must take any reader through the baby-steps of the logic with the aim of convincing them, rather than presuming that they’ll accept the disagreement at face value.
COUNTERARGUMENT
Paul Graham writes,
At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it’s hard to say exactly what.
Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it’s common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don’t realize it.
There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you’re doing it.
This is another form of disagreement we see quite often in the comments. First and foremost, this disagreement style suffers from the same problem as contradiction — it wastes the opportunity to directly address the argument which has been lain out in the article. Having said that, it’s still far better than any of the previous forms of disagreement. At least in such cases there’s something to talk about — and we usually accept them for this very reason.
However, we have noticed a big problem endemic in counterarguments: A counterargument does not prove that the one who made the disagreement understands what they are disagreeing about. As such, it is often not “aimed squarely at the original argument” — and ends up being “aimed at something slightly different.”
For example, in Will All Israel Be Saved — Or Just A Remnant? we propose that the context and central focus of Romans 9 is the children of the promise — and that the comparison between Jacob and Esau highlights that Jacob was one example of a child of the promise. We find that a common argument against the article is that the context of Romans 9 is centered around verse 13: “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” The argument claims that the context and central focus of Romans 9 is Jacob and Esau — as opposed to verse 13 merely being one example of children of the promise.
Unfortunately, the usage of the verse 13 context counterargument reveals that the one who makes the disagreement doesn’t understand the original argument in the article in the first place. One commenter said,
Rom 9:12 to her it was said, “the elder will serve the younger:”
Rom 9:13 just as it is written, “Jakob I love, and Esau I hated.”
The edomites were the vessels of wrath. Jacob was put on the altar for the pruposes of God and he made one son of Jacob for honour (Israel) and the other is for dishonour (esau).
This is what Paul is speaking about. It isnt only about Israelites as CFT suggests. This is what Paul is saying, the word of God has not failed, just that some of those in Judea were not true born sons. It is racial.
Here the commenter reveals that they do not understand our argument to begin with. We agree that Jacob and Esau were a vessel of honor and vessel of destruction respectively — therefore, the commenter’s counterargument argues the same thing which we ourselves would argue. In fact, we dedicated a few paragraphs to the topic of Jacob and Esau in Paul’s Romans 9 discourse. Like Graham said, “Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don’t realize it.”
If the commenter had attempted to address the central point — instead of rushing to a counterargument — the commenter would have come to understand our argument in the first place. They would understand why merely quoting Romans 9:13 in counterargument does little to prove anything. We would expect that the commenter show us what we said — with quotes if possible — and show us specifically why it is wrong.
We should note however, that if a strong counterargument follows off the back of refuting the central point — the two being delivered together — then a counterargument is a very strong form of disagreement. It displays that the counterargument is accurately addressing the argument at hand by virtue of having already understood the argument by refuting it directly.
In our own studies, when we address the doctrines of other Christian circles, we generally try to refute their central point and present a counterargument in tandem with one another.
REFUTATION
Paul Graham writes,
The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It’s also the rarest, because it’s the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.
To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a “smoking gun,” a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it’s mistaken. If you can’t find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.
While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn’t necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as [contradiction] or even [name-calling].
Graham makes a powerful point here: Refutation takes the most work. When we refute an argument, we need to take the time to understand it. Understanding someone else’s view or argument is key to disagreeing with them effectively.
When we disagree with someone, we need to demonstrate that we understand their argument. As such, many times we will unintentionally engage in a straw man fallacy. Yes, most of the time when people engage in a straw man fallacy, they do so entirely unintentionally because they did not understand the position in the first place. Their failing is not necessarily purposeful misrepresentation of their opponent — but rather a failure to put in the effort to understand their opponent.
In such cases, if a straw man fallacy is used against us, we should be patient to correct the opponent’s understanding. Opponents should also be open to having their assessment of the argument corrected. If someone refuses to accept that their own assessment of their opponent’s argument is wrong, then they move into willful use of the straw man fallacy.
As Graham states, we should not assume that merely quoting something necessitates refutation. We would argue that quoting some logic and then ridiculing that logic — instead of addressing that logic — merely constitutes name-calling. When we quote something we should be sure to address the logic behind the text conveys and explain why it is wrong.
Paul Graham writes,
Even as high as [refutation] we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone’s grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one’s opponent.
We would agree that correcting grammar or minor mistakes constitutes deliberate dishonesty. However, sometimes commenters engage in correcting minor mistakes without being deliberately dishonest. For example, in The Spirit Of The Law — Romans 7 & 8 (Part 1) we quoted the NASB 2020 version of Mark 7:19 which says,
because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thereby He declared all foods clean.)
We argue that this verse shows that the Lord Jesus declared all unclean foods (Leviticus 11) clean. We included a BibleHub link to Mark 7:19 in the article where anyone may compare multiple versions of the same passage. We have been adding these links to our recent essays in an effort to show we do not rely on any one Bible translation — despite having a preference for the articles themselves. One commenter wrote,
CFT wrote:
“If it weren’t obvious enough, Mark wrote, “Thereby He declared all foods clean.”
That line “Thereby He declared all foods clean” is spurious and found only in newer translations, like the NIV.
Furthermore, it doesn’t fit into the context of Christ’s message in Mark 7.
His disciples initially thought Christ meant food when they ask him:
“Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?”
To which Christ responds with the next 3 verses, saying:
“And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.”
Christ is not talking about food, but things within a man that tempt man to sin, i.e. evil thoughts, murders, adulteries etc. All things listed clearly in verses 22 and 23.
When such things come out from a man he is defiled. When a man sins he becomes unclean.
I hope you guys take this to heart.
Later on, this commenter stated that they had taken issue with our doctrine exonerating the eating of “swine meat” — so we assume the commenter had accepted that their critique quoted above was sufficient to disprove our proposed doctrine.
Firstly, the commenter quoted our article — a good start. However, let us assume that the NASB 2020 translation is indeed spurious — and our usage of the verse was entirely unjustified. The commenter’s refutation still did not take into consideration that the usage of Mark 7 overall was merely one pillar in a series of pillars used to justify the doctrine which we propose. In such a case, pointing out the mistake would remove our ability to use it in the argument, but it would not disprove the overall argument.
Still under the assumption that the NASB 2020 translation of Mark 7:19 was spurious, the commenter did not consider our quote from Mark 7:18, “whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him” — a definitive statement showing that “whatever goes into the person” — meaning anything one might eat — cannot be considered sin. We would argue that “swine flesh” could reasonably be considered as something which may go “into the person” — and as such, it cannot be considered sin.
