reasoning – La Vista Church of Christ

Science Can’t Rule Out God

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sun, 15 Mar 2026 02:41:24 +0000

Has science really proved that God does not exist? Many people assume modern science has made belief in God obsolete—but is that actually true? In this video, Buddy Payne examines the limits of the scientific method and asks an important question: Can science prove that God does—or does not—exist? While science is an incredibly powerful tool for understanding the natural world, it operates within specific boundaries. Buddy not only explores these boundaries but also offers the perspectives of great scientists to show that science has not even come close to disproving God and theism.

Without God, Can You Trust Your Mind?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sun, 15 Mar 2026 02:15:44 +0000

by Doy Moyer
via InLight Media

Can we really trust our own thinking? Every argument — every conversation — assumes we can think, reason, and understand. But have you ever stopped to ask where that ability comes from? In this video, Doy Moyer explores a profound challenge facing the naturalistic worldview: if human thought is nothing more than the product of mindless, unguided material forces, can we actually trust our own reasoning? Even atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel wrestled with this very problem in The Last Word. We contrast this with the biblical view — that an Intelligent Designer made us in His image (Genesis 1:26-27) and gave us the capacity to think, reason, and know.

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge" (Proverbs 1:7).

“All I Know Is …”

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 16 Aug 2025 17:36:16 +0000

by Becky René

There is a certain phrase that has a way of ending conversations. It is short, simple, and often spoken when logic has run its full course and the listener finds themselves at a crossroads. The phrase is this: “All I know is…”

On the surface, it may sound humble—just a way of admitting that one does not have all the answers. But more often than not, it functions as a conversational escape hatch. It signals that reason has hit a wall and emotion, tradition, or personal conviction is taking over.

A Defense Against Discomfort

When someone is presented with evidence or reasoning that challenges their belief, it can be deeply uncomfortable. A Pentecostal who believes the Holy Spirit personally indwells them might be asked, “If the Spirit leads into all truth, why do other Pentecostals, who claim the same Spirit, believe very different doctrines?” If they follow the reasoning through, they might be forced to re-evaluate a cherished conviction. Instead, they retreat to the safety of: “All I know is…”—effectively ending the discussion.

Used Across The Spectrum

This is not unique to Pentecostals or adherents of other denominations. Those making bold claims about AI consciousness may respond similarly. Confront them with the realities of how AI systems operate, the lack of evidence for self-awareness, and the absence of system-wide “mind,” and you may still hear: “All I know is, I’ve seen it happen.”

In both cases, the phrase avoids addressing the question directly. It sidesteps the discomfort of facing the inconsistency or lack of proof.

Why It Works

The power of “All I know is…” lies in its finality. It is not an invitation to keep reasoning; it is a signal that the speaker’s mind is closed on the matter, at least for now. It shifts the discussion from objective evidence to personal conviction. It may not persuade anyone else, but it allows the speaker to stand their ground without conceding.

A Missed Opportunity

The tragedy is that when the phrase is used this way, it shuts down what could have been a productive search for truth. The speaker chooses the comfort of certainty—however shaky—over the challenge of re-examining their position. As Jesus warned, there is a danger in being “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (II Timothy 3:7).

The Better Way

Instead of saying “All I know is…”, the better response is: “That’s a good point. I need to look into that further.” This keeps the door open to growth. Truth has nothing to fear from examination, and humility before evidence is a mark of maturity, not weakness.

In the end, we will all face moments when our assumptions are challenged. When that happens, may our instinct not be to retreat into “All I know is…”, but to press forward in the search for what is true—because the truth, not personal certainty, is what will set us free (John 8:32).

Does Error Have Any Rights?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 11 Jul 2025 19:08:20 +0000

by Jeff Kingrey
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 17 No. 3, 30 September 1991

During the famous years of the Roman Catholic Inquisition, hundreds of "heretics" were burned by zealous clergy to grind out all opposition to Papal rule. Many of these enemies of the Roman church were executed without even the primitive due process of the day. One Roman cleric, Tomas de Torquemada, condemned over 2,000 people to death, chiefly Jews and Muslims as well as Protestants, after a process of interrogation called "L’Ordeal." Torquemada’s victims often would "confess," choosing the swift torture of being burned alive rather than Torquemada’s chamber of horrors.

