Auto-generated, so imperfect — click any line to jump the video to that moment.
0:00
I don't have answers for every question
0:02
that can be asked about scripture. I'm
0:04
sure that you don't either, but I'm
0:07
convinced that there is an answer for
0:08
every question because I'm convinced
0:10
that the Bible is God's word and it
0:13
tells us that God is omnisient or all
0:15
knowing. That means there is no
0:17
objection or question that Christians
0:19
have to fear. At worst, there are
0:22
arguments we haven't yet thought
0:23
through. I'm Jacob Mlan and this is
0:25
episode zero of Questions in the
0:27
Crucible, an introduction to how I
0:29
engage skeptical questions and
0:31
objections to the Bible and to a
0:33
biblical worldview.
0:36
In this opening episode, I want to lay
0:38
out the method beneath this ministry.
0:40
How to discern strong arguments from
0:42
noisy arguments that are that merely
0:44
sound strong. How slowing the pace of
0:47
thought reveals the details that
0:49
actually matter. How to withstand the
0:51
swarm of what about objections that
0:55
often flood theological spaces online
0:58
and how to remain steady even when
1:00
someone speaks with impressive
1:01
confidence but little substance.
1:05
In scripture, wisdom stands at the
1:07
crossroads and calls out not with fury
1:10
but with the calm firmness to illuminate
1:12
the path. Beginning with method is in a
1:15
sense beginning with wisdom itself.
1:18
Wisdom is the way. This episode serves a
1:22
dual purpose. To give you a simple
1:24
framework for approaching skepticism and
1:26
doubt with clarity and to offer a
1:28
transparent view of the approach I'll
1:30
use throughout the rest of this series.
1:34
Let's start with an overview. When
1:36
people encounter a difficult question
1:38
such as alleged contradictions,
1:40
philosophical quandries, or moral
1:42
objections, they bring whatever habits
1:45
they've already learned. Some habits
1:47
promote clarity. Other habits amplify
1:50
confusion.
1:51
Certain rhetorical habits and tactics
1:54
can shake a person's confidence even
1:57
when the foundation of the argument is
1:59
weak. These tactics are powerful for
2:02
eliciting emotional reactions but poor
2:05
for revealing genuine truth.
2:08
Identifying such habits and tactics can
2:10
help us to recognize and disarm them
2:13
when encountered in action.
2:15
Let's think through some of them
2:17
together. As we do, be sure to remember
2:19
that this discussion is not meant to
2:21
insult you if you've ever been guilty of
2:24
any of them.
2:26
Live, learn, move on, and try to do
2:29
better. The first tactic that comes to
2:32
my mind is rapid fire objections.
2:35
Also called shotgun skepticism. A person
2:38
launches a barrage of 5, 10, 20 plus
2:41
objections in a row. What about this
2:44
verse? What about the contradiction?
2:46
What about that atrocity? What about
2:49
this doctrine?
2:50
The effect isn't clarity. It's overload.
2:54
Whether that was the intention or not.
2:56
If you can't answer all 20 questions on
2:58
the spot, you lose and they claim
3:00
victory. That's not how honest debate
3:03
works. Add homonym attacks. These
3:06
involve tactics such as calling people
3:08
by offensive names or slandering their
3:10
character or intelligence to discredit
3:12
their witness rather than dealing with
3:14
the logic of the evidence.
3:17
Some examples could be Christians are
3:19
bigots. You're not qualified to make
3:22
that argument. What do you know?
3:26
Labeling people does nothing to prove
3:27
their argument false or to prove the
3:30
counterargument true. It's merely a
3:33
savagely univilized attempt to
3:35
intimidate a person into silence.
3:38
Misuse of evidence divorced from
3:40
context.
3:42
Verses or phrases ripped from their
3:44
covenant setting, book, paragraph, and
3:47
sometimes even from within their own
3:49
sentences.
3:51
This often occurs when people quote one
3:53
Bible verse to claim contradiction with
3:55
another, but fail to understand or
3:58
explain the context of the verses before
4:02
andor after, which often clarifies the
4:05
issue.
4:07
Any books can sound incoherent and
4:09
contradictory if you isolate bits and
4:11
pieces without reading the whole text.
4:15
Leaning on the exact wording of a
4:18
particular translation can be hazardous,
4:19
too, because your interpretation may
4:22
hinge on a particular connotation or
4:24
definition of a word that has more than
4:27
one possible interpretation.
4:30
Other good and valid translations may
4:33
use slightly different wording. So when
4:35
you read scripture within its context
4:39
and compare trustworthy alternative
4:41
translations, you may find yourself
4:44
drawn to an entirely different
4:45
conclusion than the one you started
4:47
with. Even confidence can mask weak
4:50
logic. A loud voice, quick speech, and
4:54
emphatic hand gestures are not the same
4:57
as a sound argument.
