Welcome to Out of the Question, a podcast that looks behind some common questions and uncovers the question behind the question while providing real solutions for biblical world and life view. Your co-hosts are Andrea Schwartz, a teacher and mentor, and Pastor Charles Roberts. Thanks for joining us today as we discuss why it is important to know how to argue and the inevitable pitfalls that one might encounter in the process. I think most people have a huge misunderstanding when it comes to what argumentation is. I think they think it's fighting. How many times do parents say to their children, stop arguing with each other. In that regard, really what they're doing is vying for who's going to dominate in a particular situation, whether they're doing it with words or whether they're doing it physically. And it's made synonymous with this subject called argumentation, which is really about people with different viewpoints and premises coming together in order to convince the other person of something or to come to a mutual understanding and agreement. So Charles, do you think that the Great Commission has anything to do with argumentation And do we need to become better at it in order to be obedient to this command of Christ? Well, I think it certainly does in the best sense of the term, argumentation, as you have defined it. I like to say dialogue and discussion because, as you indicated, argumentation or arguing tends to have something of a negative connection to it. I personally came to a better understanding of the value of good argumentation as a philosophy major in college where you engage in a lot of kind of conflicting discussions about various things. And some of the earliest philosophical writings, the writings of Plato and the dialogues is Socrates engaging in debate and dialogue and quote argumentation with a lot of different people. And you have the same thing in seminary where different theological points of view are discussed and debated without people drawing their swords and attacking each other. I mean, sometimes that may happen, I don't know, but, you know, come let us reason together is the command that, you know, we can reach some kind of understanding. Part of it too is a level of maturity and recognizing that In the world, you're going to encounter people, let's even make it more narrow, within the larger family of the Christian faith, within your church, within your homeschool co-op, you're going to encounter people with whom you have differences of opinion about various and sundry things and part of being a mature person is that you can allow someone else to have a differing opinion of yours than yours without coming to blows or falling out of relationships because of it. So in terms of the Christian faith and in terms of our talking to others about it, Absolutely. I mean, that's what Paul was doing, you know, in his visit to Athens. And I think we need to be careful though, because argumentation and the apologetic effort is a good one and an important one. But as we have pointed out in this podcast previously, it's not so much debate and powerful argumentation that the Lord used to bring his kingdom to bear in the old Roman empire and it became a Christian empire. You know, there were other aspects that was certainly a part of it. But sometimes we find that those who hate the kingdom message of our Lord are far better prepared to argue than Christians are. I think some Christians have the idea that, you know, if they're walking in the spirit, then all they have to do is quote John 3.16 and the atheist will bow the knee and become Christians. The reality is often far different than that. So I think we need to start off here with something we've referenced in previous podcasts recently, the idea of premises and presuppositions. Everybody has them. And I do believe that when all is said and done, any fruitful discussion, and I'm quoting now from Mortimer Adler, who is famous for his how to read a book, but he points out that when an author is writing something, the author is trying to convince you of something, either to affirm what you believe or to have you change your opinion. And his idea is that in order to come to this honestly, you have to be willing to change your idea. Now when I first read that, and this was a book my father, this was like mandatory reading when I was growing up, you had to read this book, but when I looked at it again as an adult, I realized that that is only true to a point. And by that I mean, if you're looking at the scripture as God's inspired infallible word, the endeavor is to conform our thinking to that. We're not positing a relativistic thing. I'll have a conversation with you. You'll have a conversation with me and I'll agree that if you convince me that evolution is true, let's use that as an example, I'll change my mind. Well, ultimately that is what happens when people change their mind. Their presuppositions get rocked and they go one way or the other. I would venture to say many of our listeners lived at least a good part of their life thinking that evolution was true because that's what they learned in school. And at some point along the way, their mind was changed, their heart was changed. So this isn't