Therefore again, if the NASB 2020 translation of Mark 7:19 is spurious, the verse in question was merely one pillar in a series of pillars used to prove our interpretation of Mark 7. It would still mean we are able to use Mark 7 to prove our doctrine. Furthermore, the NASB 2020 was engaging in an uncharacteristically thought-for-thought style of translation — though the translation itself can be justified when looking at the original Greek. As for the rest of the comment, the context of the Lord Jesus’ teaching was a core part of our argument — and we would agree, “When a man sins he becomes unclean.”
Ultimately what we’d like to highlight above is that we must be careful to fully understand the argument — otherwise even a refutation runs the risk of missing the point entirely.
REFUTING THE CENTRAL POINT
Paul Graham writes,
The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone’s central point…
Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:
The author’s main point seems to be x. As he says: <quotation> But this is wrong for the following reasons…
The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author’s main point. It’s enough to refute something it depends upon.
As we have mentioned, in order to truly refute the central point, one must first understand the argument they are addressing. In our How Do I Know I’m An Israelite? article, one commenter said,
Firstly, the claim the author of the article makes is that, because Paul quotes Isaiah 10 in Romans 9, Paul is therefore preaching to the Romans about eternal salvation, because apparently Isaiah is speaking of eternal salvation in Isaiah 10. The crux of the issue for the article being that a “remnant” refers to an eternal remnant and not a temporal remnant.
However this is entirely false…
In this instance, the commenter more or less understood the premise of our argument and thus was able to give a productive disagreement by refuting the central point. They gave a concise summary of our argument, demonstrating that they had understood what they were attempting to refute. Off the back of this comment, we were able to productively discuss the refutation.
WHAT IT MEANS
Paul Graham writes,
Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn’t give us is a way of picking a winner. [Disagreement hierarchy] levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it’s correct. A [refuting the central point] response could still be completely mistaken.
But while [disagreement hierarchy] levels don’t set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A [refuting the central point] response might be unconvincing, but a [responding to the tone] or lower response is always unconvincing.
The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.
Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he’s really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.
But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in [ad hominem] than up in [refuting the central point]. You don’t have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don’t want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.
If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don’t really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can’t help it.
We don’t have much to add to the above — we agree with it. Although just to reiterate, this knowledge does not guarantee that we are able to unanimously pick a winner — everyone will have to make their own decisions. The goal here is to be more effective and productive when we disagree.
Yes, “Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional.” We would all do well to acknowledge that. If we can agree to strive to move up the disagreement hierarchy, we can at least limit our own intellectual dishonesty and be more persuasive. If someone refuses to move up the pyramid, then we can assume they are willfully intellectually dishonest.
CLOSING THOUGHTS — AMBIGUITY, GOOD FAITH, BABY STEPS AND A UNIFIED DOCTRINE
Something we have noticed with Christian doctrine generally is a refusal to acknowledge ambiguity. For example, some Christian circles insist that Hebrews 12:16 means that Esau himself was a fornicator — despite the inherent ambiguity in the verse. Our article Was Esau A Fornicator? was largely an effort to highlight the ambiguity of Hebrews 12:16 — if the verse is at best ambiguous, then it cannot be used to prove — prima facie — that Esau was a fornicator.
Many times we may come to a doctrinal understanding through erring on one side of an ambiguous verse. In other words, we fail to acknowledge the ambiguity and place it within our doctrine as if it weren’t ambiguous. Unfortunately, it is only when we expose our views to criticism that the ambiguity may be highlighted to us. Often when we overlook ambiguity, it is merely an oversight.
To make matters worse, we may make ambiguous verses into cornerstones of our own doctrine — without ever acknowledging their ambiguity. In such cases, when another person highlights that ambiguity to us, we are so invested in the verse we can tend to flat-out refuse to acknowledge the ambiguity of the verse.
Sadly, this stance is very unpersuasive and intellectually dishonest. If we are to err on one side of an ambiguous verse, we need to prove why we have taken that side by bringing in extra witnesses. Ideally, we should also prove why the side we disagree with cannot be true — so we disprove the wrong side and prove the right side.
Another very difficult topic in disagreement is that of good faith. Good faith is the assumption that the one we are talking to is not being willfully intellectually dishonest. It also assumes that we ourselves do not engage in willful intellectual dishonest with others. If we are to have productive disagreement, we must have good faith toward one another.
We must all agree that we strive for the objective truth — instead of proving our own agendas. However, hopefully this article will go a long way in assisting us in having good faith by working toward the top of the pyramid — along with identifying others who refuse to move to the top of the pyramid.
We should not give merely argument which convinced us in the first place — often we need to take an audience through our line of thinking one baby-step at a time. We need to clearly lay out our premises and explain why a premise has led to a given conclusion. This form of argument is often called syllogism or deductive reasoning.
Incidentally, Paul uses this form of argument to devastating effect — especially in the book of Romans. We also find it in the book of Hebrews. Some of the epistles — like Romans and Hebrews — were written for the express of convincing the audience of something, rather than merely commanding them.
Sadly, many Christian circles do not acknowledge the intrinsically syllogistic nature of some of the Scriptures. For this reason, we tend to take something an author has said out of the context of their overall argument. In other words, we tend to base our doctrine off of their premises — rather than off of their conclusions. For example, Paul says in Romans 3:23-24,
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus
This is Paul’s premise, not his conclusion. Unfortunately many Christian circles make out as if Paul argued that we have sinned and have been justified in spite of our sin — and that’s the end of the matter. Those who draw this false conclusion often use these verses to justify lives of sin and lawlessness — as if our justification in Christ Jesus gives us license to sin as much as we want and still receive an eternal reward.
Ironically, we have seen our own studies fall victim in similar manner — our premises are taken out of context and criticized as if they are our conclusions. Such behavior demonstrates that either we do not understand the argument, or we are willfully dishonest to misrepresent the argument.
If we practice deductive thinking in our own arguments toward others, hopefully it will also help us to follow the arguments which some Biblical writers present to us. When we present an argument — especially if novel to others — we should carefully walk them through the argument. If there is a gap in our own argument, hopefully through discussion — at the top of the pyramid — that gap will become known to us.
Lastly, as Christians, we are in a very fortunate position in our scholarship — we have a limited, agreed upon body of writing upon which we base all of our arguments: The Bible. Yes, we disagree on finer details which lead to bigger disagreements down the line, but we can at least agree that we should base our lives on the Bible.
We should all acknowledge that our doctrinal position must be reconciled with the entire Bible. If our doctrine is able to agree with every single verse in the entirety of the Bible, then we have achieved a truly unified doctrine. We should be honest with ourselves — in good faith — when our position is irreconcilable with certain verses of the Bible.