5:00
Paul the Apostle was not known to be a
5:02
boisterous speaker. In 1 Corinthians 2,
5:05
he says that he came to the people not
5:07
with eloquent speech, human wisdom, or
5:10
persuasive words, but with a
5:12
demonstration of the Holy Spirit's
5:14
power, so that their faith would not be
5:16
in him, in human wisdom, but in God.
5:20
Never substitute confidence for
5:23
carefulness,
5:26
appealing to human authority. This
5:28
famous scholar agrees with me. This
5:30
big-time YouTuber says the same. The
5:33
opinions of those perceived to have
5:35
authority do not replace reasons. Truth
5:39
is not dictated by volume, popularity,
5:42
license, or degree. Your only way around
5:45
this is to argue against the existence
5:47
of absolute truth itself.
5:51
That conclusion defeats its own
5:52
argument.
5:54
Good luck inventing proof that truth
5:56
doesn't exist.
5:58
Straw manning an argument. This is when
6:01
a person crafts a weak form of that
6:03
argument by leaving out any strong
6:05
evidence or explanations and simplifying
6:08
the description so that it is easily
6:10
dismantled.
6:12
When you see any of the aforementioned
6:14
strategies, slow down and ask yourself,
6:17
what is the actual question? What is the
6:19
actual claim? Then you can think more
6:22
clearly about the scriptures in your
6:24
response. The purpose of questions in
6:26
the Crucible is not to dodge strong
6:29
objections or to create strong man
6:31
arguments whose defeat is all but
6:33
meaningless, but to bring your toughest
6:35
questions into the open, to analyze them
6:38
in the light of scripture, and to forge
6:40
a response through understanding that
6:42
helps us grow in wisdom.
6:44
This series is my attempt to use
6:46
steelman arguments to foster ironclad
6:49
faith through beneficial responses
6:52
because even steel can be melted in a
6:54
sufficiently prepared crucible.
6:57
Because intelligent skeptics and
6:59
confused Christians exist, shallow
7:02
soundites are not enough. This isn't a
7:05
gotcha channel. This is a thoughtful
7:06
ministry.
7:08
Let's now discuss how to address
7:10
skepticism.
7:12
To begin, here are three ideas to keep
7:15
in mind for Christians dealing with
7:16
tough questions.
7:18
First, be confident in God's character
7:21
and in his word. If scripture is
7:24
breathed out by God, as stated in 2
7:26
Timothy 3:16, then our trust in it comes
7:29
from our trust in the all powerful and
7:32
all- knowing sovereign God of all
7:35
creation, who proved his love for us
7:37
most brilliantly through Jesus Christ.
7:41
Second, have humility for your limited
7:44
understanding. The problem is never in
7:46
scripture. Sometimes in the translation,
7:50
but most often in our assumptions, our
7:53
limited information,
7:55
and our impatience for omniscience.
7:59
Third, be committed to honesty. If a
8:02
question challenges you, admit it. If an
8:05
argument has real weight behind it, I'll
8:08
admit it, too, before I attempt to
8:09
answer it.
8:10
Proverbs 2:4 describes wisdom as a
8:13
hidden treasure. And that implies that
8:16
it takes effort to acquire. Effort that
8:19
you have to be willing to provide. I
8:22
can't do that for you. No one can.
8:26
If the only effort you give is in
8:28
listening to my response or copying and
8:31
pasting my answers, you won't gain
8:33
nearly as much as you would by thinking
8:35
through the issues for yourself.
8:38
So, as much as this isn't a gotcha
8:40
channel, it's also not meant to replace
8:42
your own thinking or decision-m,
8:45
it's not wise to blindly trust in
8:47
anyone. No matter how brilliant the man,
8:50
he is still just a man.
8:53
Now, finally, for the actual process of
8:56
responding,
8:57
because I'm not planning to do live
8:59
Q&As's, at least at this time, this
9:02
process assumes ample time for thorough
9:04
analysis.
9:06
Quicker answers can work in daily
9:08
conversations if that's what you need to
9:10
see modeled. Mike Winger's Q&A series is
9:13
a great place to learn how to think
9:14
biblically and deliver answers on the
9:16
fly to questions read for the first time
9:18
in real time. That's not to make light
9:22
of the more detailed responses that he
9:23
provides for the few questions that he
9:26
prepares ahead of time.
9:28
The last thing to understand before
9:30
listing the steps is that this process
9:32
is influenced by the presupposition of a
9:35
biblical worldview which requires
9:38
biblical thinking as the foundation for
9:40
all thought.