A modern Roman Pope, Pius XII, was asked what the Roman Catholics’ current policy on human rights was towards such atrocities as the Inquisition. He replied, "In matters civil, the Church has always supported and demanded the rule of law in human rights. However, before God, in matters ecclesiastical, error has no rights."

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Interestingly, only those who have lost the moral confidence of living by faith feel obligated to turn to oppression as a means of imposing their order on others. What does the Bible say about the "Rights of Error?"

First Disagreement

In Acts 15, we find the first major disagreement among the brethren—the dispute centered on the act of circumcision. The Judaizers said, "Unless you are circumcised according to the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1).

They made it clear that faith, repentance, and baptism were not enough. To go to heaven and have fellowship with them, you also had to submit to circumcision and keep the Old Law of Moses. Paul and Barnabas "had no small dissension and dispute with them" (Acts 15:2).

After a meeting in Jerusalem with the Apostles, elders, and the church, it was concluded ״that it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no unnecessary burden upon you" (Acts 15:28). The demands of the Judaizers were shown to be in error.

Unfortunately, that never ended the controversy, though it did establish the truth by the mouth of the Apostles.

What is interesting to our discussion is, "What rights did error have in this debate?" Luke records that the false teachers were given first right to speak: "And when they came to Jerusalem...some of the sect of the Pharisees rose up, saying, ’it is necessary to circumcise them and to command them to keep the Law of Moses’" (Acts 15:5). Although all the evidence was against them, they still were granted the right and dignity of a hearing.

How Do We Listen to Error?

When Jesus was being tried by the Sanhedrin and was asked "about his disciples and doctrine," Jesus said, "I spoke openly...and in secret have said nothing... Why do you ask me? Indeed they know what I said" (John 18:19-21).

One of the officers thought that he was impertinent and slapped Jesus in the face, saying, "Do you answer the High Priest like that?" Jesus responded, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if not, why do you strike me" (Acts 18:23)?

This raises the question again, "What standards do we apply to arguments made by those we think are in error?"

Obviously, the Temple officer felt that Jesus was in error. In his mind, he would not consider the evidence, but who opposed his friends. His experience had led him to respect and admire the priests. He could not imagine that this ragged Carpenter would presume to be so uppity and disagreeable. He saw Jesus’ response as a rebuke of those he viewed as powerful, godly men. He was so disturbed by the effrontery of Jesus that he slapped him and rebuked him for stating the truth: The Jewish law does not accept the testimony of the accused against himself. The judges must find witnesses who agree about the details of any crime.

How would any of us ever know the truth unless we are willing to hear things with which we may disagree? If "error" is not granted at least the same rights we give people we like and with whom we agree, then we will surely lose our opportunity to change when it is necessary. Consider that in another context, if the unsaved felt that "error" must not be heard, then we would never convert a soul to Christ!

The only other option is to conclude that neither I, nor any of my friends, nor the people I respect and love will ever make a mistake. Only the deceived believe it.

Much of Jesus’ teaching was to convince men that the time for "rebirth" of thinking and spirit was at hand. No longer would the status quo be the safe course, but the first shall be last and the last first. The harlots and publicans would enter the kingdom of God before the religious Priests, Scribes, and Pharisees. He warned about the ”blind following blind men, that both would fall into the ditch." He wagged his finger at the pious preachers who appeared like whitewashed walls in their pulpits, but whose practices were like the rotting corpses inside the tomb. It was a contradiction similar to fresh water and bitter water in the same well. One does not gather grapes from thorns. How would we ever recognize Jesus today? If we give "error" no rights, we would miss Him entirely.

The Arrogant Refuse Examination

In trying to teach Nicodemus, Jesus warned the "ruler of the Jews" that the condemnation that comes upon the disbelieving is that "light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds be exposed. But he who does the truth, comes to the light that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they come from God" (John 3:19ff).

Our question is this: "How do we distinguish between right and wrong? How can we know for sure?"