Certain Christian circles cannot reconcile their views with Paul’s writings — so they discard Paul’s writings as divinely inspired. Other Christian circles believe doctrines not found in the Bible — so they add in extra-Biblical writings in an attempt to support their own positions. This error takes many forms, but here are some examples:
- Using the book of Enoch to justify the position that angels had sexual intercourse with people in Genesis 6.
- Using evolutionary, big bang or genetic “science” to justify certain positions on the nature of “race” or creation.
- Using flat-earth “science” to justify accusations of idolatry toward others.
We should not engage in doctrinal positions which require the use of extra-Biblical sources, including but not limited to: “Science”, apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, pagan writings or any Midrashic type writing like targums or the Talmud. We must see the world through the Bible — we must not see the Bible through the world. If we cannot agree on this principle, we will never reach a unified doctrine of the Bible.
Hopefully if we are able to apply Graham’s pyramid going forward in good faith, our disagreements will become far more productive and we can make massive leaps forward in our common Biblical exegesis.
I chanced upon the following article and thought I’d share it. I’ve no idea about FEE… but this top 10 of logic is good. https://fee.org/articles/the-10-habits-of-logical-people/
It is better to call “begging the question” “assuming the conclusion” because that is what it is. I think CFT doesnt understand this, imo CFT probably just labels things as ‘logical fallacies’ which really are not logical fallacies at all.
I myself looked at many assertions of CFT and directly refuted them on a site which cannot be named.
For example when CFT claimed “Israel married the Law” or when CFT cut Genesis 6:9 in half and then only provided word definitions for the later half of the verse and then erroneously and dishonestly concluded that it had nothing to do with race.
I directly pointed out the error and refuted CFT’s claims. Even to do with more complex questions such as Cain’s sacrifice; CFT’s conclusion to do with that question is not viable, as I explain on this other site that cannot be named. CFT will never be able to be honest about it so long as CFT has an approach to the Bible that really isnt logical and does not respect the authority of the Bible. So long as CFT is not seeking the truth of Scripture.
But CFT does not really believe the Bible, CFT has claimed that the writers of the New Testament did not give true accounts but added distortions to accommodate their audience. CFT could use such a false argument to dismiss any verse of Scripture that is convenient for them.
4ntioch, this comment of yours — in a nutshell — is exactly why you struggle to make your arguments here. You’ve written four paragraphs, but you haven’t actually said anything substantial — instead making vague allusions to arguments of ours you’ve attempted to make elsewhere. You haven’t really even referred to anything in this article, except to contend with our chosen nomenclature for “begging the question.”
If you read — and truly understood — our article on begging the question, you’d understand that fundamentally we agree — “begging the question” could easily be referred to as “assuming the conclusion” — if that’s really what you want to call it. Yet you considered yourself to really be saying something — that your opinion on what to call that informal fallacy was a legitimate disagreement with us — and would constitute proof that we somehow don’t understand what “begging the question” is.
And by the way, we didn’t coin the phrase “begging the question” — it’s a standard phrase used by logicians. Why you feel a need to rephrase it seems to be your way of merely asserting that you are right about something, when it’s an irrelevant issue, not our core argument, an ineffective form of argumentation we addressed in this article.
At the core of your comment, you’re not addressing any central point — rather, you’re giving us a run-down of your own subjective experience with us and our arguments — and your frustration over failing to persuade anyone here of the soundness of your position on any issue of Scripture.
If you want to make a case on any of our articles, then go to the article, make sure you understand the argument and address the central point. Unfortunately you have a habit of misunderstanding our arguments — as we highlighted in this article — and don’t reply to commenters who reply to you. For example, we’ve seen you make the 1 Corinthians 5:5 argument multiple times — and we’ve seen it addressed multiple times — yet like clockwork you make the same argument again elsewhere, as if you haven’t made it before and had it addressed in previous articles.
If you don’t get better at making your case, acting in good faith and thoughtfully responding to others’ arguments, we’re not going to entertain your arguments. We do not remove your comments because we believe you are wrong — or out of some desire to censor you — rather, we remove them when you fail to adhere to these principles.
CFT is assuming the conclusion when they claim that the authors of the NT did not give true accounts, but catered to their audience. CFT says this because the actual accounts we have in the Bible are inconvenient for CFT.
And as I said, this invalid argument could be used to throw away the whole Bible, in much the same way charles wiesman threw away many prophets because they were inconvenient for his erroneous theology.
And this approach to the Bible shows how CFT has an illogical approach to the Bible that does not respect the authority of the Word of God. They may as well just believe whatever. And this is just one issue.
You might believe you are being specific, but you certainly are not. As such — from our perspective, this very strange and cryptic conversation is pointless.
If you disagree with something, go to the article, address the central point and ideally in so doing you will quote what we have said.
I wish I knew what you were even speaking about!
And now you throw Charles Weisman into your diatribe?
What specifically do you disagree with regarding Weisman’s teaching?
Do tell.
You should start your own Website. You seem like you have much to say and a will to say it. Go on then.
Very good article, CFT. Thanks for sharing. I imagine that I have made a fair few of these mistakes over the years – ya live and learn.
I thought this bit was particularly good:
“Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn’t, it’s not a problem.”
I see this the most often. Liberals ranting about global warming, for example, denounce anyone that isn’t an liberal approved “expert”, when it is often the layman with a healthy interest in global warming that knows far more. Just an example of many of this sort.
Name calling is definitely number one for bad arguments. Youtube comments section is testament to that!
Ironically, no matter where one finds oneself on that pyramid of disagreement, we always imagine ourselves at the top and those who disagree with us at the bottom.
Simply put, any figure, doctrine or ritual that stands between you and Jesus Christ is antiChrist.
As one Bible commentator once sagely observed, “The higher you go up in any church leadership, the less likely you are to encounter Jesus.”
OK. Let’s discuss the Catholic view of Mary.
(1) We WORSHIP only God.
(2) As Luke Chapter 1 tells us, we HONOR Mary.
(3) Luke Chapter one is verbatim the source of our “Hail Mary” and “Magnificat” prayers.
(4) The Bible tells us that the Saints in Heaven are part of our family.
(5) Just as you might ask a friend or relative to pray for you, we ask our friends and relatives in Heaven, including Mary, to pray for us.
(6) The Bible approves of asking for the intercession of Angels and Saints and gives an instance of Mary’s intercession at the Feast of Cana. She asked her Son to help others.