9:42
That said, let's explore the process
9:45
beginning with a summary of steps.
9:48
Clarify the question. That's step one.
9:51
Step two, check presuppositions and
9:54
assumptions.
9:56
Step three, engage with the emotional
9:58
shadow of the objector.
10:01
Step four, steal man the objection.
10:05
Step five, study the biblical context.
10:09
Step six, respond theologically, not
10:12
merely logically and or emotionally.
10:16
Step seven, acknowledge the presence and
10:19
implications of any remaining
10:20
uncertainty.
10:23
Now, let's walk back through those
10:24
stepwise to develop a better
10:26
understanding of this process.
10:29
Step one, clarify the question. What is
10:33
really being claimed? What would
10:35
actually follow if it were true? How
10:38
could the answer change a person's
10:40
theology or worldview?
10:43
If possible, write the question in your
10:45
own words with clarity, accuracy, and
10:48
precision. Then if you can restate the
10:51
question to the objector as you
10:53
understand it so that they have the
10:55
opportunity to clarify further if they
10:57
believe you've misunderstood them.
11:02
Step two, check presuppositions and
11:05
assumptions. Ask the following question.
11:09
What worldview, expectations or
11:12
definitions shape the question? If a
11:15
person is asking a moral question such
11:17
as, "How can an all powerful God be so
11:20
cruel as to allow suffering?" one needs
11:23
to address the presupposition that God
11:25
determines morality because this
11:28
question assumes that God can be
11:30
immoral.
11:32
Step three, engage with the emotional
11:34
shadow behind the objector. Is there
11:37
pain, fear, or a lived experience behind
11:41
the objection? Often the catalyst for
11:44
doubt may be past trauma or anxiety
11:48
regarding the future. If that seems
11:51
plausible from the presentation of the
11:53
question, then you should address it.
11:55
Emotion doesn't add validity to
11:58
objections against God, but it does
12:00
create a heavy burden on people that is
12:03
hard to lift with intellectual methods.
12:06
God is not the source of evil or church
12:10
hurt. Poor use of free will by created
12:13
beings is
12:16
step four. Stealman the objection.
12:20
Don't create a straw man out of your
12:22
opponent. A lazy caricature of the
12:24
argument. Let me offer a simple example
12:27
related to health and exercise.
12:31
Summary of original claim. Moderate
12:34
exercise is important for long-term
12:37
health.
12:39
Steelman argument. So your point is that
12:42
consistent performance of moderate
12:44
physical activity three to seven times
12:46
per week tailored to a person's ability
12:50
significantly improves health outcomes.
12:52
Even if the exercise intensity is not
12:55
extremely high.
12:57
That is a strong argument in that it's
13:00
evidence-based and easily defensible.
13:03
It's a fair argument.
13:05
Straw man argument. So, you're saying
13:08
that everyone has to become a
13:09
muscle-bound gym rat to avoid an early
13:11
grave.
13:13
This is not a strong argument or a fair
13:16
representation of the original claim.
13:19
No one is impressed by the straw man,
13:21
and no one cares how you respond to it.
13:24
When responding to a question, whether
13:27
about God, the Bible, a biblical
13:29
worldview, or anything else, consider
13:32
posturing yourself on the same side as
13:35
the objector and do the work to build a
13:37
version of the argument that a careful
13:39
opponent would recognize as fair.
13:42
You want the honest objectioner to hear
13:45
you restate their question and feel
13:47
understood because you've built up the
13:49
argument rather than tearing it down
13:51
right from the start.
13:54
The bigger they are, the harder they
13:56
fall. Just remember that it's the
13:59
objection you want to fall as you lift
14:02
the person up by offering them truth and
14:03
wisdom.
14:05
This is a posture that Jesus
14:07
demonstrated well through his
14:09
willingness to stand firm as his enemies
14:11
raised stones of anger and confusion.
14:15
Don't merely consider the objection.
14:17
Consider the person and their need for
14:19
the truth of their creator and savior.
14:22
Let the stones come. Friction against
14:25
stone sharpens the cutting edge of the
14:27
mind.
14:29
Step five, study the biblical context.
14:33
Consider not only the immediate context
14:35
of the verse, but the entire passage,
14:38
book, and whole Bible context. If the
14:42
objection is about a specific verse,
14:45
that's obviously where your focus will
14:46
be. However, if the objection relates to
14:50
a general philosophical idea or a major
14:53
recurrent theme, you may need to more
14:56
thoroughly explore multiple passages of
14:58
scripture or think about the
15:00
implications of multiple teachings.
15:03
If you spend all your time in one
15:05
passage when there are 10 others that
15:08
address the same topic, there will be
15:10
people who will hold that against you,
15:12
even if your response is otherwise
15:14
stellar and unimpeachable.