Jesus told us: Always be willing to expose your practice to free and open examination in light of the word of God. Right has no fear. Error is always afraid to allow examination by those who disagree.

I sincerely doubt that there are very many people in religious error who are convinced their practice is evil and who are afraid to expose it to examination on that basis. No, they are arrogant people who are convinced that they are right and that discussion and examination are a "waste of time."

In my experience, those who disagree with me usually think I am not too bright. If I were as good or well-informed as they are, then surely I wouldn’t have this irritating error in my life. Funny thing...I usually feel the same way about them. God calls us to rise above feelings. People who disagree with us are irritating, time-consuming, and threatening. We consider what it would mean to change our view, and the option is often so unpleasant that we reject the position out of hand.

The first time I heard the Gospel, I was an Episcopalian. I recall my own emotions. "If this is true, then everything I have said and believed is wrong. My parents and family are in danger of damnation. The dear "Father" at Saint Andrews is a false teacher. Why! It will turn my whole world upside down! It will put me at odds with most of the world! And, worst of all, it will mean I must identify myself with these hillbilly bumpkins who don’t even have an organ. Their clergy look like used car salesmen, for crying out loud!" Satan had a field day with my heart.

But the experience was a good one. Christ began breaking down the wall that looked only at appearances rather than substance. I began to think in God’s terms rather than stereotypes. The righteous heart keeps questioning. Keeps listening to those who differ - who are in "error."

Those who declare, "We won’t discuss it" are on a path that can only lead to deception and destruction. The mouth that declares "Let’s study the Bible together on this matter" is probably going to be on the same head whose ears will hear "Come, thou good and faithful servant. Enter into the joy of your Lord.״

The Voice of Reason

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 04 Jan 2025 16:26:15 +0000

by David Gibson

Naaman

A story with a happy ending

Naaman, a Syrian army officer, had leprosy (II Kings 5). When he arrived at the home of Elisha the prophet, hoping for a cure, he was told to dip seven times in the Jordan River. This was hardly what he expected, and it offended him so deeply that he was ready to return home without the cure he came for!

His pride and anger were checked, however, by the voice of reason when one of his men wisely suggested that if Elisha had required of him some great thing, Naaman would have been willing to do it. So why not simply do what the prophet said?

So he did. And he was completely cured. But he came so close, so very close, to forfeiting this blessing because of his pride. He almost died a leper. Naaman owed his healing to God, but the man who persuaded him to dip also played an important role in his master’s cure.

How will our story turn out?

We, too, are faced with choices of lasting consequence. Sometimes, we are so very close to doing the right thing, but for whatever reason, we just don’t.

On the other hand, have you ever come to the very brink of sin, but then higher thoughts pulled you back, and you successfully resisted Satan? Good for you! The “almost” moments of life are scary and full of potential ruin or victory. We’re the ones who decide whether we end up on the right side or the wrong side. Let’s take a cue from Naaman. He almost missed out! But because he humbled himself, he received the very thing he had so wanted all along! He was blessed because he was willing to listen to the voice of reason.

For Naaman, that voice came from a subordinate. For us, it may come from the Scriptures, from a preacher, an elder, a fellow Christian, a spouse, a friend, or from anyone who urges us to do the right thing.

The voice of reason. Thank God, Naaman listened. And we?

Abigail

David was angry enough to kill the man who had insulted him, plus all the men in his household. The man’s name was Nabal, who was “harsh and badly behaved” and “such a worthless man that one cannot speak to him” (I Samuel 25:3, 17).

His wife, Abigail, was the epitome of grace and good sense. “Opposites attract,” they say, but marriage thrives on at least some commonalities. Perhaps this was an arranged marriage.

Vengeance Planned

What so incensed David was Nabal’s rude rebuff to David’s messengers, who had politely requested provisions. David’s men had been a great help to Nabal’s shepherds, as they themselves acknowledged. “Surely” David said, “in vain have I guarded all that this fellow has in the wilderness, so that nothing was missed of all that belonged to him, and he has returned me evil for good” (I Samuel 25:21).

