Refuting Error And Polemic Technique

Gen. George S. Patton wrote a book, Patton's Principles: A Handbook for Managers Who Mean It.  The point he makes is that we need to pick our battles and not get into disputes for no good reason when we have nothing positive to gain.  If we have everything to lose and nothing to gain, avoid it!  Some arguments generate more heat than light, and subsequently, aren't worth the adrenaline. 


The Bible says that God's servant must not be quarrelsome, and forbids us to be contentious, argumentative, judgmental, or divisive; the strategy of the devil is to divide and conquer and we need not be ignorant of his schemes.  We must learn the art or discipline of agreeing to disagree, and to disagree without being disagreeable!  Some people avoid all arguments like the plague, but an argument is simply showing someone his error or falsehood.



There are rules of debate and etiquette to keep arguments civil and under control, so as not to alienate and do irreparable damage to the relationship:  they say you shouldn't ever talk politics or religion, according to the American maxim, but how do we ever arrive at truth without doing that?  Truth is not relative but absolute and we need to be devoted to the truth; the unbeliever rejects the truth, but he who is of the truth hears God's voice--Jesus came to bear witness of the truth and truth came through Him, the personification of it.  A good lawyer can argue both sides of the case and knows the arguments pro and con, but we also hone our skills at learning and speaking by the principle that "iron sharpens iron" (per Proverbs 27:17). 


We all tend to be opinionated and some people don't want to understand, just express opinions, but just as we hold opinions, convictions hold us and we would consider laying down our lives for them.  We all have a right to our own private opinions, but not to fabricate our personal facts. The Bible doesn't forbid controversy, just godless controversy.  A point in fact:  John Stott wrote a book, Christ the Controversialist, to show that he didn't shy away from hot topics and wasn't afraid to upset the apple cart and the security of the Pharisees' turf, so as to make them jealous of His fame and popularity. We must not avoid controversy because it's not an option; to avoid it is to avoid Christ and the truth, letting heresy take over the church.   



We must aggressively confront heresy and confute those in opposition to sound doctrine--a good deacon can defend the faith and confront heresy, even smelling false doctrine a mile away, as it were. Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Let's not lose by default because we conceded and didn't come to the rescue and aid of our errant brothers.  The truth of the Bible is fully defensible and we need to be equipped to rightly divide the Word of Truth and to study to show ourselves approved unto God, as workmen without shame (cf. 1 Tim. 2:15).


Republicans insist there's no "evidence" of a cover-up; there's plenty of it, but they don't know what evidence in a court of law is:  it doesn't necessarily mean "proof" but only an argument or case to consider in making the decision of guilt or innocence.  There is often evidence pro and con in every case.  There is evidence of a cover-up because Trump told the Russians that he got rid of the "crazy nut job" to ease the pressure on the Russia issue.  He also admitted to Lester Holt on TV that the reason Comey was fired was an attempt to end the Russia investigation (by intimidation).  


Obstruction of justice, by the way, doesn't have to be successful, to be considered obstruction, all one has to do is make the attempt, even if it fails.  It isn't just one staff member that's under suspicion, but eighteen and there is evidence according to the FBI of a cover-up, and this implies there's a crime to cover up!  As they say, where's there's smoke, there's fire.  Soli Deo Gloria! 

"Has God said ...?"

 Doubt in its place can be a good thing:  "Tell me your certainties, I have enough doubts of my own"  (Goethe).
Skepticism goes all the back to the Greek philosophers of antiquity, so it is not new--they wondered about knowing anything at all.
David Hume, the extreme skeptic philosopher, was known for doubting the very possibility of miracles, saying they were a violation of natural law (thus personifying science):  He repudiated the idea of certainty.
Rene Descartes, the father of modern philosophy in an age of Rationalism, refused to believe anything unless provable: Cogito, ergo sum was all he could muster (I think, therefore I am).
Has anything ever not rung true to you?  Read on!

"It is to a man's honor to avoid strife, but every fool is quick to quarrel:  (Proverbs 20:3).
First three paragraphs are an introduction, disclaimer, and platform:

My goal herein is to provide a rationale for avoiding unnecessary conflict whether by specious (questionable and dubious) argument or even by cogent, rational assertion.  I'll attempt to keep the rhetoric at bay and won't engage in a war over ideas (the only war worth fighting at all costs is the gospel and constituent truths).  (Some argument is better suited to the open marketplace of ideas and not between loved ones.  If you can't say it in public, it might not be worth saying.)  This is based on personal experience and what the Lord has taught me, and is not intended to offend anyone.  We must be prepared to have an answer for the hope that is within us, yet with gentleness and respect according to 1 Peter 3:15; otherwise we lose by default and confirm them in their ignorance.  (Refutation and rebuttal ability are acquired skills through practice and are not as necessary as a thorough knowledge of the Word of Truth--knowing the Bible is more valuable than an education.)

