Latest / The Immutable Word / EP046 Paul the Lawyer: Romans, Rhetoric, and the Greco‑Roman Diatribe

Transcript

EP046 Paul the Lawyer: Romans, Rhetoric, and the Greco‑Roman Diatribe · The Immutable Word

0:00
If we say, well, God won't send anybody to hell because he's too loving of a
0:03
God, then God's not a just God. That means that he's not punishing sin.
0:07
So this is what he's trying to say. He's like, if I'm going to take your argument
0:10
that I can continue to be unrighteous because it commends the righteousness
0:14
of God, the problem is that removes God's ability to be a righteous judge.
0:20
Welcome back to The Immutable Word. We are back in the garage for another episode.
0:25
We do have a kind of a special guest. I mean, we've got Dr.
0:29
Robert here with us, too, but we're going to be, in a way, interacting with Paul.
0:35
And if you know anything about Paul, he's a lawyer, so he knows how to have
0:41
dialogue and discussions, and he's very masterful at it.
0:45
And so today's episode is going to be covering Paul's ability to have a dialogue
0:51
and be able to argue things.
0:53
His point. And if I were to set the stage here, well, before I jump there,
0:59
I don't want to get ahead of myself.
1:00
Today, what we're examining is Apostle Paul and his ability to present a bit
1:07
of a legal case using certain tools.
1:11
And there's a style that he uses, which is called the Greco-Roman diatribe,
1:16
which is a structured argument, which is thesis, objection, refutation.
1:22
And this is often marked by the
1:24
phrase, God forbid, you'll see that in Romans where he says that a lot.
1:27
And so when you see that, that's his style that he's using.
1:31
And then he employs, and you might be already familiar with this because we've
1:36
been covering this in our argumentation fallacies,
1:39
things like that reductio absurdum and
1:43
so when paul brings a case he
1:46
brings up the ejection of the other party and then
1:49
refutes it using this tool reductio absurdum
1:52
bring it to its an absurd conclusion right so maybe
1:56
robert you know you can kind of explain a little bit more of
1:59
the greco greco-roman diatribe and i'm when
2:02
i'm talking about diatribe it's not complaining at
2:05
the end of the day after you know a long work day this was
2:08
just a style of dialogue back in the day that was very structured again it's
2:13
it's offering a i don't know like a statement or maybe an argument and then
2:19
you bring up the objection and you you refute that objection so paul in this
2:23
case is bringing up an objection of the opponent right and so.
2:28
He is, in a way, preemptively striking.
2:31
So he's thinking about these things. He anticipates what they're going to say
2:36
and then presents a case against it using this style.
2:41
So am I off or am I hitting the right points on it? No, you're eventually getting
2:46
there. Just keep talking. Thanks.
2:48
The more I talk— It's like the more eventually you'll get to the point.
2:51
No, I mean, it's pretty much—when we say Greco-Roman diatribe,
2:56
it's a rhetorical style. you know, that the ancient Greeks used.
3:00
If there's anything you, you know, that anybody, if you know anything about
3:03
history, especially ancient Greece, they were philosophers. They were...
3:09
They were steeped in especially rhetoric, debate, things like that.
3:13
You think about Socrates, you think about Aristotle, people like that.
3:18
What they did is they employed certain methods on how to talk, how to speak,
3:24
how to debate, interlocutors, to understand your opponent, how to identify the
3:31
premise, the conclusion of an argument, how to construct an argument.
3:34
They were very good at that.
3:36
That's one thing when Paul would talk about that the Greeks seek after wisdom,
3:41
that's exactly what they did.
3:43
They were masters at rhetoric.
3:45
They were masters at speech, at, you know, rhetorical talks.
3:52
You know, speaking in front of groups or individuals in the Senate, debating.
3:56
Yeah that's that's exactly what they did so but what what you
3:59
know one of the the styles of rhetoric that they
4:02
had is this thing called greco-roman diatribe this
4:05
tri part so what's interesting about it's like it's also if you
4:08
use this style i mean we can use it today and
4:11
it'll keep us from straw you know committing
4:14
straw man fallacies right because you want to understand the
4:17
other person's argument right you want to be able to steel man it
4:19
and you can do that using this style
4:22
so yeah so the the umbrella of this
4:26
is thesis objection refutation that's the
4:29
structured argument okay it's part of
4:32
the greco-roman diatribe or the i'm sorry
4:35
the greco-roman diatribe is is a
4:38
structured argument of the thesis objection refutation
4:41
so what what he does is you know this diatribe just means basically talking
4:47
through something talking through a topic a subject of debate whatever the case
4:53
is and then the thesis objection refutation is the order think of it i'm presenting a thesis i'm
4:59
I'm presenting the objection to that thesis, and then I'm refuting that objection
5:04
to the original thesis. Yeah. That's what he's doing.
5:07
So, the reason, you know, I wanted to talk about this today is,
5:11
you know, I've been going verse by verse through Romans in the book of Romans
5:16
in prison, and I started noticing.
5:19
This back and forth discussion that Paul would have with himself,
5:23
you know, and especially like if you go back to Romans chapter 3 where he's
5:27
talking to himself and he says, you know, what advantage hath the Jew?
5:32
Or, but if our unrighteousness commend the unrighteousness of God,
5:35
is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance?
5:40
And so forth. And I kept thinking, like, what is going on here?
5:42
Why is Paul talking like that?
5:44
So, the more that I kind of studied it out, I started realizing that Paul was
5:48
utilizing this Greco-Roman rhetoric style and methodology in his writing.
5:55
And because that's actually what Jews, Pharisees would do.
5:59
Remember, he's a Pharisee, which means he's a lawyer.
6:02
So he was educated to use this style.
6:04
Yeah, because this is actually the kind of style that his teacher Gamaliel would
6:08
have used. The Jews would have argued for something.
6:13
They would have used the diatribe method. They would have used thesis,
6:16
objection, reputation. The Roman influence.
6:19
So that's how a lawyer does that. You know, a lawyer needs to anticipate what
6:23
the objections are to his thesis, and then he needs to identify,
6:27
well, how am I going to refute those objections?
6:29
Now, this is actually, you know, you mentioned in this day and age,
6:34
if you use this, it'll help you, you know, prevent, you know, committing a straw man.
6:38
But I think even better for a Christian is think of it this way.
6:42
Here's a simple 2026 analogy.
6:46
If you want to argue for the existence of God, for example—,
6:49
Okay. How do you strengthen your argument? You come up with every refutation against your argument.
6:56
You know what that's going to force
6:58
you to do? It's going to force you to articulate your argument better.
7:02
It's going to force you to articulate your argument in a way that you anticipate
7:07
the objections or that you're able to respond to the objections in a clear,
7:12
meaningful, and reasonable way instead of being flustered.