Vengeance Averted

Learning that David was on his way with 400 armed men, Abigail went out to meet him, bringing the supplies Nabal had refused to give. She then made one of the best speeches recorded in Scripture, freely acknowledging Nabal’s worthlessness but pleading with David not to take revenge because he would later suffer a troubled conscience.

David responded, “Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, who sent you this day to meet me! Blessed be your discretion, and blessed be you, who have kept me this day from bloodguilt . . .” (II Samuel 25:32-33).

Later, when God had slain Nabal, David said, “Blessed be the LORD who has avenged the insult I received at the hand of Nabal, and has kept back his servant from wrongdoing. The Lord has returned the evil of Nabal on his own head” (I Samuel 25:39).

“Repay no one evil for evil. . . . but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord’” (Romans 12:17, 19).

David knew that anger can get the best of us, regardless of our knowledge. A wise and godly woman's voice of reason reached David’s heart, preventing him from doing what only God had the right to do.

Thank God for people like her! How we need them.

Jeremiah

“This man deserves the sentence of death,” they cried.

It was Jeremiah they wanted to kill. He had declared disaster against the people of Judah because of their sins. “The LORD,” he said, “sent me to prophesy against this house [the temple] and this city [Jerusalem] all the words you have heard. Now therefore mend your ways and your deeds, and obey the voice of the LORD your God, and the LORD will relent of the disaster that he has pronounced against you” (Jeremiah 26:12-13).

But then others rose to his defense: “This man does not deserve the sentence of death, for he has spoken to us in the name of the LORD our God.” At this point, some elders brought up an incident from about a century before, when the prophet Micah prophesied something very similar to Jeremiah’s message: “Zion shall be plowed as a field; Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins.”
Then they said, “Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and entreat the favor of the LORD, and did not the LORD relent of the disaster that he had pronounced against them? But we are about to bring great disaster upon ourselves.” The passage they referred to was Micah 3:12 -- the scripture that saved Jeremiah’s life!

His life was spared because:

Some who were there that day knew the Scriptures well enough to quote the right passage for this occasion.
They not only knew the Scriptures, but they also had the courage to stand up for the truth against the naysayers.

And so the voice of reason prevailed over the voice of rebellious rage. Isn’t that exactly what we so badly need today?

Peter

They were so angry with Peter. He had gone to the home of uncircumcised Gentiles, and even worse, he had eaten with them! How could he do such a thing?

The chasm separating Jews from Gentiles had been so deep and so wide, and for so many centuries it would seem that nothing could ever bridge the gap. But never underestimate the power of God! The time had come for all willing Jews and Gentiles to enjoy unity with one another in Christ, “who has made us both one . . . that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace” (Ephesians 2:14-15).

Healing the Breach, Stage One

First, God had to convince Peter the Jew to go to the home of Cornelius the Gentile so he and his household could hear the gospel and be saved. Despite Peter’s misgivings, to his credit, he went.
The result was amazing and thrilling—many responded, thus entering God’s kingdom on equality with Jewish believers.

Perhaps even more remarkable is Peter's transformation. God had shown him that he “should not call any person common or unclean” and “that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:28, 34-35).

Healing the Breach, Stage Two

When Peter returned to Jerusalem, the Jewish Christians who had heard what he did expressed their shock and dismay.

With the voice of reason, Peter then explained why he had no choice but to obey. This involved:

a vision to Peter,
a vision to Cornelius,
a message from the Holy Spirit to Peter, and
the falling of the Spirit on the Gentiles enabled them to speak in tongues, reminiscent of Pentecost (Acts 2).

Peter concluded, “If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?”

“When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, ‘Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life’” (Acts 11:17-18).

From anger to acceptance. From antagonism to approval. Isn’t it amazing how the warmth of God’s grace can melt away long-standing prejudices and create praise in its place?

Gentile Christians

God had already revealed His will that Gentile converts should be accepted without circumcision (Acts 10:1-48; 11:1-18), but not everyone was on board with it, especially the Judaizers. These were Jewish Christians who insisted that Gentiles must be circumcised to be saved—and must keep the law of Moses, too! They had traveled all the way from Jerusalem to Antioch, where a strong Gentile church was thriving. They began preaching this heresy (Acts 15:1, 5), which had a chilling effect on the new believers (Acts 15:19, 24).