(7) Just as you might ask your Mom to intercede with Dad because you are in trouble, similarly we can ask Mary to intercede for us, just as she did at Cana.
(8) None of this insults what belongs to God alone.
(9) Just as Moses and Solomon made statues of Angels (and even animals!), we make statues.
(10) Moses and Solomon did not worship the statues they made; we Catholics do not worship the statues we make.
(11) Just as you have pictures of your friend and family, but do not worship those pictures, we Catholics have pictures of our friends and family, including those in Heaven, but do not worship them. We simply ask them to help us.
(12) We Catholics are not idolators; we are Bible Believers.
For each of these points I have scriptural proof texts on one of my webpages: https:// judaism.is/ hating-mary.html Before you respond I ask you to review the verses on that page and consider them. I think you will find the Scripture persuasive that honoring Mary and asking her intercession does no insult to God. Christians believed as we do for 1,500 years, so it is worth you time to consider those roots.
Al Liguori, one of the problems we face here at CFT is that people often use our articles as an excuse to talk about what they want to talk about and not the articles themselves. Your comment is a perfect example of that.
I’ll respect your wishes. I also respect your high quality work and research leads, so I’d like to stay on good terms. Please allow me a few words in my defense. Your article—quite a good article—promoted rational discussion and exchange of evidence. In that context you mentioned that you disagree with Catholic belief and praxis regarding Mary. To me that seemed like an open invitation to rationally discuss Our Blessed Mother. I was so motivated that I extensively revised my Mary page based on my 12 points above. I also added the Graham Pyramid to my Mary page. https://judaism.is/hating-mary.html
I’ll share this: my site is a Catholic site on Judaism as yours is a Protestant site on Judaism. Perhaps you will find content and research leads of value to you. Currently I have been uploading books that are difficult to find and/or expensive when you find them. Right now my Resources page has 24 books to download. https://judaism.is/resources.html You are always welcome to pay a visit any time. My best regards, Al
P.S. You have my email address—Maybe you’d welcome a guest article on the Jews from a Catholic perspective. Propose a topic, OK?
Al Liguori, you are free to post this material under the appropriate thread and article. We are perfectly open to discussing this issue, but this article is not the place for that. Please find a relevant article and comments to bring up this subject matter. Thanks!
You guys never answered my question. Just linked to some cft article that didn’t remotely address it.
Anyway, let’s try again: Southern Baptists believe in “eternal assurance” of salvation. Most others, e.g., Free Will Baptists deny it.
So, who’s right? And prove it using scripture.
Citizenfitz, one of the problems we face here at CFT is that people often use our articles as an excuse to talk about what they want to talk about and not the articles themselves. Your comment is a perfect example of that.
“Anyway, let’s try again: Southern Baptists believe in “eternal assurance” of salvation. Most others, e.g., Free Will Baptists deny it.”
This is a textbook example of a strawman argument as explained by Graham. What do the apparent doctrinal beliefs or disagreements of southern baptists have to do with the general validity of protestant criticisms of the Catholic Church? There have been many similar schisms among Catholics over doctrine….today more than ever, between traditionalists and post-Vatican II progressives. The lack of self-awareness in this comment is mystifying….
I have followed Citizen Fitz’ work for over a decade. If anything, perspicacity describes his work, not lack of self-awareness—AND—”lack of self-awareness” is just name-calling, isn’t it?
Only a few weeks ago Fitz unearthed a gem: the role of INDIGENOUS Chinese Jews in Chinese politics for nearly two millennia. It is not a big secret that European Jews (the Sassoons, the Khadoories, and Montefiores) profited from addicting Chinese to opium. It is no big secret that European Jews started and abetted Chinese Communism (Voitinsky, Rittenberg, Sachs, et al.). What HAS been a big secret is the enormous role of INDIGENOUS Chinese Jews (K’aifeng) in subjugating Han Chinese for millennia, including evidence that Mao Zedong, Chou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping, and many more Kaifeng Jews demonstrate that CHINESE Communism is JEWISH.
That kind of research does not come from someone “lacking in self-awareness.”
Fitz’ question actually moves to the heart of the Catholic question you raise. When Baptists disagree, how is that different from any of the 32,000+ denominations of Protestants disagreeing among themselves?
Precisely as the article advised, Fits was taking “baby steps” with you to draw you step-by-step to the fundamental point—the key point of Catholic-Protestant contention. Your name-calling may have short-circuited a valuable discussion. I hope not.
People who are “jew wise” can often be blind about other matters. It’s not a litmus test for “self-awareness” as you seem to be contending. Kevin MacDonald comes to mind.
That is a non-sequitur. I praised his research diligence and his keen insight. I think both of those refute your ad hominem name-calling.
Ironically, it looks like your defense of Fitz is a counterargument. Fitz tends to engage in rather lame logic and the above comment is a case in point. Like will said, “What do the apparent doctrinal beliefs or disagreements of southern baptists have to do with the general validity of protestant criticisms of the Catholic Church?”
Will is questioning the underlying assumptions behind Fitz’s central point. Will’s ad-hominem is based on Fitz’s dishonest mode of argumentation… highlighted by having already questioned Fitz’s central point.
Fitz is so dishonest, he lacks self-awareness. I’m continually amazed that Fitz considers his own arguments as persuasive. Citing examples of where you’ve simply agreed with Fitz does nothing to address will’s point. Like I say, it’s just a counterargument.
While I’m here, I may as well add to will’s point (In the links I’m providing, apparently Rattfinque and CitizenFitz are the same person)…
Here Fitz tries to use a KJV search on the word “prayer” to justify his beliefs:
https://christiansfortruth.com/pope-francis-throws-jesus-christ-under-the-bus-pandering-to-offended-rabbis-in-israel/#comment-67651
Here Fitz disregards an entire argument because someone said, “1. “In my opinion….” 2. “All of us have error, mixed in with truth, in our faith….””: https://christiansfortruth.com/pope-francis-throws-jesus-christ-under-the-bus-pandering-to-offended-rabbis-in-israel/#comment-68569
Fitz plays a false dichotomy where he insists on branding non-Catholics as “protestant”. Like if we can’t find “protestant” in the Bible, we’re not allowed to be non-Catholics: https://christiansfortruth.com/pope-francis-throws-jesus-christ-under-the-bus-pandering-to-offended-rabbis-in-israel/#comment-67648
Fitz won’t even acknowledge one of my arguments: https://christiansfortruth.com/pope-francis-throws-jesus-christ-under-the-bus-pandering-to-offended-rabbis-in-israel/#comment-68300
Here’s a little icing on the cake: https://christiansfortruth.com/pope-francis-throws-jesus-christ-under-the-bus-pandering-to-offended-rabbis-in-israel/#comment-67654
Why don’t you just reply on topic, in your own thread, over here…?
https://christiansfortruth.com/will-all-israel-be-saved-or-just-a-remnant/#comment-69018
Galatians 5:4 and its reference to falling from grace is one of those “warning passages” pointed to by those who reject the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer. Did Adam fall from grace? What does a state of grace have to do with returning to the Law, its rites and deeds of self righteousness. You cannot fall unless you first were raised up by the life of Christ. The condition of mans was explained by Paul… For all have fallen short of the glory of God. Fallen short is the state of man without Christ. A state of grace is above the mundane attempts of man to overcome by a Law only the Son of God could keep.