7:15
Right? So think of it this way. If I'm going to say, I'm going to argue for
7:19
the existence of God, and this is what I'm going to say.
7:22
Okay, now go in your mind, how could somebody object to your argument?
7:27
You might think of two or three objections.
7:30
So now you stop and say, okay, well, how would I respond to those?
7:33
Yeah, you stress test them.
7:34
So what Paul did is instead of, you know, we can't see him having an argument
7:40
with somebody, but he put the argument on paper.
7:42
So he would give you the thesis. He says, here's my premise.
7:48
Here's my assessment, my analysis. Here's my conclusion.
7:53
Now I'm going to give you the objection.
7:57
Then I'm going to turn around and follow up with my refutation.
8:01
So that's all he's doing. He's actually strengthening his case for the gospel in Romans 3.
8:07
So he's trying to present salvation by grace through faith, that it's not by
8:12
works. So he wants to show that the grace that God is commending to every man is unlimited.
8:20
It's pure. It's perfect. And there's nothing we can do to undo that.
8:23
But then somebody may raise an objection and say, well, if God is going to give
8:30
me grace and give me his righteousness for my sin, then that means I can go ahead and keep sinning.
8:36
And then Paul goes, no, God forbid. That's where he's refuting it.
8:40
He's like, no, God forbid that'll happen.
8:42
He goes, actually, and then he sits there and he explains.
8:46
And he'll talk about, that's where he'll use this reductive absurdum,
8:51
which means simply is let me take your argument and let me show you how absurd your argument is.
8:57
If we were to run with your logic, this is literally how absurd that logic is.
9:04
So, anyway, as you uncover that, I think which, you know, and I know some of
9:10
this may go over some listeners' heads, but I want you all to think about this.
9:14
Think about how specific, you know, Paul was.
9:18
Paul was a master and a genius at this.
9:22
He was very good. He was very learned.
9:25
Now, to me, the irony, remember when we did the revelatory epistemology.
9:30
So, you know, 1 Corinthians 2, verse 1, what does he say?
9:35
He says, and I, brethren, I came not, he goes, when I came to you,
9:38
came not with excellency of speech.
9:40
I think it's so funny. I mean, he's not trying to tell you that he didn't have excellent speech.
9:45
He's just trying to tell you that the force of his argument isn't in how articulate he is.
9:50
It's the evidence he's presenting. It's the fact that what he's telling us in
9:55
1 Corinthians 2, for example, is scripture. That is the final authority.
10:00
So, but this is what I think it should, I think the challenge to us as Christians
10:06
is we need to learn how to articulate our faith in a way that we anticipate the objections.
10:13
We're prepared to respond to those objections in a reasonable way that demonstrates
10:19
that we've actually thought about it,
10:21
that we're not just spitting out something because our pastor told us something
10:26
or that your mom told you something or your professor at Bible school told you something, right?
10:32
You need to learn how to articulate the faith in a way that proves to other
10:37
people you actually believe it and you know why you believe it, right?
10:41
You have to have your own convictions about it in order to defend it and be able to argue properly.
10:48
Yeah, I would say 90% of the younger generation that's walked away from their
10:52
faith, it's not because they didn't do Bible memorization.
10:56
It's not because they couldn't find a Bible passage in under 10 seconds in VBS.
11:01
It's not because they haven't, you know, recited, you know, whatever traditional
11:06
beliefs are at their church and memorized, you know, Bible stories.
11:11
And you know what I mean? That's not why they walked away from the faith.
11:15
It's not because they lack the what.
11:19
It's because they lack the why is it true.
11:22
They never bridge that gap.
11:25
They know the Bible is the Word of God. They know the King James Bible is perfectly preserved.
11:30
They know that salvation is by grace through faith. They know that Jesus died
11:35
on the cross for their sins, but they don't know why it's true.
11:38
Until you make that connection, until you bridge that cognitive, you know,
11:44
understanding of why we believe a particular doctrine is true,
11:48
you're not going to be able to reconcile it with all the objections and the
11:52
attacks and the polemics that you'll run into in the world. Yeah.
11:56
You'll be undermined. Yeah. So, I would just say, yes, this is an interesting conversation.
12:03
Does this have any bearing on your salvation? Not necessarily,
12:07
but it does have bearing on your spiritual maturity and growth.
12:11
I think that if a Christian understands what Paul is doing here,
12:15
one, One, the book of Romans becomes alive to you.
12:19
You know, we've already used the book of Romans as the example of the four witnesses
12:24
that Paul utilized to try to persuade somebody into believing Jesus Christ or
12:30
believing the gospel, right?
12:32
Well, now we're looking into the mechanics of his argumentation.
12:36
You see what I mean? So, we looked at, remember, we looked at creation,
12:39
conscience, and character, right?
12:42
We looked at those things, the canon and character, those four Cs.
12:45
Well now we're digging deeper into one
12:48
of those arguments and how he's using
12:51
the argument in this particular case he's using in romans 3 the
12:54
canon the scripture but he's arguing through a
12:57
dilemma identifying a potential objection
13:01
and then refuting that objection to show
13:04
that yes i have thought about the counter
13:06
arguments to this and yes i have resolved
13:09
it and guess what the gospel is
13:12
still true yeah he's using his profession yeah he's
13:16
reinforcing his belief and if
13:19
somebody doubted whether or not paul actually believed what
13:22
he what he actually preached this would eliminate any doubt because he's just
13:27
showing you listen i've thought through this this is this is what i run into
13:32
a lot on you know whenever i'm debating somebody i i would i don't even want
13:37
to use the word debate I'll just say disputing, because that's what Paul did in Acts 17.
13:41
He disputed with them. And so here's the thing.
13:44
What he did was, whenever he was presenting his argument, arguing and reasoning
13:51
from Scripture, what he did is he clearly demonstrated to his opponents.
13:56
The people he was disputing with, what did he demonstrate?
14:00
That he knew exactly why he believed what he believed.
14:04
And what more powerful way to witness to others.
14:08
If you just went there and you just started talking to somebody about Jesus
14:11
dying on the cross, but you really couldn't understand or explain it,
14:14
why would the other person be persuaded to believe it?
14:18
And that's the problem, and is that Christians today do not know how to articulate their belief.
14:25
Now, we haven't gotten to it, but, you know, I am framing up some notes around
14:30
an episode that I want to do on how to articulate.
14:34
Now, we did the doctrinal expression model, right?
14:36
Well, that's part of it. But if you integrate rational, logical arguments with
14:41
the doctrinal expression model, I believe you have a perfectly balanced way
14:45
of being able to tell other people why you believe what you believe.
14:49
And so, anyway, this is just an example of what Paul's doing.
14:53
So, I guess before we jump into it, what's the historical application?
14:58
So, he's in Athens, right?
15:01
Marseille, Romans 3, or? He's writing to the Romans. He's writing,
15:06
okay. To Roman believers in Rome.