After Paul and Barnabas strongly opposed the Judaizers, the decision was made to discuss this matter with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem.

How the matter was settled

During the meeting that ensued, three lines of reasoning were presented:

Referring to the conversion of Cornelius and his fellow Gentiles (Acts 10), Peter said, “God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he also did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith . . . . we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are” (Acts 15:7-11 NASB; see Acts 10:44-48).
Next, Paul and Barnabas recounted the miracles God did through them on their first missionary journey (see Acts 14:3). The implication is that the miracles were proof of God’s full support of their ministry to Gentiles.
Finally, James cited Amos, who prophesied the conversion of Gentiles. James then suggested they send the Gentiles a letter assuring them they would not need to be circumcised. When the letter was delivered, “they rejoiced because of its encouragement” (Acts 15:31).

Therefore, these three lines of evidence—the Holy Spirit given to Gentiles (Acts 10), the miracles done among Gentiles (Acts 13-14), and the prophecy of Amos—dovetail perfectly to counter the Judaizers’ error.

This is the first recorded false teaching in the New Testament church. Many more would follow, but whenever truth collides with error, the voice of reason, based on Scripture, must have the last word.

It did then. May it do so today!

Two Testimonial Testaments to Jesus

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 10 Feb 2024 15:57:20 +0000

by Terry Wane Benton

Paul "reasoned" with the Jews for three Sabbaths (Acts 17:2f) from the Scriptures (their own Scriptures). Thus, he started with what both sides agreed was true. The Scriptures had long been settled as true and authoritative to both sides participating in the discussion. The Scriptures would have to be handled accurately. From this authoritative source, Paul was affirming, and the other side was denying that "the Christ (Messiah prophesied in these scriptures) had to suffer." Paul could prove this point by appealing to Isaiah 52-54 and Psalm 22, and also many types and shadows of the Old Testament.

If a person is "reasonable," he will not get mad. He will simply show by a reasonable process that the evidence presented does not prove the proposition affirmed. That is "reasoning." Being "unreasonable" would mean that they refuse to consider and answer the proposition affirmed. Many people don't want to face the facts. They have not prepared themselves to handle things objectively.

The other part of Paul's proposition to these Jews was that the Scriptures also show that the Christ would suffer "and rise again from the dead" (Acts 17:3). Did the Scriptures of the Jews affirm this? Yes! He was suffering for our sins (Isaiah 53), and then His days were "prolonged" (Isaiah 53:10). Also, David affirmed that one would not be left in Sheol (the realm of the dead) nor his flesh see corruption (Psalms 16). Jonah served as a type. He was God's messenger, swallowed into certain death and coming forth in three days. In a sense, Isaac was as good as dead for three days, and God gave him back to Abraham on the third day. So, Paul would easily have a strong case. Reasonable people would have attempted to answer this evidence. Instead, many of the Jews resorted to the mob reaction (Acts 17:5-6) because being reasonable was not their practice. But a "great multitude" (Acts 17:4) of Greeks saw the power of Paul's evidence. They knew the Scriptures were a powerful testimony to Jesus being the Messiah.

Reason involves a willingness to hear evidence, test the evidence, and draw a conclusive verdict on its implications. The Old Testament is a Testimony that a Savior and Messiah is coming. The New Testament is a Testimony that the Savior and Messiah have come in Jesus and that we must get ready to meet Him because He is coming again to take true believers home to glory. Have you been reasonable with the evidence?

Reasoning

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 02 Feb 2024 01:12:36 +0000

by Terry Wane Benton

The exercise of thought upon ideas to sort the true from the false, the stronger idea from the weaker idea. It is thinking through the available evidence to reach a conclusion. The book of John sets forth a propositional statement that says God came in human flesh, then reasons from one piece of testimony to another to prove the proposition is actually true. God either did come in the flesh, or He did not. John reasons upon testimonial evidence to conclude that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. There is reason for faith in Jesus Christ. It is not a blind leap of unreasonable faith. Some can be unreasonable, but the basis for trust in Jesus is not unreasonable.