an exercise in I'm so great and you just have to prove to me that I should change my mind. We start off as believers that we don't live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. And with that as the context that we learn how to argue. Yes, and I think that especially those of us in, I guess, what I'll call our branch of the reform tradition, which is the Theonomic Rushduny-Vantillian branch, there's on the part of some a misunderstanding, say, for example, about Dr. Vantill's writings concerning reason and the separation between the believer and the unbeliever, in that Some people have the idea that you don't need to study logic. You don't need to think critically in terms of the structure of logical arguments and what we're talking about today, fallacious or fallacies. But nothing, in my opinion at least, nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, the Lord in his wisdom gave us minds to think and there are some theologians of great stature and respect who believe that it's our ability to think and to reason is really what is the primary image of God in us. That separates us from every other aspect of God's creation. So therefore, I think that people having a good understanding of what proper argumentation is, what the structure of a good argument is, you know, not that you have to go take a college course in it, that wouldn't hurt, but to recognize when you are having hopefully fruitful discussions with family, friends, unbelievers, the person in the checkout line at the grocery store or whatever, you can spot arguments and you can avoid using arguments that are not well-founded. Yes. So people engaged in verbal debate and or discussion often talk past each other in that they haven't gotten to the root of whatever is being discussed. And a good friend who has now passed on to his reward in heaven used the phrase, the decision tree. you need to figure out where you're having your discussion or argument on this tree. If you're up in the leaves and your premises are so far apart because you haven't found the part low enough to say, what is it we agree upon? So we might disagree on whether or not the Bible is true, but do we agree that it's wrong for people to steal from other people? Now we know that idea, that command comes from scripture, but they might not know that, but they might have a founded belief that theft is wrong. Now you have found where you can have your discussion as opposed to, should there be bailouts or should there not be bailouts? What's the problem with inflation? What causes inflation? See, if you're discussing things beyond the premises, then I think that's where things often deteriorate. And then as you mentioned, fallacies come into play where people just start throwing rocks at each other because they're gonna pick up whatever they can find as a weapon and use it, right? So what we're gonna talk about in greater detail is the way in which tactics and techniques that we would call fallacies are sometimes used in arguments that derail someone without addressing the crux of the issue being dealt with. And since the majority of people today would not consider themselves cultural Christians, it's kind of like, yeah, there's Christianity. If we're going to engage in the Great Commission work, then we have to be able to be in discussion with them long enough to get to the basic premise of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Yeah, and I think it's important to point out too, to pick up on something I was saying a moment ago, that another thing that characterizes those of us in the school of thought or the tradition that we are in is presuppositional thinking, foundational premise thinking. And I can think of, for myself, three theologians and apologists in particular who pioneered this type of thinking, certainly Dr. Van Til, Gordon Clark, and also Francis Schaeffer. And all three of those men, Schaeffer in particular learned from the other two. The thrust of what they would often do in their argumentation is to say, okay, we know, thinking to themselves, if I can put it that way, there's no common ground between belief and unbelief. But like you said, there's a discussion we can have about whether it's okay to steal. Most people in all kinds of cultures will say, no, it's not okay to steal. It's not okay to murder someone, to take their lives unjustly, that sort of thing. And so there, as you said, you've got a place to start to have a discussion. And as I understand, especially Clark and Schaefer, the whole project is to show that people who would agree or say, yes, in my system, murder is no good. Stealing is not good. They can't really justify that thinking and that position because there's no ultimate foundation to their knowledge. So that's a way this can proceed, but we need to also be aware that we are not the first people to have thought about thinking and about discussion and arguing. And there are rules for logical discussion. And if I may, I'd like to share just one example of what we would call a formal or informal fallacy of logic. And I think everybody is familiar with this, but I think it's a good entry level example of this. I remember years ago as a boy growing up and when we had television in