The article is much needed I shall apply its principals and observations. Thanks.
birnie wrote, “You cannot fall unless you first were raised up by the life of Christ.”
So Adam and Eve didn’t fall?
CFT: “Sadly, many Christian circles do not acknowledge the intrinsically syllogistic nature of some of the Scriptures. For this reason, we tend to take something an author has said out of the context of their overall argument.”
Sadly, many Christians have fallen for the false doctrine of governmental Zionism, being thoroughly indoctrinated by the despotic Cyrus Schofield (yes, he was an infidel, abandoned his first wife and kids, sired additional through another woman) reference notes in Bibles, and further reinforced by false prophets such as Hal Lindsey.
The following passage has become true in these instances. 2 Timoteo 4:3-4 KJV: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”
That time is today. For example, I show Galatians 4:22-26 (New Heart English Bible) – “For it is written that Abraham had two sons [Ishmael & Isaac], one by the handmaid [Hagar], and one by the free woman [Sarah]. However, the son [Ishmael] by the handmaid was born according to the flesh, but the son [Isaac] by the free woman was born through promise. These things contain an allegory, for these are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children to bondage, which is Hagar. For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to the Jerusalem that exists now, for she is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she [Sarah] is our mother.”
I ask why they support the allegorical Hagar (in this case it speaks not of the Arabs) mentioned above. With a glassy eyed stare, I immediately encounter arguments that I am preaching replacement theology, an odd yet oxymoronic conclusion. Yet, they cannot explain why Christians are now the new Jews, instead focusing on a return of Judaism with temple building so it can usher in the return of the (anti-) Christ. Scriptures such as
1 Peter 2:9-10 (KJV) – “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”
and Romans 2:28-29 (KJV) – “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”
Those verses are very specific as to who the people of God really are. The priesthood to God changed with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
UVW, one of the problems we face here at CFT is that people often use our articles as an excuse to talk about what they want to talk about and not the articles themselves. Your comment is a perfect example of that.
OK, at first, it took a while for me to understand exactly what you are attempting to say, because I am left with a sense of vagueness. According to Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement, I see your comment fitting closest to “responding to tone” (criticizes the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument) although possibly could fit in “contradiction” (states the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence). I see that I am not alone for you responded similarly to one-third of the commenters.
If my comment was inappropriate, would it not have been easier to have simply E-mailed me a reply, i.e., “I could not post your comment for the following reason ….” Then, explain how I failed, or at least refer me to an FAQ on standards for posting successful comments, so that I would understand what is acceptable and what is not? (It would also help clean up the comments for readability by leaving those that meet standards, without the distracting “internal critique”, just saying …)
You see, I did respond to a statement you made about someone taking an author’s statements out of context, to which I replied about Zionist Christians taking Galatians Chapter 4, particularly verses 22-26 out of context by ignoring what it says. Then following up with supporting Bible verses. I thought I was complying with one of your last statements, “We must see the world through the Bible — we must not see the Bible through the world.”
Also, your article is quite large, covering a lot of bases, but at 16 printed pages using Firefox “Simplify Pages” function, (covers the main body text and associated graphics), 7,862 words (revealed in the statistical function of a plain text editor), the length IMO makes it difficult to have a comment that encompasses the jest of the entire article. On your shorter articles of 2 to 4 print pages long, I found those easier to respond to.
If you want the discussion to take a particular direction, would it not make sense at the end of the article, to include several thought questions that would prepare the commenters by helping lead the comment discussion? Just saying ….
UVW, we have a separate category for articles dedicated to exposing the fraud of Christian Zionism. You can choose any of these articles to direct your comment appropriately. Have at it:
https://christiansfortruth.com/category/evangelical-zionism/
Yes.
(1) The Bible says the Mosaic Covenant/Law has been replaced: “made void,” “blotted out,” “set aside,” “taken away.”
(2) There is also the New Chosen you cite in 1 Peter 2:9-10.
(3) The Israelites were warned in the Old Testament that they would be replaced.
How then can anyone pretend with a straight face that there was no replacement?
Hebrews 7:18
Hebrews 10:9
Colossians 2:14
Ephesians 2:15
Jeremias 31:31-32
Malachias 2:8-12
Hebrews 8:5-13
Mark 7:7-9
A new covenant doesn’t mean Israel is completely replaced… Only partially. Romans 11:17-32.
The New Covenant was prophesied to be made with Israel specifically (Jeremiah 31:31). But it was prophesied to be made with the nations as well (Hosea 1:10-11)… Who replaced many of the Israelites (Matthew 22:1-14).
Israel remains the focal point of the salvation plan (Revelation 7, Revelation 21:12).
Unfortunately many people refuse to see this, because they cling to the false belief that modern day Jews are the Israel of the Bible.
[sigh] What part of “made void,” “blotted out,” “set aside,” “taken away” don’t you understand? Today Israel is the Church, not the Synagogue of Satan or its project in the Holy Land.
Today’s Israel is the “ekklesia”, not the Catholic Church, if that’s what you are alleging. The “ekklesia” is comprised of all Israelite and Adamic believers in Christ, no one else, especially the Jewish popes from the ghettos of Europe, like Gregory VI, Gregory VII, and Anaclet II, who indeed are part of the synagogue of satan.
You literally addressed none of what I said. You didn’t even acknowledge anything I said. You simply restated your original logic and point.
“Today Israel is the Church, not the Synagogue of Satan or its project in the Holy Land.”
Yes, Israel has always been the church, or the “ekklesia” as it was rendered in the Greek Septuagint and the NT writings. The nations are joining that church, which is being rebuilt in Christ’s body.
Jeremiah 31 literally said,
31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.
33 “For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord: “I will put My law within them and write it on their heart; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
The New Covenant would be made with Israel specifically (Jeremiah 31:31), but the nations would also join the new covenant (Hosea 1:10-11). Paul said of Israel, “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” (Romans 11:29) The changing of the covenants doesn’t change the gifts and calling of God for Israel.