Those who use reasoning take the words Jesus spoke and reach the necessary inference that only God could have sent Him, and Jesus spoke things that only God could promise and fulfill. We take the eyewitness testimony of His miracles and necessarily infer that “no man can do these miracles except God be with Him.” We take the prophets' words about the coming Messiah, compare them to Jesus, and reach the necessary implication that only Jesus could be the prophesied Messiah of the Jews’ scriptures. We conclude that Jesus is the Christ of God, and He is divine. The evidence clearly implies it, and there is no other option because of the total evidence. Therefore, it is a necessary inference and an inescapable conclusion.

Is It Circular Reasoning to Use the Bible to Prove God Gave It?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 20 Sep 2023 14:34:09 +0000

by Terry Wane Benton

No! It might be circular if it was all written at one time. But we can demonstrate that the Old Testament was completed long before Jesus came. Therefore we get to consider the prophecies and how Jesus fulfilled them.

The New Testament is eyewitness testimony of Jesus written when unbelievers should have been able to expose the whole following by merely preserving and producing the dead man’s body. The empty tomb, missing body, and strength of the eyewitness testimony to His resurrection along with hundreds of prophecies combine to make a powerful case for the Bible being what it claims, the inspired word of God.

As Peter said, “We have the prophetic word made more sure” (II Peter 1:16-19).

Circular reasoning is like what atheists do in using fossils to date the rocks and the rocks to date the fossils. Listening to 40 different witnesses over 1500 years and finding unity of testimony in the record is simply evaluating the strength of testimony. That is not circular reasoning at all!

Hiding Behind the Truth

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 09 Jan 2023 00:46:18 +0000

https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Hiding-Behind-the-Truth.mp3

by Jeffrey W. Hamilton

Text: II Corinthians 4:1-6

I. One basic principle of logic is that if you start with a false idea, you can prove anything

A. False doctrine could be justified if you started with a false idea as evidence

1. Premise: Presidents of the United States must be younger than 35

2. Premise: Joe is President of the United States

3. Conclusion: Joe must be younger than 35

4. The logic is correct, but the conclusion is wrong because the premise is wrong

B. On the other side of the coin, I could use false idea and just happen to prove a truth.

1. Premise: Weathermen get their predictions wrong

2. Premise: The weatherman says it is going to rain tomorrow

3. Conclusion: It won’t rain tomorrow

4. The falsehood is that weathermen are not always wrong. If it doesn’t rain tomorrow, this doesn’t prove that weathermen are always wrong.

5. In fact, because of the false premise, you can’t conclude whether it will rain or not.

C. Therefore, if you desire to prove the truth, you can’t use any means possible. The end does not justify the means used.

D. Truth must be used to persuade others of the truth - I Thessalonians 2:3-4

II. Misusing the Truth

A. Pulling a passage out of its context

1. Using Jesus’ temptation as an example - Matthew 4:5-7

a. Satan quoted the Bible and the Bible is the truth - John 17:17

b. But his use of the passage was in conflict with the greater context of the Bible, which Jesus showed by quoting Deuteronomy 6:16

c. Satan’s use of the Scriptures contradicted what God said elsewhere, therefore Satan’s claim was false.

2. Paul was accused of not being an apostle

a. Premise: Apostles are supported by those they teach - I Corinthians 9:9-11

b. Premise: Paul did not receive support from the local church

c. Conclusion: Paul is not an apostle

d. But the first premise is not a requirement - II Corinthians 11:5-13

B. Citing only favorable evidence

1. Those who advocate salvation by faith alone will cite numerous passages that say you must believe to be saved.

2. What they avoid are all the passages that mention other things connected to salvation, such as Acts 2:38

3. Truth is in the whole, not the part - Psalms 119:160

4. When someone uses only a portion of the Bible, it gives the impression of credence when the reality is that the Truth is being mishandled

C. Counting on the laziness of the audience

1. The Bereans were called noble-minded because they search the Bible to check that Paul’s claims were true - Acts 17:10-11

