ARC Wiki

Due to recent developments and the publication of BeEzrat Hashem (Rabbi Yaron Reuven) videos on YouTube, we are now able to offer a “summary position” of the debate rules on this wiki as follows:

1. Why Bringing a Biblical Source is Important: https://youtu.be/xXTa4mz40Lk

2. We prefer longer, moderated debates, where it is possible to fully examine someone's position: https://ncase.me/trust/

Religious debate is inherently emotional and inflammatory. We each strive to do the right thing and we sometimes get frustrated when the other party doesn't see things our way. This is because we honestly believe the truth and we want to help others. Yet we often think, ‘How can the other person be so foolish not to understand the truth?’

But we are sometimes wrong. In fact, considering Christianity alone, there are each millions upon millions of people who are Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, Messianic, Charismatic, Mormon, Jehova’s Witnesses, Calvinist, and so forth. Each denomination believes slightly different things based on the teachings of their church fathers – and each one justifies their teachings using verses from the Bible.

Thus we come to our first principle when dealing with religious debate on this site; we defer to Church Fathers to understand the position of a particular denomination; however, there must be scriptural proof for the statements and claims made by any denomination if they wish to extend their authority outside of their own congregation. This brings us to the principle of Sola Scriptura. However, the principle of Sola Scriptura requires that an exhaustive approach be applied or it will fall under the weight of the cherrypicking people do in order to justify their positions.

We can try and solve this conundrum by re-examining our core beliefs in light of our conception of the nature of God (not that we can know the nature of God, but rather, our perception of what God has said and done in the Bible).

Core belief primo uno, the belief in God is central and core to the articles on this site. We hold as basic principles:

1. That God is all-powerful (omnipotent)
2. That God is all-knowing (omniscient)
3. That God is present everywhere (omnipresent).
4. That God is good – whatever that may mean.

Secondly, our basic belief is that God has given us his message in the form of the Bible. And in that it is God’s plan that we are to learn about him through reading the Bible, we hold that God has protected his text from corruption – whatever that may mean. Our responsibility in this is to seek out the most accurate version of the scriptures. This means we do not consider a translation of the original as more authoritative than the original itself. In all cases we must defer to the original Hebrew Scriptures. It is not possible to promote the Latin Vulgate, for example, over the original Greek of the New Testament. In a sense, this is a matter of ‘deferring to the Church Fathers’ — the original message, in the original language, is considered of paramount importance.

Based on this surety of manuscript, and the principle that God is powerful enough to see through that his word should reach us in a usable form even Today, we only then arrive at the principle of Sola Scriptura.

We hold that the plain reading of a verse must always be true and accurate – for if it is true that God is an omnipotent omniscient being who wishes to give us a message, it would be illogical to assume he has somehow failed to communicate to us in a way that we can be expected to understand. Therefore, the simple meaning of a verse must be true.

Finally we arrive at the principle of ecumenical authority. Via an exhaustive analytical approach of hermeneutical analysis, first taking the plain meaning, then looking for clear and intentional allusions, moralistic homilies, and consistent esoteric explanations, we try to build a complete and unified picture of the text. If such a picture is self-consistant and understandable then it meets the criteria of what an omnipotent omniscient God who wishes to have sent his message in the Bible, and then the receiving and understanding of that message. Therefore we possess ecumenical authority in the sense that we have the received message of God's word, and that we may now understand and act on God's wishes for the earth and human society.

Sola Scriptura relies on the hermeneutical principle of Exegesis. By deferring to the word of God as stated in it’s plain and straightforward meaning, in it’s original context, we claim a logically honest approach to the word of God – and thus, ultimately, lay claim to God's ecumenical authority. In doing so we look for the plain meaning of the text and do not insert ideas that come from elsewhere. This principle of Sola Scriptura and Exegesis are really the same thing (also see: ecumenical authority, exegesis).

The contrasting approach, eisegesis, is when you take what you already believe and scour the text for something that seems to support your belief — however tenuous — while at the same time blatantly ignoring any passage which contradicts your belief. Also known as ‘cherrypicking’. The mark of the eisegesic approach is that verses are taken out of context and that there is frequently a rebuttal to the eisegesic idea nearby in the text.