15:08
He has yet to go there and see them.
15:11
Romans is, I mentioned it, I think, in the episode that we talked about,
15:15
the four C's, is that, you know, this is the most doctrinal book of the New
15:19
Testament for the New Testament believer.
15:21
This is where the doctrines of justification, propitiation, you know,
15:26
salvation, all those things are clearly outlined and broken down in the book of Romans.
15:31
Romans 1 through 4, he's proving the world's guilty.
15:34
5, you know, 4, he's presenting the case for justification by faith without works.
15:40
5, now that we're justified in Christ.
15:43
6, now we're supposed to walk in the Spirit. 7, the conflict between the flesh and the Spirit.
15:50
8, is therefore there's no condemnation. And now we have to,
15:54
we work in partnership with the Holy Spirit. And then he shifts to chapter 9,
15:59
which is an argument for the distinction between the two and the church in Israel.
16:04
And then 10, 11, he's continuing the argument for Israel.
16:10
12, he shifts to a personal, you know, that, hey, if you want to be sanctified,
16:15
you have to offer your body as a living sacrifice.
16:18
You're not supposed to be conformed to this world, be transformed by the renewing
16:21
of your mind. And then Romans 13, he presents a case for our responsibility
16:26
towards civil government.
16:28
14 is the law of Christian fellowship that we covered, right?
16:33
15, he's concluding the letter, concluding how he has a distinct gospel from
16:39
the gospel that Jesus Christ was preaching to the Jews, gospel of circumcision.
16:44
He's preaching gospel to the uncircumcision.
16:47
And then 16, he closes out the letter.
16:49
That's the book of Romans. The better you understand the book of Romans,
16:52
you have a very, very balanced view of the overall Christian responsibility and obligation.
16:58
So I said all that to say this.
17:01
The background is, is Paul is writing to a bunch of Christians that have never
17:06
received doctrine, that have never received any instruction in scripture.
17:10
These are a bunch of Gentiles that are now saved, and he has to cover in one
17:15
letter, he's got to cover everything he can about the guilt of the world,
17:20
salvation by grace through faith, their responsibility and walk in Christ,
17:24
their justification, the problem they're going to have with their flesh.
17:27
Now they're in Rome It's obviously the Roman government that's in charge of
17:33
all these provinces So now they have to understand their obligation and responsibility
17:37
to silver government And then they also have to understand that there's going
17:40
to be conflicts with the brethren,
17:42
And they have to learn how to have grace with each other That they have individual
17:46
accountability and responsibility to Christ at the judgment seat You see how all that flows?
17:51
So the background of the book of Romans is what? It's an instruction letter
17:55
to a bunch of Christians that Paul has yet to meet.
17:58
He's basically teaching them about Christianity in one letter, the book of Romans.
18:04
That is why the book of Romans is probably one of the most books to study when
18:10
you are first discipling somebody.
18:12
That's why it's so comprehensive. Very comprehensive. Because that was a designer of Paul writing that.
18:17
The two I would cover is John, because it's the most personal,
18:21
it's the most personal letter that gets us close to the character of Jesus Christ, to the believer.
18:28
That's where we draw closer. Jesus says, if you do my will, you know that my
18:33
friends, because you do whatsoever I ask, you cannot, without me,
18:37
you know, you can do nothing.
18:38
You can't abide without the root and the branches and so forth and so on.
18:42
You can't bear fruit, you know, all that stuff, right? It's in the book of John.
18:45
So that's your personal relationship with Christ.
18:47
Romans is your doctrinal foundation.
18:50
First Corinthians is all the problems. 1 and 2 Corinthians, all the problems
18:56
that you're going to have in a local church.
18:58
There's a reason why God uses the order that he does in the New Testament.
19:02
So that's the background of the book of Romans. He's not in Rome.
19:06
He's actually writing it. I think he's writing it in Thessalonica. I can't remember.
19:11
He's writing it from somewhere in the Mediterranean.
19:14
And he's writing it to a bunch of Christians. That's why he says,
19:17
I hope to come shortly to you.
19:19
Okay. So he's trying to, this is his correspondence with them in preparation before he gets there.
19:27
Well, he's writing to a bunch of Romans, so what do you think that they're familiar with?
19:31
The Greco-Roman diatribe. So that's what he uses, he knows his audience.
19:36
He does that in Acts 17. So when we get to, you know, I want to do another,
19:40
this is kind of, I guess we can call a little mini series on Paul,
19:43
but you know, this other, the other podcast I want to do is on Acts 17.
19:48
I want to show how Paul utilized the five, you know, canons of rhetoric.
19:53
Rhetoric is just an effective way of, of speech and, and, and using speech to
19:59
argue and to be able to adjust to your audience.
20:02
And he did that in Acts 17. If you think about, you know, Areopagus,
20:06
Mars Hill, when he was, he was, who was he preaching to?
20:09
He was preaching to Jews in the synagogue, reasoning with them out of scripture, right?
20:14
Then the Bible says he goes into the marketplace. He's disputing with the Jews
20:17
and devout believers, which are religious people.
20:21
Then he runs into the Stoics and Epicureans. Who are the Epicureans? They're hedonists.
20:26
They live by pleasure, you know, by predominantly by human, you know, experience.
20:32
Well, who are the, who are the Stoics? Those are your fatalists.
20:35
They lived, they believed everything was determined by fate.
20:38
So that would be like your deterministic religions, like your monotheistic deterministic
20:43
religions, like Islam, Calvinism, you know, groups like that,
20:47
that everything is determined by fate.
20:49
So those are the Stoics. And then you had the Epicureans.
20:53
Well, so he appeals to them through dialogue. So anyway, that's why I want to
20:57
go through the book of Acts and look at Acts chapter 17. It's one of my favorite chapters.
21:02
But to see just how masterful, that's why I put 1 Corinthians 2.1 as a huge irony to me.
21:09
Because he says, and I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency
21:12
of speech, but he used excellency of speech. It implies that he had excellent speech.
21:17
He's basically saying here, like, I'm declaring unto you the testimony of God.
21:21
I'm not trying to use my excellency of speech to convince you,
21:25
but he was an excellent speaker.
21:28
He was. And if you see the way, man, you know, it's beautiful.
21:32
Like whenever he's cornered by both Sadducees and Pharisees,
21:36
and he says he saw one part was Sadducees and he saw the other part was Pharisees.
21:43
And what does he do? He goes, of the hope of the resurrection,
21:45
I'm calling the question.
21:46
Well, why did he do that? Because the Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection. but the Pharisees did.
21:52
So, he got them debating and arguing with each other.
21:56
So, anyway, Paul was very good at what he did.
22:00
And so, anyway, I just want to highlight that because I don't think sometimes
22:03
people really appreciate the genius of Paul.