This is my dialectic about being skeptical and putting skepticism in its place.  I am hoping to shun animosity and discord, but I have found it necessary to blog on this matter and not concede without saying my peace of mind and getting it off my chest about what I know something about.  In the final analysis, I hope you will ascertain your position and, if you disagree, be tactful, kind, and loving in your reaction, comment, or response (it is the spirit that something is done in that matters and is apparent).  A final word to the wise is sufficient:  An opinion is something you hold, but convictions hold you and you are usually willing to make sacrifices for them, to die for, that is, even the ultimate sacrifice itself.

In the so-called great quest or pursuit of truth and thirst for knowledge, I endeavor to make an intelligible discourse to delineate my stand on argumentation and skepticism (I believe there comes a time when we must make our position known and stand up for what we believe).  I intend to tone down the rhetoric and be as coherent and lucid as I am can.   Sometimes we are not presenting the offense of the cross, but being offensive and obnoxious jerks in our interpersonal intercourse.  I am aware that some of the great philosophers and theologians have declared that "all truth is God's truth," but in my nomenclature, the truth is divine revelation that changes lives and gives life to the soul.  All of us err on occasion as Augustine said, "If I err, I am."  Also, "to err is human...."  Finally, these views are what I espouse and subscribe to and I do not claim to be inerrant, or infallible, neither do I speak ex-cathedra, nevertheless,  I am articulating my own viewpoint.

You may recall that this is what Satan said to Eve when he so slyly introduced the concept of skepticism to her.  Some people are born skeptics and are naturally inquisitive or inquiring, even too curious or doubtful for their own good--there is a place for faith and all knowledge begins with it.  There are some things we ought to be skeptical about, like politicians who act out of expediency (Goethe said politics is a dirty business).  But there is a time and place for every matter under heaven and one should know when to be skeptical and put it in its place.

Gen. George C. Patton's book Patton's Principles:  A Handbook for Managers Who Mean it says we should "pick our fights" because there may be more to lose than to gain.  We can win an argument and lose a friend--I personally believe relationships are more important than showing off your debating skill.  Proverbs says, that a brother offended is harder to win over than a fortified city.  Sometimes wisdom tells us not to go there because we have more to lose than to gain.  Arguments can generate more heat than light and people are rarely won over by argument--you cannot argue someone into the kingdom, for instance.

R. C. Sproul says that the Bible forbids being argumentative, divisive, contentious, or judgmental.  This is true because Paul says in 2 Tim. 2:24 that "the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome [must not strive]."  We are peacemakers, not troublemakers, and one of the six things God hates listed in Prov. 6:19 is sowing discord (one of the fruits of the flesh listed in Gal. 5) among brethren.  I'm not saying we cannot disagree, but the Lord exhorts us to agree in the Spirit and be of one accord.  We can agree to disagree without being disagreeable, as the cliche goes--but this is a vital one too--we don't want to be known or pegged for being a contentious, contrary, or disagreeable person.

"Endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," Paul says in Ephesians 4:3.  A fellowship is when two fellows are on the same ship, so how can the fellowship be about two people trying to prove the other wrong (which is my definition of an argument)?  Usually, people stop seeking the truth and just get stubborn and step into a belligerent or attack mode, picking a fight, as it were, even judging and resorting to ad hominem attacks (insulting the person rather than the facts themselves)--and I am as guilty of this as the next guy.  Mea culpa!

It is beautiful when brethren get along in the Spirit and can calmly discuss matters without it escalating into something undesirable and uncalled for among believers.  Most tiffs are the result of misunderstanding j(a failure to communicate!) and especially of semantics or diction where we don't know where the other party is coming from.   The better we know someone, the more we know or should know, how to get a rise out of them, know how to push their buttons,  or what offends them--and to not go there.  There will be disagreements (Augustine's dictum, "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity" applies) and they are inevitable because we are human ("to err is human, to forgive divine").

We don't want to be "yes-men" or sycophants that encourage someone in their error.  An honest answer is a kiss on the lips according to Proverbs; that is to say, it is better to be honest sometimes, though the truth may hurt. Proverbs also say that the wounds of a friend can be trusted.  The truth can hurt, so we have to learn tact and be sensitive when necessary. We can do a person more of a favor sometimes by disagreeing and telling the truth as we see it!