The modern Jews have nothing to do with any of that and they are the synagogue of Satan… We agree on that point.
Just what do YOU think the “ekklesia” is? Here is what the Bible says the “ekklesia” is. Even Protestant interlinears reveal:
In Matthew 16:18 Jesus founded His ἐκκλησίαν (ONE church, Singular) on Πέτρος
(Peter, it’s even Capitalized because it refers to the man’s name), NOT plural, innumerable, personal, or invisible “churches.” Jesus founded ONE Church (singular, not plural, in Matthew 16:18), a VISIBLE Church with Divine Rights to GOVERN (Matthew 16:19 & 18:18), TEACH (Matthew 28:19-20), and SANCTIFY (Matthew 28:18-19; John 20:23). Divinely and logically consistent with His commissions, Jesus founded ONE CENTRAL AUTHORITY (Matthew 16:19 & 18:18), a VISIBLE ORGANIZED SOCIETY (Mark 4:11), and called for ONENESS OF DOCTRINE (John 17:11, 21-23).
The “ekklesia” that you postulate can do NONE of that. Your “ekklesia” doesn’t TEACH the same as other Protestant sects. Your “ekklesia” can’t GOVERN other Protestant sects. Your “ekklesia” can’t SANCTIFY. Your “ekklesia” has no sacraments (except Baptism and maybe matrimony, though Protestant embrace of divorce makes a farce of matrimony).
Membership in Jesus’ “ekklesia” has NOTHING to do with race or DNA (Galatians 3:28), but with belief (faith), behavior (acts), and baptism—period.
Jesus compared His Church to a number of very VISIBLE objects: a body, a kingdom, a sheepfold, a net, a city, a field. Jesus Christ did not compare His Church to a disorganized rabble of conflicting doctrines and morality.
No, the disparagement of His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and the anti-biblical promotion of private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20) is based in the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, that men “might be as gods” (Genesis 3:5). Emulating Lucifer, many men declare “Non serviam.” They will not serve God, but their own traditions. Remember, that was the key judgment against the Pharisees: “…you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.” (Mark 7:8-9).
Okay, you’ve now moved up into a counterargument. You still haven’t addressed anything I’ve said. That’s twice now… If you can’t move past a counterargument, then you are merely repeating what you believe and what convinced you yourself. If you really understand Biblical doctrine, you’ll be able to address my contentions directly. But I’ll address your counterargument, then hopefully at some point you’ll go back to my previous comments and address my central point.
Your usage of Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18, and John 20:23 in relation to the claimed authority of the Catholic church is begging the question. No one doubts that Christ gave that authority to Peter and the apostles. You’re presuming that authority extends through Peter into the Catholic church. You haven’t proven that authority extends into the Catholic church. Let’s look at these two points:
1. Peter and the apostles were given authority to forgive sin.
2. The ekklesia would be built on the foundation of Peter and the apostles.
We probably both agree on the above two. However, Christ never said the authority to forgive sin would extend into anyone except Peter and the apostles. You’ve simply presumed that. There is not one single Scriptural witness to suggest anyone except Peter and the apostles could forgive sin. Them being the foundation of the ekklesia doesn’t add to or subtract from that point. There is not even any Scriptural witness to suggest that when the apostles imparted the Holy Spirit on elders/bishops by laying on hands that it conferred the ability to forgive sin.
“The “ekklesia” that you postulate can do NONE of that.”
This summarizes your presumption and error: It wasn’t the role of the ekklesia to do any of that. It was the role of the apostles to do that. The apostles are the judges of Israel (Matthew 19:28). There’s nothing to suggest their status as judges of Israel or their forgiveness of sin extended to anyone except themselves. The ekklesia was built on the foundation of the apostles and the apostles are a part of the ekklesia, but the ekklesia isn’t conferred all authority that the apostles had. You need to prove that, not presume it.
I agree that the ekklessia is singular. The ekklesia is the body of Christ and there is only one body. Whether someone in 45AD was a Christian in the British Isles, Ethiopia or Spain (being unaware of one another and having learned from different apostles), they are part of the same body. Whether someone is a Christian in 100AD, 200AD, 500AD, 1000AD or 2000AD, they are a part of the same body. Your presumption that this can only be satisfied in the singular Catholic church is meaningless. “Denominations” are a contrived concept and have no bearing on this matter. No matter what “denomination” you’re from, at the end of the age, you’re either a part of the body of Christ or you aren’t. Multiple “denominations” doesn’t necessarily mean adherents to those denominations believe there are multiple ekklesias or bodies of Christ. This whole “multiple church” argument is just a word game.
I agree with 2 Peter 1:20. There is no private interpretation of the Scripture. Incidentally, you’re trying to introduce a private interpretation of the Scripture by adding Catholic doctrine (itself not found in the Scripture) into the Scripture. We can hash out what is a non-private interpretation and prove the object truth inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it has to remain within the Scripture. When it doesn’t remain in the Scripture and the words of the apostles themselves and Christ Himself, then ironically you bring a doctrine which tries to build the church on a different foundation to the apostles.
The mistake you and many Catholics make is to dump every non-Catholic denomination into the category “protestant”. You then designate “protestant” as one “church”. You then criticize protestants for having multiple denominations within a single church and being “a disorganized rabble of conflicting doctrines and morality”. It’s a straw man argument, because there are Christians out there who don’t identify as being in the “protestant church”. Yet you insist on labelling them as such purely based on them not being Catholic. It’s all contrived.
“Jesus compared His Church to a number of very VISIBLE objects: a body, a kingdom, a sheepfold, a net, a city, a field. Jesus Christ did not compare His Church to a disorganized rabble of conflicting doctrines and morality.”
“A disorganized rabble of conflicting doctrines and morality” would also constitute “VISIBLE objects”, no? There’s really nothing logical about this comparison you’ve made.
Yes, Christ did not compare His church to “a disorganized rabble of conflicting doctrines and morality”. I also don’t claim to be a part of “a disorganized rabble of conflicting doctrines and morality”. I claim to be a part of the body of Christ, which transcends time as well as personalities. That fact that somewhere in the world someone who’s not a Catholic disagrees with someone else who’s not a Catholic doesn’t change my status as being part of the body of Christ. See, your argument is a straw man argument. You have to prove I’m a part of “a disorganized rabble of conflicting doctrines and morality”, not merely presume it. Hopefully you have an argument better than simply labelling me as a non-Catholic (i.e. protestant), because neither labels are particularly interesting to me in relation to myself.