22:06
Everybody likes to villainize him. As dispensationalists, we say,
22:09
look, we adhere to Pauline New Testament gospel.
22:14
Doctrinally, that's the application. I don't run to the book of Matthew and
22:17
Mark and Luke for Christian doctrine.
22:20
I can find it there, but how do I measure the statements and the propositions
22:26
that are made in Matthew, Luke, and John?
22:28
How do I measure those as being doctrinally applicable to me? How do I do that? Paul,
22:35
I got to look at it. Are they conflicting with Paul? Are they contradicting something Paul said?
22:42
Right? So that's the deal. The problem is, is if you don't measure the rest
22:49
of the Bible by what Paul says, you're going to be in danger of believing false
22:53
doctrine. So Paul is important to us.
22:56
Because Paul is important to us, I think it's worth investigating and doing
23:00
a little investment into the character of Paul.
23:03
Look at his genius. Look at how he operated. Look at how he argued and how he built his arguments.
23:09
And I think that'll teach us something about, and again, remember,
23:12
you know, a year ago when we started this podcast, when we started going into
23:17
fallacies, what did we say?
23:19
We said that the great danger of modern day Christianity is anti-intellectualism.
23:25
I'm not saying that being smart is proof you're saved.
23:30
That's not the argument. What I'm saying is every Christian should endeavor
23:35
to be more intellectual.
23:36
Every Christian should make an investment to think better and think more reasonably and think clearly.
23:44
What's the indictment to the lost Gentiles in Ephesians 4.17?
23:51
What's the indictment? He says that they walk in the vanity of their mind.
23:57
Right? And Isaiah, what does he say? He goes, your thoughts are my thoughts.
24:01
My thoughts are higher than your thoughts.
24:02
My ways are higher than your thoughts. And he says, let the wicked forsake his thoughts.
24:09
So the problem is our thought life.
24:11
And if you don't know how to master your thought life, now I'm not just talking about aesthetics.
24:16
I'm not talking about to be in a case of meditation and thinking about the goodness
24:20
of God all day long. I'm not just thinking, I'm not saying that.
24:23
We have to think in a way that's critical of this particular their culture,
24:27
of this particular worldview,
24:29
whatever's against the word of God, we need to be able to think and appropriate
24:35
those thoughts in a way that we can formulate clear,
24:39
presentable arguments that are reasonable against the false worldviews, right?
24:45
And that's how you, the Bible, didn't Jesus Christ says, what's the great commandment?
24:50
Love the Lord thy God with all thy mind so I have yet to hear a Christian tell
24:56
me how do you love God with your mind and they'll think oh just think good thoughts all day long.
25:01
Bible is a whole lot more than just good thoughts. Anyway, so I don't know.
25:06
Is that a diatribe? I just did a diatribe.
25:09
So there you go. But I just thought it was interesting that Paul,
25:12
when he says, I come to you, I came not with excellent speech.
25:15
That's exactly what he did.
25:16
So this whole Greco-Roman diatribe, again, it was popular in the first century.
25:20
It's what the Romans used.
25:22
It's what the Greeks used. That's why it's called Greco-Roman.
25:25
And it was a philosophical, logical method used to refute objections.
25:30
And then he would use the reductio ad absurdum as that tool to show you,
25:37
look, I'm going to reduce your logic to absurdity.
25:41
I'm going to show you just how absurd your logic is.
25:44
If I were to follow through with your logic, it is absolutely absurd. It doesn't make sense.
25:50
So it was a popular moral instruction debate.
25:53
It was used by Stoic philosophers, Jewish rabbis, so forth and so on.
25:57
And it's not the diatribe in, you know, in the way that we understand like an
26:02
angry rant or anything like that, but it's a structured dialogical argument.
26:07
So when we say dialogical, what we mean is like a debate method.
26:11
It almost proceeds like as if it was a conversation.
26:14
It almost proceeds. Yeah. It's like Paul, like, hey, I'm going to have a conversation with myself.
26:19
I'm going to talk through this argument as if I'm talking to somebody else.
26:23
It's like preceding a discussion.
26:25
Yeah. Like, what am I going to say to this guy? How many times have you done
26:28
that? All the time. On your own? Like, what is he going to say back to me?
26:32
How am I going to respond to a potential objection?
26:35
You know, everybody goes through that. Well, as a manager at work,
26:38
you know, they give us templates. They say, prepare for the discussion.
26:41
So, if I'm going to have to give, you know, constructive feedback to an employee
26:45
and kind of put them in place, I have to think through what his objections are going to be.
26:51
So I know how to, I'm better prepared to respond to him. Man,
26:54
that's excellent advice for a Christian, right?
26:56
Like, hey, you're going to go knock on a door. Somebody's going to tell you,
26:59
you're going to say, hey, would you like to go to church?
27:01
We'd like to tell you about Jesus Christ. And they go, oh, I'm a Catholic. Okay, what do you say?
27:06
It is good to walk through that exercise.
27:09
That's dialogical argumentation. that's
27:12
a dialogical conversation that's going back
27:15
dia is two instead of
27:18
una dia is two so it's like you're
27:21
having a conversation with two people of course so that's
27:24
really what it comes down to so you know that so what what what you see in romans
27:29
and this is in the book of romans all over the place you know paul poses a thesis
27:33
this is what we called that thesis objection refutation right he poses a thesis
27:38
so what does he say he makes a strong doctrinal statement for example,
27:41
he'll say, therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
27:47
That's what he says in Romans 3.28. Therefore, we conclude. So it goes,
27:51
there's our conclusion.
27:53
But he raises an imaginary objection. He immediately anticipates the counter-argument
27:58
from whatever the skeptic might say, right?
28:00
He goes, and he'll say, for example, in Romans 6, he goes, what shall we say then?
28:04
Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?
28:08
Like, because he just got finished arguing that, look, God gives more grace when you sin more.
28:14
So he's actually making an argument about assurance of salvation.
28:19
Like, look, the more you sin, the more God gives you grace.
28:23
And he says, well, what if somebody looks at that and say, well,
28:25
so are you saying I can just sin endlessly?
28:28
That means that the more I sin, God's just gonna give me more grace and I need
28:31
more grace, so I might as well sin more.
28:34
And then refutes it, he refutes that. So he's raising the objection, then he refutes it.
28:41
And he usually, as soon as he refutes it, he always precedes the refutation
28:45
with that phrase, God forbid.
28:49
And that is the correct translation. There's some people that argue with me
28:53
on this, that that's not the correct word for word translation.
28:57
I said, but it's the correct meaning of the translation because God forbid is the highest objection.
29:03
That means God being, you know, be it not so.
29:08
God, this cannot happen. It's like he's very, he's being very over emphatic,
29:14
like God forbid you do something as terrible and horrible as that.
29:18
So, that's how he would, as he refutes the objection, he uses that statement, that phrase.