our home and I would watch baseball games, I mean, Major League Baseball. Some of the big baseball stars in my day were men like Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris, Sandy Koufax. Hopefully, these names are known to some of our audience. But they would show the baseball game and then they would cut to a commercial about, say, toothpaste, a particular brand of toothpaste. And here would be a famous baseball star with his toothbrush in his hand saying, my toothpaste is such and such a thing. And he proceeded to brush his teeth. So the implication was because this guy is a superstar baseball player, he must also be right about the type of toothpaste we should be using. And that's a typical example of a formal fallacy. and logic. It's an appeal to authority is the technical name for it, where you claim that something is true because some expert authority says so, even if that authority is not relevant to the topic. Mickey Mantle, Sandy Koufax, those guys may have been superb baseball players, but they don't know more about toothpaste than you or I. To show how marketing geniuses can play upon the fact that people can't always recognize fallacies. I remember the commercials that says, I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV. Therefore, you should use this headache remedy. Now, would they have done that if it didn't sell product? Probably not, right? Because they kept doing it and then after a while you stopped hearing it. But I guess the point is, if people do not recognize how these fallacies enter into discussion and often shut them up. In other words, if you're gonna say, no, that's not right. And there's not just one or two fallacies that if you're going to study informal logic to realize, whoa, they're around every corner. So it's important to realize when somebody is arguing from one of those. Now, some people would say, Charles, So then you say, that's an appeal to authority, therefore, you're wrong, I'm right. No, that isn't how you would further the discussion, but it would be important to recognize that that's the appeal someone's making. So the process would then be, okay, why do you believe that's true? Do you think Mickey Mantle, to use your analogy, knows more about toothpaste than you do? or did somebody pay him to talk to you about the toothpaste? So you can recognize the fallacy without throwing it in someone's face, because rather than continue the discussion, one of the best ways to end a discussion, of course, is to insult somebody. Right, yes, and that is another example of a fallacy called ad hominem. Now, people may have heard that phrase before, That's where you attack the person who's making the point in the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. Now, this can border on some interesting things, but if somebody is, say, arguing for the truth or falsehood of biblical predestination, well, the fact that the person making either side of that argument maybe doesn't have the best personal hygiene habits is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of the argument. Right. It's like, what do you know, you smell. Yeah. Another aspect of ad hominem is to just be abusive, right? I'm going to shut you down by insulting you, which is what I was saying previously. That's in and of itself an invalid way to win somebody for Christ, if we're going to use that terminology. Really, I think what we're trying to communicate to our audience is to recognize them, and then recognize if you're using that yourself as an argument, and is it the most honest way to deal with people? Yes, and that's part of the challenge of both being familiar with these types of problems in discussion and dialogue, what constitutes fallacious discussion, and how to deal with it. And once you become aware of some of these things, you see them all over the place because they're so built into people's thinking, especially people on a public and professional level. And probably the absolute worst is in politics. And whether it's like a presidential debate or a local gubernatorial debate, or even just your local school board or whatever it may be, you have another example of somebody taking some totally irrelevant information to divert attention away from the main issue. Let's say there's some school board meeting where some horrendous sexual abuse has taken place in the school and parents are upset and they're demanding explanations for it. Well, okay, scratch that. Let me go back. We had an example just recently of the current president of the United States who was expressing sympathy for the folks in Maui who had a devastating fire. where he ginned up some comparison to something he had dealt with that have nothing to do with this. Or say somebody, maybe they realize they're losing a discussion or a dialogue or an argument and they'll bring up say their distinguished military record. Well, that has nothing to do with the debate say on public health care or whatever it may be. That's what you call a red herring. It has nothing to do with what's being talked about. It's a diversion to keep people from recognizing the problems in the argument. I would encourage people to do an informal study on informal fallacies and recognize that they fall