In summary/cliff-notes/tl;dr — Your argument presumes Catholic values when interpreting the Scripture, it doesn’t prove Catholic values from within the Scripture itself.
“Membership in Jesus’ “ekklesia” has NOTHING to do with race or DNA (Galatians 3:28), but with belief (faith), behavior (acts), and baptism—period.”
You would agree that someone needs to be a pure-blooded descendant of Adam and Eve in order to attain to salvation, yes? You would agree that giant hybrids in the land of Canaan weren’t afforded salvation, yes? The problem is the world has been conditioned to accept the false concept of “race”. “Race” doesn’t exist. The giants in Canaan weren’t another “race”. They were something else other than Adam and Eve. “Races” don’t spontaneously appear. The Bible doesn’t say they appear. We’ve never seen them appear in observable reality. So what you perceive as “races” have existed since their own respective creation events. Therefore, only one of the “races” are descendants of Adam and Eve. By Extension, only one of the “races” are eligible for salvation.
Al Liguori wrote, “Membership in Jesus’ “ekklesia” has NOTHING to do with race or DNA (Galatians 3:28), but with belief (faith), behavior (acts), and baptism—period.”
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
This verse describes those who are in Christ, the children of the promise. That is, IF you are in Christ, there is no distinction between you. It’s an after-the-fact statement.
This verse does NOT say that anyone and everyone can be one in Christ. You’ve merely presumed that it can and does apply to everyone before the fact.
Al, you sound very angry and bitter. These feelings will always cloud your judgment:
“Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.”
(Ecclesiastes 7:9)
“Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.”
(Ephesians 4:31-32)
@Clear • I have buttressed my “counter-argument” with evidence that you offhandedly rejected.
“You’re presuming that authority extends through Peter into the Catholic church.”
No presumption at all. How do you think God intended to maintain that oneness of doctrine?
Who, if anyone, do you think has the commissions Jesus gave the Apostles and Disciples to teach, govern, and sanctify? Did those commissions die with St. John? Were 15 centuries of Christians in the dark until Luther et al. enlightened us all?
THE KEY TO THE PAPAL SUCCESSION and the continuation of the SACRAMENTS is found in these verses that command PREACHING, ORAL TEACHING, namely “APOSTOLIC TRADITION” and some writing.
• But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. John 21:25
• Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. 2 Thessalonians 2:14
• And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us. 2 Thessalonians 3:6
• And He said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15
• And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also. 2 Timothy 2:2
• Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you. 1 Corinthians 11:2
AUTHENTIC APOSTOLIC TRADITION— “Preach,” not publish. <<< Entirely supported by those verses.
What is that Tradition (capital "T")?
The Church hierarchy was established while the Apostles were still alive. The Apostles who walked and talked face-to-face with Jesus formed and participated in the hierarchy and teaching authority, “the Magisterium.” Can you adduce credible evidence that the Apostles ever spoke against or rebelled against the papacy, hierarchy, or teaching authority?
The Apostles also witnessed the continuation of all the Sacraments by those on whom they "laid hands."
St. John himself submitted to 4 popes in his life (St. Peter, St. Linus, St. Anacletus, St. Clement I) without one word against them. St. Clement’s letter in about 95 A.D. exercised his papal authority against a troublesome faction in Corinth. The Corinthian Christians, like the Apostles, respected and obeyed papal authority then and after. Do you have contrary evidence?
For you to believe that the Papacy ended with St. Peter and the hierarchy and the Sacraments ended with St. John, requires you to believe that the Apostles lifted no finger against the Papal Succession, hierarchy, and Sacraments that you reject. To hold your position you must also ignore (or rationalize) the continuation of the sacramental priesthood "laying on of hands": Acts 6:6, Acts 13:3, 1 Timothy 5:22, James 5:14.
It also requires you to ignore:
“Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Acts 20:28
Finally, if you reject Apostolic Tradition, you should explain the widespread adherence to and dependence upon PREACHING (and the scattered-unyet-collected writing) by the Christians of the first 4 centuries. 4 centuries of Christians depended PRIMARILY on oral preaching of Apostolic Tradition—Apostles to the Disciples, and then to the Early Fathers. There was no Bible until the Catholic Church, in the person of St. Jerome, assembled and canonized the collected inspired writing.
Three questions for you to ponder:
1. Did first century A.D. Christians have “the Bible”?
2. Did second century A.D. Christians have “the Bible”?
3. Did third century A.D. Christians have “the Bible”?
Answers: No, no, and no.
1. First century Christians had the Septuagint, portions of the Apostle’s writings and they had the oral preaching of the visiting Apostles, Disciples, and Fathers.
2. Second century Christians had the Septuagint, portions of the Apostle’s writings and they had the oral preaching of the visiting Disciples and Fathers and some of their writings.
3. Third century Christians had the Septuagint, portions of the Apostle’s writings and they had the oral preaching of the visiting Fathers and some of the writings of the Disciples and Fathers.
Were the first three centuries of Christians were wrong because they obeyed oral tradition? Were the Apostles a bunch of slobs oblivious and silent in the face of bogus teaching, bogus Popes, and bogus Sacraments? Or did they rebel and a conspiracy collected all evidence of their objections?
The irony is this—the only bridge between Jesus Christ on Earth and the bowdlerized Protestant “Bible” today is… (angelic trumpets here)… oral tradition, the very same originally-oral Apostolic Tradition that some despise and ridicule.
“Don’t believe anything we preach, except what is later going to be put down on paper.” A truly nutty doctrine.
The only rational interpretation is this: The Bible is valuable (2 Timothy 3:16), BUT NOT EVERYTHING (John 21:25); Apostolic Tradition, the preaching “heard,” is essential (see the verses above) not only to determine what is canonical, but also because not everything Jesus said could be put down in a book. Sola scriptura is one of the most fundamental reasons that Protestantism fails: Without the oral traditions of the Apostles, Disciples, and Fathers of the first three centuries A.D., there would be no basis to judge what belongs in the canon of Scripture.
Apostolic Tradition is the key to succession of popes, hierarchy, and sacraments. To reject that Apostolic Tradition demands that you ignore or reject the verses I have cited above.
@Al Liguori, let’s recap the conversation so far:
In your original post you made a point (https://christiansfortruth.com/how-to-more-effectively-disagree-in-biblical-matters/#comment-72693).
I addressed your central point (https://christiansfortruth.com/how-to-more-effectively-disagree-in-biblical-matters/#comment-72856).
In response, you gave me (at best) a contradiction (https://christiansfortruth.com/how-to-more-effectively-disagree-in-biblical-matters/#comment-73227).