The lines can sometimes become blurred when true believers claim that the verses are in context – in context with some spiritual revelation or holy spirit of truth. However this is the very definition of Eisegesis, and a statement against God’s plan and his word in the Bible. For if we suppose that the truth is not revealed to us in God’s word, but instead via spiritual revelation alone, or worse that the Bible itself cannot lead to understanding, then the Bible itself has little to no value. In such a case there is no need to appeal to the authority of the Bible. In fact such people will often discount the Bible or claim that it is inaccurate or corrupted. This is always because what they want to convey is contradicted by the Bible and they do not wish to appeal to the Ecumenical Authority of the power of God revealed in His word.

In this sense, exegesis is a statement against progressive revelation.

One may ask, is there a formal outline or method of how we can approach the bible in a logical and straightforward way, one free of ulterior motive? In the spirit of logical honesty and in a manner which avoids common pitfalls, mistakes and misunderstandings?

Yes there is; it is simply the process of exegesis; examining a verse in the darkness (i.e. under debate) by using a verse in the light (which is understood).

Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsəˈdʒiːsəs/; from the Greek preposition εἰς “into” and the ending from the English word exegesis, Greek ἐξήγησις, which in turn is derived from ἐξηγεῖσθαι “to lead out”) is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text. The act is often used to “prove” a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda.Wikipedia:Eisegesis (2017)

Exegesis (/ˌɛksəˈdʒiːsɪs/; from the Greek ἐξήγησις from ἐξηγεῖσθαι, “to lead out”) is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, particularly a religious text. Traditionally the term was used primarily for work with the Bible; however, in modern usage “biblical exegesis” is used for greater specificity to distinguish it from any other broader critical text explanation.Wikipedia:Exegesis (2017)

Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.Wikipedia:Eisegesis (2017)

We avoid debating the existence of God because as it turns out the people who most enjoy debating the existence of God are rarely interested in debating anything at all. Someone who is antagonistic towards religion often frames his debate in such a way as to sound like he is discussing a point of doctrine or belief; however the root of his argument will be that he does not believe in God. Thus it is impossible to bring proof from the Bible into such a debate because it is not honored. Any such debate will inevitably devolve into logically dishonest arguments and credibility attacks based on the fact that someone believes in God. This is a such a dishonest debate tactic! And so, we tend to brush aside such discussions.

Arguing out of personal testimony is like telling someone an Angel appeared to you and told you the truth. It's your word against the world, or worse, your word against the Bible. As such personal testimony is not valid in a discussion over the meaning of the bible, nor could it be used to prove something in a logical sense.

Miracles are completely invalid as proof of anything. Please refer to Miracles Do Not Prove Divinity.

Non-miraculous proofs are just that, and therefore are dismissed by the prejudice of the antagonist. An example would be Pi in the bible. Despite the obvious presence of what should be an interesting “coincidence”, that's all it will ever be to the antagonist. This is a best case scenario; I have had long discussions with athiests where they still cannot seem to get past “Pi is 3”.

Antagonists in these kinds of debate are not really interested in proof. They just want to waste your time. See General Debate. Most often they are completely unschooled in the subject they choose to engage in and will lack even general knowledge of the subject matter in context.

A great example is Chafer's argument for omnipresnce. In his classic seven-volume Systematic Theology, Lewis Sperry Chafer advanced the following argument. He said in essence that God’s perfection demands it. If we could conceive of even a tiny portion of the universe where God is not present, then we might conceive of a being in that locality who is greater than God himself. Is this the best argument Christians could come up with after several thousands of years? It shows a lack of knowledge, a lack of study, and a lack of understanding of the issue at hand. In contrast, The Psalmist simply asks God,

Where can I go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there.Psalms 139:7-8 (NRSV)

It is therefore important to escape this kind of circular argument by realizing and stating that belief in the existence of God is also “just that” – a decision we have made, despite available evidence and not in conjunction with or against it. We do not seek justification for our belief in God because we do not need to. We simply state our belief as a statement of our faith, whatever our personal reason for that faith may be, justified or not.

Of course, more evidence is great, and if it's credible, we welcome any evidence to the contrary of our positions.