into three categories, fallacies of relevance, fallacies of presupposition, and then fallacies of clarity. And rather than go through all of them in this discussion, I just, if you're interested, there's plenty that you can read on the subject. But when people scratch their head about what happened during COVID, I mean, how did this all happen? Well, among the logical fallacies and took various people various amounts of time to realize it was an appeal to emotion, an appeal to fear. Like, okay, wear a mask now, People were saying that masks weren't effective one way or the other. And now it's more common knowledge. But at the time, it was like, do you want to kill grandma? Is that what you want to do? You want to kill grandma? So an appeal to fear. Who wants to kill grandma? No. OK, I'll wear my mask. Or look at the poor people who have had this happen to them. and you're just gonna say you're not gonna do anything about it. Well, I see this all the time on the commercials on television about these abused dogs. And the commercials are far longer than any other commercials you normally see. And it's all about rescuing these poor dogs and they have pictures of them and they're dehydrated. And I always wonder, why didn't the guy with the camera give them water, but okay, that's a different thing. But the appeal is to pity. You have to feel bad for this. And as a result, we want you to do something about it. In that case, donate some money. Yeah, that's a perfect example of that appeal to emotion where that's what you're trying to manipulate people's emotions rather than appealing to evidence or good argumentation and discussion. If we don't pass this law, think of all the suffering that it will cause. So that's kind of like what you're saying as far as the pandemic and the masks and all the rest of it. Sure. And even as of this recording today, yesterday was the anniversary of 9-11. And so many things have changed in our culture as a result of that, because we were all in this together. These colors don't run, all these catchphrases that caused a lot of people not to examine, like, why could this have happened? Why did this happen? Who did what they did? Who's to be held responsible for it? But when you are easily pulled away by your emotions, and Charles, I would say a lot of churches do this as well, a very moving message, and then the piano player starts playing some very melodic music, and people are pleaded with to just surrender, surrender, and it's like, How many false conversions happen because people were drawn by emotion? So it's not just the people out there who oftentimes use these fallacies to get what they want. It happens inside the church as well. Well, let me put you on the spot, if I may. I love it when you put me on the spot. Because this harkens back to a podcast we did a few weeks ago. It's kind of hinted at in one of these fallacies that we have already mentioned, where you have someone who is, say, in a position of authority, we'll say in the area of civil government politics, and they are known to say they're involved in some active legislation and they're chairing a Senate committee or something like that. but they're known to have a very profligate and libertine lifestyle. So are we crossing the boundaries of fallacious arguments to say, well, that guy, he cheated on his wife three times. He's probably a pedophile or whatever. Why should we listen to him about this particular legislation? Right, so people will say, does it really matter who he is in order to say that what he's saying is true? Right. And I remember something that when I was studying martial arts at the studio that I went to, there was a sign up that said a broken clock is right twice a day. So it doesn't mean that it's not two o'clock sometime. It may not be two o'clock all the time, right? But if it's stuck at two o'clock twice a day, it's going to be correct. Now, as a believer, who understands God's word, we know that Jesus says, what comes out of a man or a woman reveals what's inside. So in that regard, we should consider the source. But if somebody is going to throw a name around and say something like, oh yeah, well, that's what Donald Trump says, how could you be right? So these things have to be nuanced, but again, it goes down to your premise. In other words, I've had people, I say something and they say, well, now you sound like Donald Trump. Never knowing whether I voted for Donald Trump, whether I liked Donald Trump, that was off the point. That was just a way to end the discussion because my guess is the person ran out of arguments. It's not like these are absolute. These are ways in which to see, am I being played here? So for example, if somebody, and you sort of alluded to this, is making a point on something and says, yes, but my three tours of duty in Afghanistan, well, the natural response these days is thank you for your service. Well, I don't know what he did in Afghanistan. Maybe what he did was good. Maybe he did what was not good. I don't know. But if that becomes the thing that now makes whatever he says true, what am I basing it on? A lot of people go into the service, not all of them, are people who I would then embrace their arguments just because they