There is a command to stand up for the truth (but this is only for absolute truth found in Scripture); Jude urges us to "earnestly contend for the faith" in Jude 4.  Jesus said that he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword, and to set a fire and he wishes it had already been kindled!  Families often divide on religion and Christ predicted this, but they need not do so on the basis of politics for example.   The rapprochement or reconciliation after a fight is harder than to avoid it in the first place and we have to learn to be tactful, sensitive, and political in family or friendship circles.  The truth is always fighting for, but only the Bible is called "truth."

Jesus claimed to be the personification or embodiment of truth itself (that means there is absolute truth)--other things may be true, but cannot legitimately be called truth--it is the truth that sets us free spiritually (John 8:32).   We are sanctified by the truth  (John 17:17), and Jesus purpose in coming was to" bear witness of the truth" as he gave the testimony to Pilate (John 18:37).  This is our calling and commission as Christians, not to turn people into our political persuasion, et alia.

The church has had many splits and factions because of contention (this is why there are so many denominations) and after the reformation contention arose because Catholics gave equal authority to tradition as to Scripture.  The best way to diffuse an argument is to admit you could be wrong!  Be the humble one who is not stubborn and seek the truth of the matter.  Paul says to Timothy:  "The man of God must not strive [quarrel] ...."  There is a place for debate now, which is another ballgame.  Like in the Senate chambers where a bill must be discussed and the pros and cons weighed.  The purpose of debate is to win and there is a moderator and judge to decide this--sometimes a vote transpires.  In an argument, the purpose shouldn't be to win, but to seek the truth, if one stays objective and has an open mind.  Remember, Satan is at work and his chief strategy is to divide and conquer.

Now to find the truth you must go with the flow (the direction of evidence and argument) and be willing to admit you are wrong (before you can be educated, you must admit your ignorance), which you may be, because no one has a monopoly on the truth and has cornered the market so that they have the right to be intolerant of disagreement.  "Behold how pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity" (Psalm 133:1).    The best way to discuss a matter is to have it based on the truth, which is Scripture, and use the Bible to back up your ideas.  "Then shall I have an answer for him who taunts me..." (Psalm 119:42).  Jesus also quoted Scripture to defeat Satan:  He said, "It is written...."

When you disagree it may be wise to just change the subject and pursue it no further--it may not be worth the argument or being disagreeable about--people's feelings get hurt even if we are just being ourselves or telling the truth--sometimes the truth hurts and we are not being tactful--we may also be hypersensitive ourselves and carry our feelings on our sleeves--we should be ready to take anything our friends dish out in confidence that they love us and are not perfect.  We are all "works in progress" and will make mistakes--no one can say he has arrived at perfection.

In summation:  Keep it in check and under restraint--don't ever knowingly and willingly jeopardize a close and meaningful relationship!    Soli Deo Gloria!

Should Christians Argue?

"Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone ..." (2 Tim. 2:24-25).


It's been wisely said that it's better to debate a matter and not settle it than to settle it without debate.

R. C. Sproul says the Bible states we are not to be "divisive, contentious, argumentative, or judgmental;" I might add: As brethren--it is unfruitful and doesn't work to the benefit of the body. We are to seek unity and to be one in the Spirit and in agreement as much as possible (cf. Eph. 4:3).   "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called children of God"  (Matthew 5:9).  We may be called to restore a fellowship and be mediators or go-betweens.   We don't want the reputation of being troublemakers.

By way of definition, this is the way I see it, for the purpose of this post:  Arguing is when we purposely strive to show that someone is wrong or misinformed.  The word has negative connotations for some and they refuse to have anything to do with them.  We may just be calmly debating back and forth and just asking and answering questions; it doesn't necessarily mean we are raising our voices or getting vociferous.  We should always be tactful and sensitive, all the more when we know someone.  The pitfall is when an innocent argument leads to a quarrel and worse yet a feud or permanent cleavage in a relationship.  Simple inquiries or debates can escalate into full-blown quarrels if we are not vigilant and careful.  Arguments per se are not taboo for the believer--it is one methodology of exposing truth or falsity.

To arrive at the truth you must be willing to admit you may be wrong:  the quickest way to diffuse an argument is to say, "Then, again, I may be wrong!"  That's because there is no such thing as total objectivity apart from God, and neither of the participants may be right.  As part of our image of God, we all have an inner sense of right and wrong and we always end up appealing to some standard and we end up arguing.

Notice it says "foolish and stupid arguments."  John Stott (one of the 100 most influential people in the world one year) wrote the book Christ the Controversialist.  "To avoid controversy is to avoid Christ" according to R. C. Sproul.   Christ was no stranger to controversy and dared to challenge the system with clever logic and even answering a question with a question.  Some controversies are godly and necessary; otherwise, we would not be able to refute heresy and false teaching.  But there is a difference between being contentious, argumentative, and starting arguments, and after the truth in a methodical spiritual manner.  Are we seeking to heal or hurt is the question; are we seeking the truth on a godly issue or are we being argumentative and challenging someone.