This will underline the crux of the issue; if an antagonist states no such evidence can exist, then this applies both to our statement that God exists and also to his statement that God does not exist. Thus 95% of the time the Athiest's position will be reduced to personal testimony and ruled inadmissible. Please also refer to Lack of Miracles Does Not Prove Atheism.

(therefore) The text is always given an exegesic, vs. eisegesic reading. A short example is in order. Many Christians are taught that in Genesis 18, “And the Lord appeared to him …” refers to Jesus.

And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree: And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant.Genesis 18:1-5

According to an Eisegesic reading considering Christian theology, these three men were the Lord, and one of these three men was Jesus (Thus 'proving' the doctrine of the Trinity). However, that is the point – it's “according to Christian theology” – not a plain reading of the text. It is an eisegesic reading which relies on existing beliefs. It does not a proof but merely a statement of Christian beliefs. The Exegesic reading challenges it on many fronts:

• in 1 and 2, the appearance of The Lord to Abraham is separate from the appearance of three men both in time and in place; The Lord appears first to Abraham by the tent door, then the three men appear in another place and Abraham runs from the tent door to greet them.
• in 9 and 10, the three men and The Lord are referred to separately as they and He.
• verse 13-15 show that the three men and the Lord are in different positions; the three men are with Abraham, who does not hear Sarah laugh, but only hears of it from the Lord (thus giving Sarah license to deny she laughed–as she would not know the Lord revealed it to Abraham)
• Most curiously in 22, although all three men leave Abraham to go to Sodom, the Abraham remains in the presence of the Lord.

The exegesic reading challenges the eisegesic reading least of all by asking the question of verse 23, to whom does Abraham draw near? It is said to be the Lord; but the three men have all already left Abraham's presence. From these verses it should be clear that these three men are not angels, nor the Lord, nor Jesus.

It is also important to note that the exegesic reading does not disprove the doctrine of the Trinity. It does not even claim to be about the Trinity at all. If there is proof for the Trinity elsewhere, Genesis 18 does not say.

In summary then, Sola Scriptura is not an attack against Christianity. On the contrary it is Christianity's greatest strength. Acts 18:28 states, “For he (Paul) mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.” It is these simple and clear passages which one should focus on when espousing doctrine, not making an attempt to crowbar Jesus (or some other doctrine) into a passage where it does not belong.

We're not. Even 2 Timothy 2:15 commands all Christians to use exegesical methods: “Present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

The fact is, you may believe something strongly, but that does not mean any bible passage is proof of your beliefs. Even one which may vaguely sound like it is talking about what you want to believe. If it's not, it's not.

An honest student of the Bible will be an exegete, allowing the text to speak for itself. Eisegesis easily lends itself to error, as the would-be interpreter attempts to align the text with his own preconceived notions. Exegesis allows us to agree with the Bible; eisegesis seeks to force the Bible to agree with us.http://gotquestions.org/exegesis-eisegesis.html

If a theology is logically sound via Sola Scrpitura, it will stand! The article veils and scales deals with the standard Christian position of needing special spiritual awareness to read the Bible and/or see the truth.

I would also point out here, that if Paul was able to use scripture to convince Jews (who apparently have a veil over their eyes, according to 2Cor 3:14) – ex. Acts 18:28 — then such a position does not even have a basis within standard Christian theology. Therefore, it is vital for everyone to hold their case with scripture and not use a cop-out such as 'spiritually blind', 'veils over their eyes', etc. If this cannot be done, the accuser must admit he cannot stand on those issues. It is never acceptable to make a statement which cannot be backed up by scripture, doubly so when it is in contrast to scripture.

Let’s try to agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

Christians in particular, consider the following passages for the suggested attitude when engaging in difficult debate:

But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.2 Timothy 4:5

And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.2 Timothy 2 24-25

Do not treat prophecies with contempt, but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil.2 Thessalonians 5:20-21

It is my fervent hope that this site will be useful to both missionaries and counter-missionaries. No one is right all the time about everything. But rather, let the truth prevail.

These are the things that you shall do: Speak the truth to one another; render in your gates judgments that are true and make for peace;Zechariah 8:16

Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.Ephesians 4:25

And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.Ephesians 4:32 (KJV)