went into the service. Yeah, and to follow up on the clock in your Kimpo studio, another way that this becomes an issue, and I'm going to avoid names and we'll maybe see how astute some of our listeners are, but In this whole discussion about argumentation and how we are to interact with, in this case, I'll say unbelievers, there's one school of presuppositional thought that has distinguished itself by saying that the mind of God and the mind of man do not coincide at a single point. That's how the creator-creature distinction, God's thoughts and man's thoughts do not coincide at a single point. But then there's another that says, well, If that's true, then we've got a serious problem. Because if 2 plus 2 is not 4 to God, then we can't get anything done anywhere. So I think we need to be careful about what our presuppositions are, what our foundations are, as far as going into the whole process of argumentation and dialogue. And to go back to what we were saying at the beginning, or at least I think I said it, The field of this type of discussion, it may be within your own family, with your own children, with your spouse. It may be within your church. It may be where you work. There are all kinds of places where the Lord will open up opportunities for us to make the nations his disciples, and that may well involve us being able to reason together and to discuss, not to give away the farm so to speak. We don't start by some sort of concession that the Bible may or may not be true. We don't start there at all because we can't, because the Bible is true. That's where we start. But that doesn't necessarily mean that we can't have a fruitful dialogue and discussion with someone of a different opinion with the goal of hopefully the Lord extending his grace to them and changing their way of thinking. Right, and I'm glad you brought that up because too many people are either afraid to identify themselves as followers of Christ who look at the scriptures as our direction on how to live, so they don't say anything. And there are those who in a discussion with someone says, well, John chapter 3, 16 says this. Now you could call that an appeal to authority, especially if the person you're talking with has no idea what John 3.16 means, or says, well, I don't believe the Bible. I think it's more important for people to know what they believe and why, and then engage in discussion, because it might be many, many discussions before you get down to the root of This is what I believe as opposed to what you believe. So now we have to both discuss why we believe what we believe. But too often, people just wanna say, the Bible says, and I see this a lot when people are protesting, whether it's these drag queen story hours or something else that's happened with signs and they just have a Bible verse or whatever. It's not that the Bible isn't true. But are you trying to show your right or are you trying to help the lost find truth? And I think it's motivation has an awful lot to do with it. Yes, absolutely. And if I remember correctly, I remember reading years ago how that was one of the things that characterized the late Francis Schaeffer's approach to things. And that when he engaged in dialogue and debate with a number of people, I think there was one in particular where he He had a public onstage debate with the late Bishop Pike, who was an Episcopal bishop of some notoriety who veered off into all kinds of strangeness and wrote about it. Schaeffer pretty much destroyed his arguments in this discussion, but it was noted by people who were there that after it was over with, Schaeffer went over to Pike and had a great discussion with him and showed genuine concern for him. I mean, the man had gone through some traumatic experiences that maybe were the linchpin of some of his crazy ideas, but Schaefer just, you know, didn't trot off and triumph, you know, I've destroyed the pagan and off we go. In that case, I think he was a fine example as I understood it from, you know, for what you're talking about. And so being aware that, first of all, let's put it this way. Do you have a clear objective when you're talking to someone? And if the objective is to get out of the discussion as quickly as possible, then you might not engage that person. But if you have a heart for him, like you just described, Dr. Schaefer had for this Bishop Pike, then you're going to go and interact in such a way to bring the conversation where you want it to go, but not doing it with a sledgehammer. You know, you look at the times in scripture where Jesus speaks to tax collectors or he speaks to the woman caught in adultery. He speaks truthfully to them and honestly, but the goal isn't to make you feel less. And the way I'm going to convince you is I'm so much better than you. Now his tactic against the religious leaders was very different. He wasn't trying to build bridges. because he was identifying to them and for those listening that these were the problem. These were the people who were at war with God and they valued their position more than the lost sheep. So if you read scripture from the point of view of how does Jesus engage people, And the tactics on different kinds of people are very different. It isn't that