I reiterated my original point (https://christiansfortruth.com/how-to-more-effectively-disagree-in-biblical-matters/#comment-73281).
You gave a counter-argument (https://christiansfortruth.com/how-to-more-effectively-disagree-in-biblical-matters/#comment-73485).
I refuted the central point of your counter-argument (https://christiansfortruth.com/how-to-more-effectively-disagree-in-biblical-matters/#comment-73591).
Now you’re just providing another counter-argument. You consistently avoid the central point with tenacity.
This is the third time you’ve ignored my central point, despite me calling your attention to it each time. To recap my argument… the new covenant was made with Israel. The doing away of the old covenant doesn’t do away with Israel, because “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” (Rom 11:29) The new covenant was made with Israel specifically (Jer 31:31). The ekklesia is Israel and it always was Israel (Romans 11:17-24). Before Christ’s death (and the new covenant), He even referred to the ekklesia as exclusive with the nations (Matthew 18:17). Israel is being rebuilt in the body of Christ (Acts 15:16, Amos 9:11). The Kingdom AKA “Tabernacle/House of David” is being restored to Israel (2 Samuel 7:16, Acts 1:6) — so the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant restores David’s kingdom to Israel under Christ. The nations are joining Israel (Hosea 1:10-11, Deu 32:21, Rom 10:19, Rom 11:19-20, Rev 21:12, Rev 21:24-26).
You also didn’t address my address of your argument on “race” in my previous comment (https://christiansfortruth.com/how-to-more-effectively-disagree-in-biblical-matters/#comment-73591).
“I have buttressed my “counter-argument” with evidence that you offhandedly rejected.”
No, I spoke at length as to why your argument is begging the question. I showed that you cannot prove out of the Bible that anyone except the apostles could forgive sin. Proving that the apostles handed down traditions and appointed elders doesn’t prove that anyone except the apostles were able to forgive sin. You’ve now shifted the goal-posts and falsely equated the authority to forgive sin with the traditions passed down to the churches and the authority which the elders had over them.
Paul taught twice on eldership (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1) and he didn’t refer to forgiveness of sins once. Peter wrote two letters and didn’t refer to it once. Neither Clement nor Polycarp mention it either. Clement didn’t exercise “papal authority”… He appealed to the Scripture and Paul’s (an apostle) epistle to the Corinthians to obey the appointed overseers of their church. Have you studied Clement’s first epistle before? You’re arguing from ignorance and you’re begging the question.
We’re now a long way away from the original point. You consistently ignore my arguments, leading us down a rabbit-hole. So I really have little interest in continuing this conversation, at least until such time as you can actually address my arguments. Nothing you’ve said proves that Israel is not the central focus of the new covenant and the ekklesia.
“…you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.” (Mark 7:8-9)
That describes the Catholic Church to a T. The “Pope” is found nowhere in Scripture, but it is found in the Babylon mystery religions which had a supreme figurehead called “Pontifex Maximus”, i.e., “the Greatest Pontiff”. But that’s to be expected from an organization up to its eyeballs in pagan influences and traditions, as admitted to by canonized Catholic cardinal and theologian John Henry Newman in his essay “An Essay on The Development of the Christian Doctrine”:
“The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church.”
The Greek “ekklesia” does not mean a literal “church”, that is, an hierarchical organization with a bureaucracy and leader, though that’s how it’s mistranslated into English and other languages.
“Ekklesia” means “the called out ones”, so the “ekklesia” is always people, not a literal, material organization or building.
https://biblehub.com/greek/1577.htm
The English word “church” ultimately comes from the Greek “kyriakos” which means “belonging to the Lord”. John calls Christ the “Kyrios”. Again, this confirms the meaning of “ekklesia” as people, not an organization.
https://biblehub.com/greek/2960.htm
As a 12 year old, didn’t Jesus spend 3 days in debate with the priests? That’s at least the popular depiction of Luke 2:45-47.
As has often been noted here, Man is a rationalizing animal. And what I have increasingly noted of late is that most people devote most of their intelligence to rationalizing what they already think to be true than they do to figuring out what they think is not true. This desire to rationalize rather than learn is, quite possibly, the intelligent individual’s biggest intellectual weakness.
What we’re dealing with are ingrained presuppositions and binary thinking which were established from lifelong learning habits – good, bad or indifferent – and act as filters on our discernment of good or evil and all things. Heb 5:11-14
As an example, Jesus did not spend long hours debating – He told off the Pharisees, taught crowds with parables and only spent time teaching His disciples.
Most people are simply incapable of honest discussion or debate, no matter the topic.
Aside from His 3 day discourse with the priests, I am not sure that there was no protracted discussion, with people aside from the Disciples, at other points by Him)
“As an example, Jesus did not spend long hours debating – He told off the Pharisees, taught crowds with parables and only spent time teaching His disciples.
Most people are simply incapable of honest discussion or debate, no matter the topic.”
You’re probably right. But Jesus was in a much more privileged position spiritually and intellectually. Maybe (and hopefully) one day we’ll be able to separate the chaff from the wheat as easily as He did.
The difference is that those who speak truth in their hearts realize they must “practice [to] have their senses trained to distinguish between good and evil”. They apply the same scrutiny to themselves as they do to others, so they must suffer their own scrutiny until such time as God justifies them. They also revel in the scrutiny of their true brethren and vice versa.
The type you’re talking about feel they don’t have to scrutinize themselves and they are above anyone else’s scrutiny. They’ve “made it” as it were. The trick is finding out which is which and we’ll have to train ourselves in that regard. I hope and pray that Jesus and the Holy Spirit help us quickly.
What you say is true.
I’ll add this—We have only so many breaths and heartbeats. At some point each of us decides that we cannot investigate and prove every little thing. Sometimes we just have to have… faith and Faith. Faith in God and faith that your plumber and doctor know what they are doing.
CFT said, [ in part ] “…whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him” — a definitive statement showing that “whatever goes into the person” — meaning anything one might eat — cannot be considered sin.”
defiled – adjective
1. morally blemished.
2. ritually unclean. Opposite of clean.
3. impure; dirty
I can see that the person is not defiled by eating scavengers. Are there other sins that might be involved by what we put in our bodies?
If you ate a poison which killed you, you might not be defiled but you might be sick [ or dead ].
Eating a scavenger which has parasites or certain diseases could cause you to have parasites or one of the diseases.
Would polluting God’s temple be a transgression?
Would “trying to prove too much” be similar to ” begging the question”.
I’m just trying to clarify the issue.