29:24
There's an emphasis there, and it's really important. He's like,
29:25
man, God forbid, and he uses that before he explains it's wrong.
29:31
So, for example, so in Romans 6.1, it says, what shall we say then?
29:35
Shall we continue in sin that grace may about?
29:37
In Romans 6.2, he says, God forbid, how shall we that are dead to sin,
29:43
that's judicial, right? That's our judicial position.
29:47
Live any longer therein.
29:50
He says, you've been saved out of sin. You've been saved from the power of sin.
29:56
Why would you live any longer in it?
30:00
So, that's why he's saying, God forbid that you would do something like that. So, he poses the thesis.
30:05
He says that we're justified without works.
30:09
And, of course, he says that because of that, we shouldn't sin.
30:14
But somebody's going to say, well, I should be able to sin because it's giving glory to God.
30:18
And he says, God forbid you do something like that. So, that's that dialogue
30:22
he's having with himself.
30:24
Well, and he uses this pattern over and over again in the Book of Romans.
30:28
So, he says, what advantage then hath the Jew?
30:31
Romans 3.1. Is God unrighteous who take his vengeance? Romans 3.5.
30:35
Do we then make void the law through faith? Romans 3.31.
30:39
Is the law sin? Romans 7.7. So, he's asking these questions to himself and then
30:44
running through that exercise.
30:45
Those questions are basically the objection. And then he does objection handling.
30:49
And then he refutes it, right? Right.
30:51
So this thesis objection refutation method makes the legal case dynamic and
30:56
proves that he's actually considered and defeated every possible counter argument.
31:02
Like he's taking into account whatever your potential objection is going to be.
31:07
And that's important for us, right? You know, remember when we covered the straw man fallacy?
31:13
The biggest, you know, we boil down every argument against the KJV falls into
31:18
two types of fallacies, two categories.
31:20
One is a red herring to distract you, and then a straw man to misrepresent you.
31:26
So if you, as a Christian, are talking to a Roman Catholic, and you don't even
31:33
let the Roman Catholic finish talking, and you say, yeah, yeah,
31:37
yeah, yeah, but you worship Mary.
31:39
What if this guy doesn't worship Mary? What if he doesn't look at it that way?
31:43
What if that's not his perspective?
31:46
The problem is, you know, the verse that we always bring up is Proverbs 18,
31:49
13, which is he that answereth the matter before he heareth it.
31:52
It's a folly and shame to him.
31:55
When you try to answer the objection before you actually know and understand
32:00
the objection, then one, you're showing the highest form of disrespect in a conversation.
32:05
Okay. Number two, you are clearly in danger of misrepresenting the other person.
32:11
If you misrepresent their argument and you attack the straw man,
32:15
then that severely limits your credibility in the conversation.
32:20
That person's not going to trust you. They're going to feel like all you're
32:23
doing is attacking them. You're not really interested in what they have to say.
32:26
You haven't really considered their side of the argument. So what Paul is doing
32:30
is by doing this, you know, thesis, objection, refutation method,
32:34
he's actually preventing committing the straw man fallacy.
32:38
It's like I said earlier, they're kind of like guardrails help keep you from doing that.
32:42
Right. They're saying that you're actually still manning the other person's position.
32:47
That you're still manning whatever their argument would be against you kind of thing. Right.
32:51
So, in Proverbs 29, 20, you know, the Bible talks about there's several verses
32:55
here that, you know, that warn us of being careful of not getting hasty in our
33:03
generalization, like jumping to a conclusion, right?
33:05
So, the Bible says in Proverbs 29, 20, seest thou a man that is hasty in his
33:10
words? It says there's more hope of a fool than in him.
33:12
You know, a man that's hasty in his words doesn't think through what he's saying.
33:15
He just jumps to a conclusion.
33:18
So, this, again, in kind of connection to this thesis objection,
33:21
refutation method is that Paul is showing that he's not being hasty in his words.
33:27
He's actually thought through what the potential argument is.
33:30
And he's not just trying to jump to a conclusion without considering whatever
33:35
these objections might be.
33:37
The Bible says the heart in Proverbs 15, 28, the heart of the righteous studieth to answer.
33:43
So, we got to be careful about trying to, you know, somebody once said that
33:48
most Christians that are witnessing to other people,
33:51
and they get into an argument or debate with them, they're actually trying to
33:55
answer a question that was never asked.
33:58
And so that's how most Christians are. They get into preaching mode and they
34:02
just start attacking somebody, right?
34:03
But in James 1.19, the Bible says, Let every man be swift to hear,
34:07
slow to speak, slow to wrath.
34:10
That means swift to hear, listen, right?
34:14
What are we supposed to listen to? What are we listening for?
34:17
We're listening to understand, not listening to respond.
34:21
Ecclesiastes 5-2, the Bible talks about, be not rash with thy mouth.
34:26
You know, some of these verses are great to write down in your Bible and say,
34:29
I need to learn not to commit a straw man.
34:32
Considering the other side, you know, so avoiding misrepresentation.
34:35
Proverbs 18-17, the Bible says, he that is first in his own cause seemeth just.
34:42
In his own eyes, it looks like he's right. If he's first in his own cause,
34:46
if he hasn't considered the cause of his opponent.
34:49
You got to stop and listen to
34:51
what their actual objection is right that's
34:55
the best way to communicate with somebody somebody once
34:58
said that you know in argumentation when you're you're forming a
35:01
rational argument you always have three main elements in an argument which is
35:06
the premise that's your evidence your conclusion is what you conclude with that's
35:11
your argument basically and then your inference is how you connect the premise
35:16
to the conclusion but there's a fourth element. It's called the hidden assumption.
35:20
The hidden assumption, if you can
35:22
identify the hidden assumption in a conversation, you'll avoid straw man.
35:27
So that's why identifying the hidden assumption, whatever conversation is,
35:32
you will eliminate all the guesswork.
35:35
Instead of us going past each other in a conversation and never getting to the
35:40
point, it's because I don't understand what your assumption is.
35:43
But once I do identify your assumption, then we may need to deal with that first,
35:48
because that might be whatever your presupposition is, your worldview.
35:52
So, he that is first in his own cause, he met just.
35:55
Then in Deuteronomy 13, 14, then shalt thou inquire and make search and ask diligently.
36:01
This is actually a matter of judgment in the law.
36:04
And it says, you know, like in John 7, 51, doth our law judge any man before
36:09
it hear him and know what he doeth?
36:11
Before you can make a clear judgment, mosaic judgment under the mosaic law,
36:18
you had to understand the case.
36:21
You need to understand all the facts.
36:23
You need to make an informed decision.
36:26
So, these verses are powerful if you want to avoid misrepresentation.
36:30
So, and then Proverbs 17, 27 through 28 says, He that hath knowledge spareth his words.
36:36
And a man of understanding is an excellent spirit.