he thought being a tax collector was great, being a prostitute was great, committing adultery was great, but he recognized the crux of the issue. and to the religious leaders, they had no need of a savior because they were beyond salvation because they had it. And as a result, what Jesus tells them is that you convert people and then you make them more fit for hell than you are, which is quite an allegation. So if we are great commission minded, if we truly are seeking the kingdom of God and his righteousness, we should be so prepared so that when we're in discussion with people, we can say, okay, I realize what they're doing there. And you might just say, that really isn't on the point here. Let's talk, let's get back to what we were talking about. Not that is a red herring. Cause I don't think it actually then furthers the discussion that becomes a discussion ender. Yes, and you referred to the Pharisees and the religious leaders in Jesus' day and their case, certainly not them by themselves, but they perpetuated a typical type of fallacious way of discussion and argument, which was an appeal to tradition. You know, that's something, this is the case, this is true because it's been the tradition. This is what we've done forever and ever. And you see this, in churches and civic organizations. Well, we can't do that differently. Why not? Because we've always done it this way. Right. And that's what you mentioned. It got Jesus in trouble. But the interesting thing was that in his case, his rocking the boat, so to speak, yes, he was going against the tradition. But the problem was the tradition was not founded on the word of God. Right. So I really just want to emphasize we're not talking about relativistic thinking. If you don't come into a discussion with somebody about their need of ending their war with God, then I would question whether or not you're being obedient to the call. I don't care how much we disagree with people politically or when we look around and we see people who are doing things, whether they're in politics, government, or they're homeless. In other words, we always have to maintain that person was created in the image of God. And how you would deal with a politician at City Hall is a little different than how you would deal with a homeless person, different than somebody who may be dying of a terminal disease. But the gospel remains the same, the law remains the same, and the message of the gospel in terms of forgiveness makes no sense unless people realize they have something to be forgiven for. Yeah, I think it's important, at least for me to emphasize, and I think you'd agree, that we're not claiming here that logical reasoning is sovereign. That somehow if we just simply think clearly, then that vanquishes all arguments that the Lord's power and strength and spirit have really not that much to do with it. If we can get our arguments right, we can convince anybody of anything. No, the only reason logic works is because there is a sovereign God who established the ability to think clearly and for something to be true and for something to be false and something can't be true and not true at the same time. The only reason that works is because there is a God who has spoken and he has so structured his world that that's the way it is. One reason that we're seeing such madness in our society today is because there's the coming to bear of the, as Dr. Van Til used to call it, the epistemological self-consciousness the descending down into the void of those who deny the absolute authority of God's law word, and how that comes to bear eventually in various areas of thinking and life. You know, I can remember when you and I were younger, there were lots of people advocating crazy, what we might call liberal counterculture ideas. And, you know, but there was still enough of a veneer of a biblical layer in our overall society to where as threatening as that may have sounded, there was nevertheless, it wasn't a societal breakdown, but that was only the first step. There was nobody, whether you're talking about the, you know, the hippie movement, the left-wing socialist types of the sixties and seventies. I may be wrong, but I don't think any of them had any idea that a person could just get up one day and decide that they were not male or female. They were the other. Right. But you eventually get there. Yeah. Yeah, you do. And talk about logical fallacies. I had the opportunity of listening to a young woman. Her name is Chloe Cole, who at the age of 13 was convinced that she didn't fit in, so she must not be a girl. And her therapists, she now says they were much more like activists pushing her in this direction. So not only did she take puberty blockers, not only did she then take cross hormones, male hormones, eventually she got tired of trying to disguise the fact that she had female anatomy. And then she went ahead and she got the surgery to remove her breasts. By God's grace, she realized that she was living a lie. But one of the things she brought up, and since I was preparing for our discussion on fallacies, when parents, and this wasn't just her parent, but other people start objecting to what's happening, here's what they are told. Would you rather