Category: Reasoning

Posted on by

Is Barabbas a Type of Azazel Goat?

Azazel Goat

I’ve recently seen people draw a connection between the release of Barabbas at the crucifixion (Matthew 27) and the sending off of Azazel’s goat at Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16). Because both instances involve someone, or something, being released on a holy day, people are jumping to a conclusion that Azazel’s goat at Yom Kippur is a prophetic foreshadowing of Barabbas’ release.

Unfortunately, this is a misinterpretation. This is an example where two unrelated events, taken out of context, appear similar to one another but are actually not related. The seeming similarity of the events is coincidental; but, people are attempting to link the two because of a preconceived idea they look alike.

Why do I say the two events are not related?

Continue reading
Posted on by

Grappling With Doctrine

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

This is a very well-known, and often quoted, piece of scripture. But, this piece of scripture creates a logical conflict with popular doctrine.

Popular doctrine teaches that most of the Bible is null and void. We’re told “The Law” is no longer applicable, and this argument comes in several forms such as follow:

  1. Jesus ‘fulfilled” The Law, meaning he brought it to an end so it’s now defunct.

  2. Jesus obeyed The Law for us, meaning he did it so now we don’t have to.

  3. The Law was only ever given to The Jews, meaning if you’re not a biological Jew you never had to obey it.

There are other doctrinal arguments against The Law, but they all work towards the same aim…to convince Christians that God’s Law is void, non-binding, and we are under no obligation to obey it. And therein lies the logical conflict.

grappling with doctrine
Everyone must wrestle with the difficult portions of scripture, being prepared to cast off any doctrine that is useless or counter-productive to understanding truth.
Continue reading
Posted on by

What was Finished?

what was finished?
What was finished? We have to understand Jesus’ stated purpose to understand what he accomplished.

After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, in order that the Scripture would be fulfilled, said, “I am thirsty.” A jar full of sour wine was standing there; so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a branch of hyssop and brought it up to His mouth. Therefore, when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.

(John 19:28-30)

People present this verse to me as a proof-text that Jesus “finished the Law” or “finished the Old Testament” on the cross. Their reasoning is the passage states everything was accomplished and Jesus proclaimed it was all finished. Out of this interpretation, the following argument is given: Continue reading What was Finished?

Posted on by

Picking Cherries and Spitting Pits

Cherry Picking

We continue looking at reasoning and testing as they relate to our study method. Today, we are considering the fallacy of cherry picking. This is possibly the biggest and most frequently occurring fallacy in the church.

It’s important to understand what cherry picking is, how it works, and how to recognize it in ourselves and others. If we recognize cherry picking in others, we can effectively refute their position and defend ours. If we recognize cherry picking in ourselves, we can eliminate it from our study and improve our understanding of scripture. Continue reading Picking Cherries and Spitting Pits

Posted on by

Attacking the Strawman

attacking the strawmanA strawman argument, or attacking a strawman, is a common type of fallacious argument. The strawman argument mischaracterizes an opponent’s position then attacks the distorted version of the opponent’s argument. Done intentionally, the strawman argument creates an appearance the issue was addressed when, in actuality, the true issue was avoided and only the false representation of the issue was addressed. Done unintentionally, the strawman argument is a product of misunderstanding the issue.

The strawman argument can be structured as follows:

Person 1 raises an issue, makes a point, or asserts an argument

Person 2 mischaracterizes the issue

Person 2 then refutes the mischaracterized version of the argument Continue reading Attacking the Strawman