 Remember that relationships are the most important thing, not how clever we can be to outwit our win an argument.  You can win an argument and lose a friend.  Some people are familiar with each other may just know how to pull each other's strings.  Christianity is not about how smart we are but our relationship with the living God, largely manifested by our fellowship with fellow believers, especially if they are family.  It is a good thing to avoid unnecessary family tiffs.  But if it is about Christ then God says that Christ will even split a family.  Matthew 10:34 says that He came not to bring peace, but a sword!

Our debate skills (and I was on the debate team and even judged debates, so I am qualified to comment here) are not on the line in our friendships and family ties. We aren't debating our brethren in the Lord on personal matters,  and we should restrict debate to where it belongs:  politics and issues of doctrine that are paramount to the church.   We don't try to one-up our brothers and sisters or get into the habit of comparing or bragging.  "Love doesn't brag," but in a family it is understood (it is more like "news" and we believe they want to know it) that there is a place for sharing things with family members and to brag on each other--this is not the time of bragging it is talking about. What is good is when we took someone else's horn or brag about them and they don't have to do it.  We really shouldn't toot our own horn according to the Bible.

"As far as it is possible, be at peace with all men, "says Romans 12:18.  This means that we keep the peace the best we can,  and not see if we can ruffle some feathers and stir up a lively or contentious conversation that has no positive fruit. Sometimes it is easy for more educated people to see an opportunity to pick apart the brains or conversation of those less in the know or clued in (don't  "wow them with your scholarship" as Chuck Swindoll has written).  Do everything in love and seek harmony and peace, not division!  Sometimes it is tempting to let the steam out of one's balloon or deflate their ego; but Scripture says clearly to "rejoice with those who rejoice," (Rom. 12:15a).

I can remember an example when someone was really excited that our team won, and I commented that it was against a losing team:  I was not rejoicing because he replied that a w is still a w.  What this means is that if someone is happy about something that we should not find reasons for them not to be happy and bum them out and show the negative side.  If one hears good news, we don't seek the bad news somewhere hiding in the shadows.

Case in point:  Suppose brother A says that his town was chosen as the best town in the state to live and he was celebrating the good news and maybe even bragging a bit, but only to close family and friends whom he knew.  And brother B was very skeptical and challenged his "fact" and wanted to know the source of such info. What if he didn't know and interpreted B's skepticism as doubting his "word" and calling him "naive" or "gullible."  What I'm saying is that it is far better and more Christ-like to say something like:  "That's very good for your town and I'll bet you're glad you live there now!"  This sounds far more positive and constructive to a good relationship. People do take a lot of pride in the places they live and could take it as a personal offense to question their belief in it being a good place to live.

Where am I going with this and what's the conclusion of the matter?  Let's say that we must learn to pick our battles: George C. Patton wrote a book Patton's Principles: A Handbook for Managers Who Mean It.  In other words, choose an argument that is worth something and you may have something to lose or gain spiritually by.  It is not worth just arguing just for the sake of arguing just to see who wins!  We must try to stay positive and rejoice with those who rejoice and not always present the pitfalls or negative side which may bum them out!  We may even have the skills of a lawyer, but that doesn't entitle us to use them haphazardly or recklessly on family and friends if we want to stay in fellowship.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Can Controversy Be Good?

"Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:3).

John Stott authored the book Christ the Controversialist and I think he's onto something here: Avoiding controversy completely is avoiding Christ, as it were. There are foolish controversies or quarrels, and there are ones that are worth the fight and are "non-negotiables." We shouldn't quarrel about disputable matters, such as eating meat or a Sabbath, but everyone should obey his conscience and be fully convinced in his own mind (Rom. 14:1ff).   Some have an unhealthy craving for quarrels and meanings of words (1 Tim. 6:4,8). 

We are to avoid "foolish controversies" or dissensions according to Titus 3:9. In the book Patton's Principles: A Handbook for Managers Who Mean It he admonishes us not to argue over something that you have nothing or little to gain in winning--to pick our fights wisely.  You could lose a friend arguing about a trivial subject.    As St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo said, "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

There will be factions though we are not to have a factious spirit (a fruit of the flesh) because Christ said that he came not to "bring peace, but a sword (Matt. 10:34). But we are to beware of "deceptive philosophy and empty deceit.." cf/ Col. 2:8. So don't let anyone fool you with sophistry or "plausible arguments" and not according to the Word (Col. 2:4).   Soli Deo Gloria!