have a dead daughter or a living son? Now that's an appeal to emotion, to fear, to pity, I'm a doctor, I know these things, so an elitist appeal. And then the shame that's involved with saying, and if this person commits suicide, it's on you. Now, I imagine that argument was given to a number of people. and they said, uh-uh, we're out of here, nope. And I've heard testimonies of mothers who said, nope, this isn't gonna happen, and then they leave. But if people are not premised on truth, then they can be swayed. So not only should you not use arguments that are manipulative, you need to be aware of the fact, if you're being manipulated with an argument, just because everybody's doing it, doesn't mean it should be done. Yes, and what you quoted there was an example of a false dilemma or the either-or fallacy. Either they have the surgery or they're for sure gonna commit suicide. Right. I mean, it appeals to the emotion, but it also is simply not the case necessarily. And what's more, then they have the surgery, they have the hormones, and then they say, these people still commit suicide because people they don't know don't accept them, right? And so they continue to move the ball in a direction that they want to. So no matter what they say or do, it's right. And you're wrong for objecting. And I think what's happened, whether it's with swimmers who are male and they're competing against women, whatever it is, people didn't say, no, that is not true. And then be willing to pull their daughters out of the college swim team or be willing to say, no, I'm sorry, that's not true. And okay, then you lose your job. It's like, what does it take to be bought? You've got to give up your senses. What I see, I don't see, what I hear, I don't hear, what I know, I don't know. And because these fallacies are shoved down people's throats, they accept things that given a firm foundation, they would never accept. And we know from the very beginning of creation what led to the fall of humanity was not thinking clearly and buying into a satanic fallacious statement where God proclaimed the absolute truth about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And what does Satan do? He comes and says, did God really say this? You will not surely die. So all wrapped up in all of this is the fallacious discussion and lack of proper understanding about what constitutes the absolute foundation of knowledge and truth. I think that this type of understanding and having just a basic familiarity with the good principles of discussion and argumentation, I will say the humane and mature principles where I guess in some ways it's like Robert's Rules of Order. Those things are put into place in public meetings and discussions to maintain civil and mature discussion and debate. I never forget the time I finally realized the value of it where I've attended enough church meetings and public meetings to see where say you got one guy on side of the auditorium or the church building and somebody on the other side in there having heated discussions and arguments about some point and the person moderating this discussion, moderating the meeting, if he's a good one, he will say, gentlemen, direct your arguments to the chair, not to each other. And that's another example of how you maintain good decorum and proper way of discussion. Our goal, obviously, is the absolute triumph of God's word over all areas of life. But the Lord has provided us various means for that to happen. I mean, we know that Almighty God could have simply proverbially speaking, snapped his fingers and made everything his kingdom right then. But he has chosen to work through time and through history progressively to bring about the absolute conversion of the world to the pure Christian faith. So we have a part to play in that. And I think that what we have tried to say here is that being able to have reasonable discussion, understanding the mechanics of what constitutes good argumentation for the purpose of glorifying the Lord and vanquishing unbelief in the best sense of that term. Yes. I always encourage people to identify their audience. Is the audience they, the people out there you don't know, but you don't want them to think poorly of you, or is your audience the living God? And sometimes when you understand that your audience is the living God and other people object to what you're saying or question your reasoning, It's very easy to let the attacks, the arrows come at you and at different times and in different places. For example, you're just a conspiracy theorist. You're just a Jesus freak. You're just a Bible thumper. You're just a Republican. You're just a Democrat. Well, what would you expect of a conservative? What would you expect of a liberal? See, these are diversions to get off the point. Let us not forget that the believers were first called Christians, the Bible says in Antioch, and it was a slur. It wasn't like, look at those Christians, it was look at those Christians. Yes, and I think if I may do so, some people may have an interest in seeing how some of this looks in real time and in live action, though recorded action. Listeners can fairly easily find a debate that the late Dr. Greg Bonson had with an atheist. I