36:40
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise. And he that shutteth
36:44
his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
36:46
The Bible says in Proverbs 10, 19, in the multitude of words, there wanteth not sin.
36:52
Eventually, the more you talk, the more you're going to say something you shouldn't have.
36:56
So again, you know, these are the, this is what, this is the wisdom that Paul
37:00
is employing in the way that he's writing the book of Romans.
37:03
And so ultimately it gets down to this reductio absurdum.
37:07
So what Paul does, the diatribe, you know, it's, it's kind of like the engine.
37:13
It's like how, it's how we get there, but then he uses the reductio absurdum
37:18
to kind of lend fuel to that engine, give it energy to power.
37:21
So what he does is he's like, I'm going to show you how absurd if we were to run with your logic.
37:27
It's a powerful tool, obviously. You prove your point by showing that the opposite
37:31
position, whatever that might be, leads to some ridiculous, contradictory,
37:36
or impossible conclusion.
37:38
So, he's a master of this. He takes his opponent's objection,
37:41
shows that if it were true, the entire foundation of God, justice,
37:44
salvation would completely collapse. It wouldn't make sense.
37:48
So, let's just look at Romans 3, 5-6. So, here's the objection.
37:54
This is what Paul, He imagines what the objection might be.
37:57
But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God,
38:03
is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance?
38:07
And then, so in modern terms, he's saying, if my sin highlights how good and
38:13
righteous God is, can he justly punish me for it?
38:18
My sin is actually serving his glory.
38:22
So, he's like, why is God going to judge me if my sin, it commends his righteousness?
38:29
Looking at how bad I am makes God look good, then why can't I just continue
38:34
sinning? Why is he going to judge me?
38:36
It doesn't make any sense. It seems unfair.
38:39
But then what does Paul do? He brings up the reductio ad certum,
38:43
his reputation. He says, God forbid.
38:45
For then, how shall God judge the world?
38:51
God is a judge. A judge must judge unrighteousness, right?
38:56
Otherwise, he's an unrighteous judge. If a judge shows mercy for somebody that
39:02
committed a crime, but that crime was never paid for, he's an unjust judge.
39:08
But if he shows mercy because there's a, whatever, a proxy for that justice,
39:16
like Jesus Christ on the cross for our sins, then he can be a merciful judge.
39:21
So, how can a judge be merciful and just at the same time?
39:26
Only God can. But in order for him to do that, he must be just.
39:31
If we say, well, God won't send anybody to hell because he's too loving of a
39:35
God, then God's not a just God.
39:37
That means that he's not punishing sin. So, this is what he's trying to say.
39:40
He's like, if I'm going to take your argument that I can continue to be unrighteous
39:45
because it commends the righteousness of God.
39:48
The problem is that removes God's ability to be a righteous judge.
39:54
So, I have to balance it out. So, what he says in this reductio,
39:58
his logic is, look, premise, here's the first premise.
40:01
God cannot justly punish sin that ultimately highlights his righteousness.
40:06
That's what the argument is.
40:08
And then Paul basically acknowledges, like, we both know, judge,
40:12
that God is the judge of all the earth, Genesis 18, 25. We both know that.
40:17
Would you argue that he's not a judge? Well, no.
40:19
Okay, well, you're saying God cannot justly punish sin.
40:23
That ultimately highlights his righteousness. He's contradicting himself.
40:28
But he says, well, we both know that God's the judge of the earth.
40:31
Yeah, that's right. Okay. Well, here's the absurdity of your logic.
40:36
If your premise is true, God can't punish sin, then he cannot be the judge of the world.
40:43
He just contradicted himself, right?
40:47
And then the final verdict is, since we know God will judge the world,
40:51
your initial premise is false and absurd.
40:55
No, you can't continue unrighteousness.
40:58
That's not his argument. You
41:00
basically misrepresented the argument by bringing up this absurd logic.
41:05
And he's showing that if we bring your logic to its logical conclusion,
41:09
it makes God contradictory, which violates the very nature of God.
41:14
It's masterful because he shows them that, hey, we both agree on premise,
41:20
on this premise, that God has judged the world.
41:22
If you believe that's true, then that leads to an absurd contradiction,
41:28
which he just brought up, which is where Paul is leading them. That's right.
41:32
That's right. Which is masterful. So what he does, again, he combines the diatribe,
41:36
right, that rhetorical style where he's talking to himself.
41:39
But he adds the reductio absurdum to it.
41:43
That's part of his refutation. That's the, again, that's where he's bringing
41:47
the thesis, objection, refutation.
41:50
So the objection is, hey, this is what their argument is going to be.
41:56
But then now I'm going to bring in the reductio absurdum as part of my refutation.
42:00
How is he going to refute it? he's going to reduce your logic to absurdity.
42:04
That's exactly what he does.
42:06
And what he does is he creates a watertight legal case for the gospel by doing that.
42:13
And so that's why when you read in Romans 3, he says the whole world,
42:19
their mouth is going to be stopped because they're not going to be able to say anything to God.
42:24
God is absolutely perfectly righteous in what he says. You know what an interesting—because
42:31
what Paul does there in Romans 3 that we just looked at is he's showing,
42:35
look, God would have to contradict himself, right?
42:38
Here's an interesting verse I thought was pretty neat. It kind of shows our
42:42
obligation as Christians that—where is it?
42:47
It's in Corinthians.
42:50
Oh, let's see. Yep. 2 Corinthians 1.18, that's what it says.
42:55
It says, but as God is true. Now, watch how he says this. I'll read verse 17.
43:02
When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness or the things that I purpose?
43:07
Do I purpose according to flesh?
43:08
That with me, there should be yea, yea, and nay, nay.
43:12
He says, but as God is true. Is God true?
43:18
Yes. Yeah. He is truth. God of, you know, without iniquity, just and right as he, right?
43:23
He is absolute truth. Okay? Right. As God is true. Now watch what he does, comma.
43:32
Our word toward you was not yea and nay.
43:39
That's a logical contradiction. My answer can't be yes and no at the same time.
43:45
But he says, why can we not contradict?
43:49
As God is true. So what's the obligation of the Christian?
43:55
The obligation of the Christian is to honor the character of God.
43:59
The obligation of the Christian is to not be contradictory.
44:04
The obligation of the Christian is to be true, and that is our commitment to
44:08
the truth. whether it hurts or not.
44:12
See that? So, what Paul is showing is like, if you can continue to sin with
44:18
your unrighteousness because it commends God's righteousness,
44:22
then God cannot be a judge.
44:24
And if God cannot be a judge, he is contradictory.
44:27
And we have to have a commitment to truth.
44:32
So, Paul exercises that in the way that he's writing this argument. He's very consistent.
44:38
But that's why I love that verse. And then he says right here,
44:42
verse 19 of that chapter, he says,
44:45
For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us,
44:49
even by me, and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay,
44:54
but in him was yea. Now watch what he says.