2. Some false teachers will make a series of assertions but only justify a portion of their claims

a. The natural tendency is to assume that if part of the claims are true then the rest of it must also be true

3. Example from the Sermon on the Mount - Matthew 5:43

a. I hear people say that the Old Testament teaches hate while the New Testament teaches love

b. But the Old and New Testaments are from the same God

c. The Old Law did teach that you should love your neighbor - Leviticus 19:18

d. But it did not teach people to hate their enemies. Actually, it taught the opposite - Leviticus 19:17

e. Even foreigners were to be loved - Leviticus 19:34

f. The treatment of enemies - Exodus 23:4-5 and Proverbs 25:21-22

4. Similar is to give so much “proof” that your audience is overwhelmed

a. The Jehovah’s Witnesses material is loaded with Scripture citations.

b. So much that few bother to look up the verses.

c. But if you did, you will often find that the verses cited have little or nothing to do with the arguments that they are presenting

5. Beware of preachers who cite passages without actually turning to them and reading them

a. It is far too easy to interject a falsehood

III. Insufficient Evidence

A. Only one witness

1. Jesus never lied - John 8:13-14

2. But arguing from insufficient evidence does not establish truth - John 5:31

3. That is why there has always been a requirement for multiple witnesses - Deuteronomy 19:15; Matthew 18:16

4. Unfortunately if a statement is juicy enough to shock the hearer, people will ignore this requirement.

5. It doesn’t matter how honest the witness, one witness is not enough

B. Anecdotal evidence

1. This is when arguments are made from personal experience and not from research

a. Ad: “Susan in Grand Island, Michigan, says, ‘I took X and my life has never been better!’”

b. How do you get a hold of Susan to see if that is what she really said?

c. How do you know that it was X that caused the change and not something else?

2. Believers in modern-day miracles rely on the same anecdotal evidence. “I was feeling ill, so-and-so prayed over me, and I got better.”

a. Was the improvement due to prayer by this person or something else?

C. Third-hand evidence

1. I once asked a man if he had proof that miracles were happening today. He told me that a friend of his had seen a man drink a cup of coffee that he was told had poison in it because the man’s wife was trying to get rid of him, and he didn’t suffer any ill effects!

2. How can this story be verified?

a. Did the man actually exist?

b. Was the coffee actually poisoned?

3. Another man told me he prayed for a man in India to be healed of blindness and his prayer was answered

a. The problem is that the man did not know if the man in India was actually blind

b. He doesn’t know the man, he was only told that the man was now healed

4. Notice the many opportunities for fraud to be committed

5. Compare this to the miracles recorded in the Bible

a. If a person involved wanted to commit fraud, how would it be done?

b. There are too many independent people involved

c. Evidence that the miracle took place was verified by multiple sources – often by people who had no reason to expect or want a miracle

d. Example: The healing of the paralytic - Mark 2:1-12

(1) Large crowd

(2) Hostile witnesses

(3) Friends who knew the man

(4) Extra evidence - Answering people’s thoughts

D. How many so-called miracles today have sufficient verifiable evidence?

IV. Throwing out the baby

A. A bad argument doesn’t prove an idea to be true.

1. However, a bad argument doesn’t imply that the idea is false

2. A bad argument is just a bad argument

3. Something could still be true despite a person’s bad argument

B. Our natural tendency is to reject everything if a portion is wrong

1. For example, if someone, who is involved in denominational beliefs, writes a book on handling money

a. The person may quote Scriptures and misuse many of them

b. Does this mean the person’s ideas are bad?

c. Not necessarily. It just means that they don’t know how to properly support their points

d. And they may still have a few good points and arguments buried in the bad

2. Because a person holds an incorrect view on one topic, we should not treat him as if everything he says is false

a. Example: I know a man who held a false position concerning God’s covenants. He happened to run across evidence of fraud being perpetuate in the churches in another country. Almost no one would look at the evidence he gathered because of his stand on an unrelated matter. As a result, the fraud continued for many years. His false belief did not imply he was dishonest.