think it's called the Bonson-Stein debate. And it's a pretty good example of how proper biblical reasoning and discussion can take place that gives no quarter whatsoever, but at the same time is solidly biblical and, for lack of a better term, civil. Right. We got to remember that a discussion and a good argument, not with the negative connotations, is not a monologue. It's a dialogue. just like many of us who, if we look back and say, oh, I was so lost, my reasoning was so bad. And then we remember the person who God placed in front of us, not because the person was so good, but God was literally knocking on our door and we were becoming discomfited in our own way of viewing the world. So none of this is effective if God is not calling someone. and God is not preparing the soil for them to receive what we have to say. But even though I know many people who think, Charles, oh, I blew it. This person now will never become a Christian because of what I said or did. And my response is always, you have a very high opinion of yourself. You actually think you can override the Holy Spirit in someone's life. You can't. So I've heard allegations that when people stand for the Bible, they turn other people off, you know, okay, that shows a theology that says it's what we do personally or when we talk to other people that converts people. I submit that the Bible says no, unless God calls you, unless you're of his elect, you're never going to respond. That is absolutely true and that's crucial to remember on the part of ourselves and our listeners when we have the opportunity to get into these kind of discussions. It's my hope that what we have talked about here today is helpful to our listeners. And it's also my hope, Andrea, that you'll be using the right toothpaste from now on. Well, you know the expression, Charles, there but for the grace of God, go I? Yes. I think what happens to many of us is we're converted. And the initial response is gratitude exuberance, you know, I was lost and now I'm found. And very often then people become critical of the very kinds and sorts of people like who they were. And I try to do my best to encourage somebody saying, okay, what was effective in getting you to listen? So you're more than likely going to be irritated with people who are a little bit much like you were back then. What was the process that happened? Was it kindness? Was it somebody making you feel stupid? And then you go, I'm stupid or whatever. When my husband and I look back on how Dr. Rush Juney and his wife interacted with us, I would have to say, looking back now, the man had tremendous patience and long-suffering. Because when I think of some of the things I said and did and was adamant about, that he never beat me on the head and said, boy, are you a loser? Now, I'm not saying he didn't think it, right? But that never got communicated to me. And he realized the principle in scripture, first the blade, than the whole ear. People don't change overnight in terms of their response. I do believe when they're born again by the spirit, they change, but then that change ends up being worked out and to the casual observer or maybe the not so casual observer, it's not always evident until much later. Yeah, it's in some ways like the bumper sticker, I'm not perfect, I'm just forgiven. Be patient with me, I'm a work in progress. I mean those can have unbiblical connections, but I think it gets the point. Any of us at some point in our lives, if we've lived longer than say 20 years, could have our lives freeze-framed and we would not want that part to be the whole final statement about who we are and what we think. And so by God's grace, we move forward and we are led to become followers of his. So I think it's fair to call argumentation an art, knowing the proper medium to use, the proper tool to use at the time, and it's not a one-size-fits-all, but I know you've probably experienced it, and I certainly have, Charles, when someone really begins to embrace the truth of scripture, rarely is it like, thank you, I couldn't have done it without you, because once they start embracing the truth of scripture, they realize that they couldn't have done it without the Lord. And I think that's important to remember that the weapons of our warfare aren't carnal. And you go back to Ephesians, the only offensive weapon we actually have is the word of God. But we need to use it precisely and not decide that I'm going to use it all the time the same on every single person because people are in different positions and such, you need to know what you know it to be true, and then you can find your entry point accordingly. At least that's been my experience. And that parallels my own as well. All right. Well, I wonder how many people this week will say, oh, that's a logical fallacy. Oh, I see that. And I hope that they do, whether it's something that supports their point of view or not, because just because somebody agrees with you doesn't mean they use legitimate tactics. Exactly. Out of the Question podcast at gmail.com is how you find us. And we look forward to you joining us next time. Thanks for listening to Out of the Question. For more information on this and other topics, please visit calcedon.edu.