44:59
For all the promises of God in him, Jesus Christ.
45:03
Are yea, and in him, amen unto the glory of God. So, what he's basically saying
45:09
is, look, we didn't come to you with contradictory, confusing information.
45:14
We came to you with a very clear and concise message from God because he cannot contradict himself.
45:22
Because God's nature cannot be self-contradictory, our job as Christians is
45:28
to always tell the truth that's consistent, cogent, and clear.
45:33
So, what Paul does is this masterful demonstration in the book of Romans and
45:39
shows you this, you know,
45:42
diatribe, this logical rhetorical tool to show you, look, I've considered your arguments.
45:48
Here's my argument. I've considered your objection to my argument,
45:53
and here's my refutation to it.
45:55
If a Christian can learn that methodology when
45:59
they discuss the truth with somebody i don't
46:01
care what it is say you have a member of your
46:04
family that says well you know i think a little bit of
46:07
wine is good for you to drink you know you know it's you know just try to ease
46:11
this pressure of the day you know a little hot and toddy should you know kind
46:15
of make me feel nice and calm and i don't know what that is collective go and
46:20
learn what that means but but you know it's like it's like somebody says sir
46:25
and they argue with you And you say,
46:27
look, I know what you're going to say.
46:29
You're going to say Jesus turned water to wine.
46:33
But the problem is, number one, he never drank it. Number two,
46:35
it never says it's alcoholic wine.
46:37
I know you're going to say that, well, Paul told Timothy that he can drink a
46:42
little wine for his off stomach.
46:44
Yeah, but you're taking that out of context because he's talking in the context of medicinal care.
46:49
Affirmities. Right. And we're talking about a time in the first century where
46:52
they had no purified water and water could actually make you sick with bacteria.
46:57
You're not thinking about the context. So what I'm doing is I'm raising their
47:01
objection and then I'm refuting it.
47:04
If you can learn how to present truth in that way, say, look, here's what I believe.
47:09
I know you might say this, this, and this, but this is what scripture clarifies, right? Right?
47:18
But if I were to take your argument to its logical conclusion,
47:22
where would I stop drinking alcohol?
47:26
Where's the line I draw? You see what I'm saying?
47:29
So, that's why you could take that logical conclusion. Okay,
47:32
well, let's just say there is no God.
47:33
I believe the Bible. The Bible assumes the existence of God.
47:36
It doesn't argue for God's existence.
47:39
It assumes his existence. Right?
47:42
But let's just say there is no God. Okay, where do you get wrong and right?
47:46
Again, I'm showing the logical absurdity of your reasoning.
47:50
Well, then you can't say, you know, most atheists will tell you they can't accept
47:55
the God of the Bible because he's malicious, you know, he's pro-slavery.
47:59
I'm like, wait a minute, you're assuming that some moral, you know,
48:04
some standard moral universal perfect moral standard exists.
48:08
Where do you get that from as an atheist?
48:12
How do you justify that with natural evolution?
48:16
Where's this molecule of morality, right?
48:20
So what you do is when you learn how to present truth, think about the objection
48:25
and how would you refute that objection?
48:28
It's powerful because when you're in the heat of the moment,
48:31
if you're in a discussion where it's a little bit intense and things can get
48:37
emotional, If he really thought through it and understood the objection handling that you need to do,
48:45
then you can answer more articulately,
48:48
more concisely, more succinctly.
48:50
And you won't be stressed out. You won't be stressed out.
48:54
You're prepared for what might come at you. And you may not be angry, right?
48:58
It'll answer whatever questions that the opponent might have.
49:02
And the thing is, the whole point is that you're ready for a discussion.
49:06
And this is what Paul is doing here is that he's prepared himself for the potential
49:12
objections and make sure that it's airtight so that the way there's no argument
49:16
against it by their opponent.
49:18
And I'm not saying that you're going to know every objection,
49:20
but that's another reason why the tactics, the questions, the Columbo tactic
49:25
is so powerful because it gives you an opportunity to know what their objection
49:30
actually is. Those are the tools.
49:31
Those are the tools that you have handy that by simple questioning in parallel
49:36
with that, you're going to be in a really good position.
49:39
Yeah, because if I'm talking to somebody, maybe I don't know what their religious disposition is.
49:43
Yeah, you want to figure out what that hidden premise is, right?
49:46
Yeah, and so I was like, you know, well, what do you mean by this?
49:48
And when you say this, what exactly are you getting at, you know?
49:52
Or how did you draw that conclusion? Yeah, and you reinforce— Or what did you
49:55
get the evidence for that? You reinforce, so what you're saying is,
49:57
or what you believe is this, what are you doing there?
50:00
You're still manning your position. That's right. And you're clarifying definitions.
50:04
And so, you know, like we've said before, you know, just rather be clear than
50:08
to be in agreement, right? Yeah.
50:10
Like, you know, we may not agree, but at least we know where each other's coming
50:13
from. Yeah. And there's respect in that kind of dialogue as well.
50:17
The other really cool thing about this, now this is, you know,
50:20
a couple thousand years ago, but obviously the structure, the logic still applies
50:25
today. Nothing changes. Yep.
50:27
And we can use this same method. And I think it's really a great framework,
50:32
if you want to call it that, the thesis, objection, refutation.
50:36
It's just a great way to run through that exercise about whatever it is that you're discussing.
50:42
The other thing here, too, is, and maybe it's not in this episode,
50:46
I think we're going to probably talk about Acts 17 and a different one,
50:49
is that Paul is obviously masterful in the way he articulates and communicates
50:55
and that you might have heard of...
50:59
Modern terms like emotional intelligence and and
51:02
things like that those are all those are all just modern
51:05
terms and i've i've heard it dismissed by you know
51:08
pastors and other christians like well that's just a secular modern term just
51:12
you know emotional mumbo jumbo stuff which is a misrepresentation of what it
51:16
is it's actually things that you were discussing here in the dangers of hasty
51:22
speech and you brought up proverbs james ecclesiastes considering the other
51:26
side It's active listening.
51:28
It's listening to what others are saying so you have a good understanding so
51:32
that way you're able to respond.
51:34
Absolutely. I think that, you know, for those of you that mark your Bibles,
51:39
and I don't know, you know, there's different ways to do this.
51:42
But let's just say you color code your Bible and you color code,
51:45
like, say, apologetics as a category.
51:49
Well, identifying fallacies. You know, we gave you tons of fallacies and we
51:52
showed you where you can find those examples of those fallacies in Scripture, right?
51:57
You know, we just showed you why or how you should avoid misrepresentation.
52:03
You know, all these verses, if you go back and mark them in your Bible,
52:06
maybe you mark all your apologetic verses with blue.