C. Strawman Arguments

1. You see this often in politics. One politician will accuse his opponent of taking a controversial stand. They then prove the stand is wrong (a truth). But what is left out is any proof that their opponent actual holds the controversial stand.

2. This is how people fought against Christianity - Romans 3:3-8

a. Just because a person, who should have known better, is found to be unfaithful; his unfaithfulness does not change the truth about the faithfulness of God

b. Paul had to deal with being accused of saying, “Let us do evil that good may come.” (A strawman argument.) It was not a position that Paul held.

3. The riot in Thessalonica - Acts 17:5-8

a. In the middle of the Jews’ accusations is the claim that the Christians were “all acting contrary to the decrees of Caesar.”

b. It was false (Romans 13:1), but most people forget that an accusation is not proof.

V. Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right

A. Because someone does me wrong, it is not justification to return evil - Romans 12:19-21

B. Some use it to justify sin

1. Because brother X smokes cigarettes, bother Y sees nothing wrong if he takes a drink or two. Brother Z then feels justified to use drugs recreationally because it is no worse than what brother Y is doing.

2. This is why sin spreads - I Corinthians 5:6

3. The good or bad behavior of another person is not proof that a certain action is right or wrong.

C. It can even be over things that are not directly wrong in itself

1. Someone might see a brother eating meat that came from an idol’s temple and come to the wrong conclusion that idolatry is not wrong - I Corinthians 8:1-12; 10:19-24

2. They might begin a practice that they are not fully convinced is right - Romans 14:19-23

VI. The End Doesn’t Justify the Means

A. Commonly people conclude that if we arrive at the truth, then the means used to arrive at the truth must also be correct

1. It is good to follow Jesus. So the denominations decide to streamline converting someone by telling them that they just need to pray a sinner’s prayer to Jesus to be saved.

2. If you ask for proof that praying a sinner’s prayer saves a person, you are asked how such a good thing can be wrong?

B. Paul had people arguing that since God’s grace will cover any sin that I might commit, then I should sin big-time so that God’s grace might be further demonstrated - Romans 5:20-6:23

C. As Paul said, the claim is false - Romans 3:8

VII. In each of our examples, truth was present but never wholly.

A. We cannot allow ourselves to be distracted from thinking clearly.

B. The wicked will use the truth as a cover - II Corinthians 11:13-15

Reasoning Includes God

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 10 Oct 2022 15:20:29 +0000

by Doy Moyer

Reason has been granted to us by God as those made in His image. When we try to reason without acknowledging God, we become our own idols by assuming that we do not need God. This leads to futility in thinking (Romans 1:21; Ephesians 4:17). In doing this we are relying on our own wisdom and we will not understand God and His purposes, since the world through its wisdom cannot know God (I Corinthians 1:21).

Reason and logic are an undeniable part of who we are. Try making an argument for denying logic and you will come across as senseless and self-defeating, for you will be appealing to reason even as you deny it. By using our reason appropriately, however, we are glorifying the God who gave us our minds and set in order the way facts, reason, and faith function together. We ought to learn to do it well because it is the Lord whom we serve and we are to love Him “with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37).

I have seen criticisms of logic as applied to Bible study. This is often in conjunction with arguing that we ought not to try to interpret the Bible; we just read it and do it with no interpretation at all. This sounds noble, but it is naive, erroneous, and dangerous because it unwittingly makes a person’s own perceptions into another idol. “This is what the Bible says” can become code for, “This is what I think it means and I cannot be wrong.” And doing this will inevitably lead us into contradiction.

While there are places where “that’s what it says” is appropriate, making blanket statements like that without first doing the contextual homework can lead to misapplications of God’s word and lend support to false doctrine. We shouldn’t just say, “That’s what it says” without first making sure that’s what it really says in its context. After all, the devil was crafty at using Scripture to test Jesus. He quoted Scripture. It’s “what it said,” but his application was malicious (Matthew 4:5-6). Let us be diligent and careful to avoid that devilish pitfall. Do the homework. Reason well. Apply appropriately.

“Be diligent to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who doesn’t need to be ashamed, correctly teaching the word of truth” (II Timothy 2:15).