15:17
For the once and for all response, make
15:19
sure that you at least address the
15:21
immediate context as well as any
15:23
particular distant context that is
15:25
likely to be brought up in a what about
15:28
question.
15:30
Step six, respond appropriately.
15:34
That means that you respond fully and
15:36
theologically, not merely linguistically
15:40
or emotionally. A purely linguistic
15:43
answer focuses on elements such as
15:46
definitions of a word, grammar of a
15:49
verse, semantics of a phrase, mechanics
15:53
of a translation.
15:55
These answers explain the language but
15:58
not so much God himself, which is
16:01
immensely more important because the
16:04
more you understand God, the less
16:06
burdened you'll be by any remaining
16:08
uncertainty. Because uncertainty does
16:11
not constitute proof.
16:15
Let what can be proven suffice to
16:17
sustain hope for what cannot.
16:21
A theological response seeks to answer
16:24
the deeper questions. Who is God? What
16:27
does his character require of him? What
16:30
are God's purposes? How does this issue
16:33
fit within the context of the entire
16:34
Bible? What are the implications of this
16:37
for my beliefs? What are the
16:39
implications of this for the church?
16:43
Likely, more often than not, you will
16:45
find the barrier between a person and
16:46
God to be one built on a heart issue
16:49
rather than a head issue.
16:52
Theological answers more directly
16:54
address the heart's needs than a
16:57
linguistic explanation for serious
16:59
questions.
17:01
Linguistic understanding matters, but
17:04
theological understanding matters
17:06
infinitely more.
17:09
Words carry truth for transformation.
17:13
Step seven, acknowledge the presence and
17:16
implications of any remaining
17:18
uncertainty.
17:20
If any part of the question remains
17:22
unresolved, name it honestly. Explain
17:25
why the difficulty of comprehending or
17:27
explaining does not equal contradiction
17:29
or proof for the objection. and give a
17:32
clear reminder that trusting God where
17:35
complete knowledge is withheld is a
17:37
valid and appropriate exercise of faith.
17:41
Explore the implications of any
17:43
remaining uncertainty. How is your
17:45
worldview affected by the remaining
17:47
uncertainty? Is there a way to discover
17:49
the answer by human beings or is it a
17:52
situation where only God knows?
17:55
Those seven steps are the framework of
17:57
the method that I'll be applying going
18:00
forward to all questions in the
18:02
crucible.
18:03
The following episodes will serve as a
18:05
demonstration of the practical
18:07
application of everything discussed in
18:09
this episode. My hope is that as you
18:12
walk through the questions with me, you
18:14
will see not only the answer to those
18:16
questions, but the method of handling
18:19
most any question about the Bible.
18:23
My goal is not to defeat skeptics, but
18:26
to show people that the weight of a
18:28
question is not in the question itself,
18:31
but in the response it receives from us.
18:34
For all of us, there are many questions
18:36
that will never be answered in this
18:38
life. I'm content with that because I
18:41
know that unanswered questions do not
18:43
equal evidence. As the creation, I don't
18:46
have need or right to demand an
18:49
explanation of every thought and action
18:51
of my creator. He is the omnisient one.
18:55
I'm merely a man, one who wants to offer
18:57
beneficial responses to some of the
18:59
objections, doubts, and fears to help
19:03
other people see the evidential truth of
19:05
the Bible. That it's not a tangle of
19:07
contradictions, that God is the source
19:09
of all truth, and that there is comfort
19:12
written into these pages. for the
19:14
questions that remain unanswered.
19:17
It's good to be able to answer many
19:19
questions, but having questions about
19:21
things we can't know is also valuable so
19:24
that we can learn to trust in what we
19:26
can't see because of what we can see. In
19:30
2 Timothy 1:12, Paul says, "I know whom
19:33
I have believed." That is the foundation
19:36
of faith. Not what you believe, but whom
19:39
you believe.
19:41
When a parent tells a child that they
19:42
love them, they are believed because
19:44
they are known.
19:46
Get to know your heavenly father and you
19:49
will learn to trust him when he tells
19:51
you that he loves you and when he
19:53
withholds the answer to provide an
19:55
opportunity to exercise your faith
19:58
because he has already proven himself
20:01
over and over and over again.
20:06
Questions are welcome here. If you have
20:08
skeptical questions or doubts, leave
20:10
them in the comment section. I'll never
20:12
be able to answer them all, but I'll
20:14
respond to as many as I can. You can
20:17
subscribe to get notifications if you
20:19
want to be updated when a new question
20:20
is being discussed.
20:23
May the Lord bless you, and may you
20:24
begin to recognize how blessed you are.
