How to Argue Like a Christian: The Last-Verse-Read Argument, Part 2

[This post expands on an article from March 31, 2009, nearly five years ago.]

Perhaps the most common error in logic committed by believers of all kinds is our persistent use of the last-verse-read argument.

For example, in the Churches of Christ, we deny once-saved-always-saved (the perseverance of the saints), as we are Arminian in theology. And so in our Sunday school classes we read the once-saved-always-saved verses first. We read the yes-you-can-fall-away verses last. We tell our students that the yes-you-can-fall-away verses explain the once-saved-always-saved verses. The class goes home feeling affirmed in their beliefs.

Across the street a Baptist Sunday school teacher reads the yes-you-can-fall-away verses first. He then reads the once-saved-always-saved verses last, telling his class that the last-read verses explain the first-read verses. His class goes home feeling affirmed in their beliefs.

We do this all the time — all of us. And it’s wrong. It’s really hard to actually wrestle with the Baptist verses and teach a theology that’s built on the all the verses. But until we do that, we’re just pretending to be following the Bible. What we’re really doing is starting with our preferred conclusion and then picking the verses that support what we want to say and ignoring the contrary verses. It’s entirely circular.

I’ve come to realize that the problem with this form of argumentation is much more serious than merely flawed logic — although it’s severely flawed logic. Consider this all-too-typical chain of events:

Church of Christ commenter cites his preferred verses for his position. He ignores the verses that don’t agree.

Baptist commenter cites verses that don’t agree — and assumes that he’s won the debate. After, his verses are the last ones read.

COC quotes his verses again, this time with greater emphasis. Now his verses are the last ones read. He thinks he’s won.

Baptist quotes his verses again. Now his verses are the last ones read. He thinks he’s won.

COC raises the emotional stakes with a comment like, “You just want to be pleasing to the denominations.” Obviously, he has no basis for this claim other than the disagreement itself, but he wants other readers to think less of his opponent — and so he demonstrates his lack of respect for his opponent who dares quote verses in the wrong order.

Baptist responds in kind with something like, “You don’t think Jesus is sufficient to save” or “You don’t believe that God is sovereign.”

COC heats up conversation. Maybe he accuses his Baptist correspondent of lying.

Baptist does the same, adding in a long list of criticisms of the Churches of Christ in general.

This is familiar, right?

Notice what’s really going on.

1. Neither side deals with the other side’s verses. Neither side digs deeper into the text to find new truths. Neither side is doing its homework. (There are lots of great books and, for free, lots of great posts across the Internet dealing with this topic.) Neither side learns nor teaches anything.

2. The implicit assumption is that there are only two possible answers, mine and yours. No one bothers to look for a third possibility. Again, lots of free resources, and excellent research materials are available at the lowest costs in history.

3. It’s assumed that since only mine and yours are possible, if I disprove yours, I must be right — avoiding the need to defend my own views or even explain how all the verses fit what I teach. But it’s just not true.

This is called the Black-or-White Fallacy, the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, a False Dilemma, or a False Dichotomy. As explained in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy —

The black-or-white fallacy is a false dilemma fallacy that unfairly limits you to only two choices.

Example:

Well, it’s time for a decision. Will you contribute $10 to our environmental fund, or are you on the side of environmental destruction?

A proper challenge to this fallacy could be to say, “I do want to prevent the destruction of our environment, but I don’t want to give $10 to your fund. You are placing me between a rock and a hard place.” The key to diagnosing the black-or-white fallacy is to determine whether the limited menu is fair or unfair. … In thinking about this kind of fallacy it is helpful to remember that everything is either black or not black, but not everything is either black or white.

The problem in religious discussions is that the debate has been going on for so long, with intense emotions being associated with the two sides as each side seeks to make the other side seem foolish, that we stopped looking for a third option centuries ago. And so we’ve made no progress toward a resolution for centuries.

The problem typically comes from a failure to know how to state the negation (true opposite) of a statement. For example,

Either every act of worship requires authority from God or else any act of worship is permitted. It’s either the Regulative Principle or the Normative Principle.

This is very familiar ground, but the negation of “every act of worship requires authority” is “every act of worship does not require authority (but may require something else).” The opposite of requiring a law is not “requiring nothing” but “requiring something other than law or, perhaps, nothing.” There are far more possibilities to consider other than the necessity of authority.

This is an old debate, and I’m not the first to have come to this conclusion. But both sides stopped doing original research 100 years ago.

Hubris

And this brings us to one of the deeper spiritual problems: arrogance. When you refuse to honestly consider the merits of your opponent’s position, you are not humble; you are guilty of hubris — the pride that goes before a fall. You’ve prevented yourself from learning and growing because you think you’ve already arrived — and this is a dangerous place for a Christian to find himself.

(Jam 4:6-7 ESV) ⁶ But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” ⁷ Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

Questioning Inspiration

When our arguments require that the other side’s verses be overruled by our verses, we’re implicitly deleting their verses from the Bible. I well remember the preachers of my childhood criticizing Thomas Jefferson for taking scissors to his Bible, deleting those passages that he didn’t care for.

Well, we do the same thing when we argue along the lines of “My Free Will verses overrule your Unconditional Election verses.” It’s not just lazy. It’s claiming to know God’s will better than God. It’s implicitly arguing that the other verses really shouldn’t be in the canon.

Toward a Solution

Some ideas on how to do better —

1. Be willing to admit that you don’t know the answer. This not only makes you more credible, it will motivate you to go looking for a real answer. It will help you listen to others who might either have the answer or take you one step toward the answer.

2. Don’t ever seek to win by raising the emotional stakes. Avoid hot-button words like “ridiculous” and “liar.” (These and the like may lead to automatic moderation.) Try to prevail based on the text, not the heat of your rhetoric.

(1Co 2:2-5 ESV) ² For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. ³ And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, ⁴ and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, ⁵ so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

Paul  was, of course, capable of great eloquence. But we err when we build our cases on the heatedness of our language rather than Jesus Christ and him crucified, the Spirit, and the power of God.

3. Rather than repeating tired old arguments, take it back to basics. And although its sometimes necessary to work through the nitty details of the Greek and the grammar, the more important test is whether your conclusions align with the bigger principles — such as God’s covenant faithfulness, grace, and faith — the issues that flow throughout the text.

4. Often the dilemma can be resolved by reference to the Old Testament. The Romans 8 discussion of the Spirit becomes vastly more clear once we’ve read the Old Testament passages that speak of the Spirit as Paul speaks. He assumes we know our scriptures, and so when we insist on reading him divorced from the Old Testament, we often fail to understand, and so we instead unconsciously read our own culture and worldview into Paul.

5. Beware of false dichotomies. They are so common in Church of Christ rhetoric that we don’t even notice how easily our debaters ignore third, fourth, and fifth possibilities. Always ask, “Is there another option?” before responding to such an argument.

6. If the other person insists on other tactics, make your point and exit the conversation. There is no reason to create an audience for someone who refuses to see logic when it’s inconvenient.

7. As Paul taught Timothy (and this is a site rule) —

(2Ti 2:23-26 ESV) ²³ Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. ²⁴ And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, ²⁵ correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, ²⁶ and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

8. Jesus spoke very harshly of the Pharisees at times, but that’s okay because he’s Jesus. We’re not. We sometimes make mistakes, and so we need to proceed gently, as willing to be taught as we are willing to teach.