52:09
But that way you can quickly scan through your Bible and see anything that's
52:12
highlighted blue or underlined with blue. oh, that's an apologetic argument,
52:16
or that ties to that branch of theology that we call apologetics,
52:21
which is defense of the faith.
52:22
And, you know, so that's what I'm saying is like, there's no excuse why a Christian
52:28
can't write these things down, exercise them.
52:31
There's no excuse why a Christian, before they go knocking doors or witnessing
52:35
to their neighbor or talking to their loved one about salvation,
52:39
that they can't walk through the potential objections.
52:42
I think a lot of them go out literally on a wing and a prayer and hope that,
52:46
you know, their nice smile and their handshake and their salesman approach is going to win them over.
52:52
Man, I hate to tell you, there's way too much information in this world that
52:56
people are going to naturally be skeptical.
52:59
They're just not going to trust you. And there's so many lies and deception in the religious world.
53:04
They're just not going to accept anybody with a Bible in their hand and a track
53:09
in their hand and an invitation to church.
53:11
So you've got to learn how to deal in a respectful way, you know, with those objections.
53:17
Whether it's you cite the objection and refute it in your argument or you discover
53:24
what that objection is through questions.
53:27
That's really what it comes down to. You know, it's the obligation,
53:30
you know, Paul reinforced that, is that we have to do— I love that verse, man, I'm telling you.
53:37
As God is true, our word towards you is true, is yay, yay.
53:41
Yeah. I love that, because it's like, I don't know how you can say it any clearer.
53:45
What Paul's basically saying is, look, God doesn't contradict himself,
53:49
so we actually have an obligation, a mandate, to have a commitment and be loyal to the truth. Yeah.
53:57
It's a responsibility. I know sometimes, and I'm going to reemphasize that a
54:01
lot, but a lot of times we'll have pastors and teachers say,
54:05
well, you know, you got to love them. You got to love them. You got to love
54:08
them. And I understand that.
54:10
I understand that you got to have some sort of level of compassion,
54:13
but we cannot undermine compassion or we can't undermine the truth with compassion.
54:21
We should always remember that our first obligation is the truth as a Christian.
54:27
I'm not saying be a jerk about it. I'm not saying, you know,
54:31
shove your religion down somebody's throat. I'm not talking about being rude
54:34
and crude and, you know, you don't talk about it. You got his styles, right? Yeah.
54:40
But what it comes down to is, remember that you cannot undermine the truth.
54:45
Don't let your compassion compromise the truth. The danger is emotionalism today.
54:50
That's what you're trying to say.
54:51
And that we should not let that distract from what our obligation is.
54:55
Because you have a world, this
54:57
Marxist culture, that demands that you surrender to their emotionalism.
55:04
Right? Right. If they feel threatened, you have to accept that they're threatened.
55:08
If they feel marginalized, then you have to accept their definitions and their
55:13
marginalization No, no, no, that means I have to compromise truth somewhere
55:17
along the way Now i've got to stop and analyze your argument.
55:21
I've got to think through this And I love the fact that you know,
55:25
i've seen i've heard marxists argue and say, you know, oh, well,
55:28
you know Logic and rhetoric and argumentation and all that stuff.
55:33
That's those are all racist principles No, no, they're not racist.
55:37
They're universal, invariant truths that exist in our world.
55:41
Doesn't matter what the color of your skin is.
55:44
Because a person that argues that logical argumentation is racist is using logical
55:53
argumentation to say it's racist.
55:55
That's like arguing that we don't need air while you're breathing air to argue.
56:00
You see the problem? it's self-contradictory.
56:03
So they don't understand that. That's why we're saying this has nothing to do
56:07
with race, has nothing to do with religion, has nothing to do with whatever
56:11
your philosophical bent is, has everything to do with a universal,
56:15
invariant, absolute standard of truth.
56:17
And that is because this world was created by a logical God and logical reasoning
56:24
is demanded of the Christian.
56:25
So, this example, and again, go back through, I would encourage any of our listeners,
56:31
read through the book of Romans and think what Paul is actually saying.
56:37
How is he arguing here? What case is he bringing?
56:40
What evidence is he bringing to support his case? Right?
56:45
That's the beauty of it. Like, if you understand how Paul is using the diatribe
56:51
method, the rhetorical tools, the method of argumentation, if you can figure
56:55
out how Paul's doing that, you will learn how to do it yourself.
56:59
So, it's a great tool. Yeah, it's awesome.
57:02
And hopefully people reading through Romans will read with that in mind.
57:10
Anyways, it's pretty fascinating. It's almost like having Paul here on a podcast.
57:15
I mean, really, if you're going through Romans, you're really getting a sense
57:19
of, you know, how he articulates his method, his styles, and all that stuff.
57:23
It's just, it really makes it come alive.
57:27
That's crazy. Indeed it is. Well, cool.
57:31
Well, hopefully those listening, thank you for, for listening,
57:35
but hopefully it's been blessing and I've been insightful.
57:38
I've, I've been enjoying just kind of talking about Paul and his approach.
57:42
I'm looking forward to act 17, which will probably be a, an episode that we're
57:46
going to do pretty soon. I've already got some thoughts on it.
57:49
I don't want to really kind of go into it here because we could probably talk
57:51
another, I don't know. Oh, easily.
57:53
I mean, there's just so much, like I said, Acts 17 is probably hands down become
57:58
one of my favorite chapters in the entire Bible.
58:01
Yeah. You know, just because it's, to me, it just connects so closely to my
58:06
world as a street preacher.
58:08
And, but I'm seeing, you see it in action. You see Paul in all these scenarios.
58:13
It's like the John 24, John chapter four of the book of Acts is what it is.
58:19
It comes down to when you see the way Paul handles himself, you know,
58:23
a, you know, the talks about Colossians 2.8 that we're supposed to abstain,
58:27
you know, got to avoid certain types of philosophy.
58:30
It's not based off of the rudiments of Christ. It's based off the rudiments of the world.
58:35
And I think he handles a bunch of philosophers phenomenally.
58:40
I mean, just in a genius way. Yeah, no, he's there in their territory,
58:45
in their backyard, and he is debating with them. And he is right there in front
58:50
of all these Greek temples, these Greek gods.
58:54
This is like, this is their society.
58:57
This is their culture. Downtown Austin.
58:58
And he is dealing with them right at their level, man.
59:01
Anyway, it's great. But yeah, when we go through Acts chapter 17,
59:06
we kind of see what he does. I think it's very enlightening.
59:10
Yeah, it's like taking a journey with him and kind of experiencing it. So, cool.
59:15
Something to look forward to. If anybody has any questions, any comments,
59:20
please feel free to reach out to us at, I haven't said it in a while,
59:24
what is it, theimmutableword at gmail.com? Yeah, that's it, theimmutableword at gmail.com.
59:28
And we'll be happy to respond or provide any information to you.
59:32
But until next time, thanks for listening, and we'll see you on the next one. Yep.