Eutychus and His Kin: September 15, 1972

HOW TO WIN THEOLOGICAL DEBATES

Here it is—the sequel to my popular “How to Confuse Laymen Forty-eight Sundays a Year”! You don’t have to wait another minute to learn how to win theological debates.

This isn’t just theory. These techniques work! You need to learn them if only for your own protection.

The old standard is the ad hominem technique. Don’t debate the issue; debate your opponent’s character.

Let’s take an example. Suppose someone says, “The plays of Tennessee Williams have more theology than all the modern ‘religious’ dramas put together.”

It doesn’t matter if you’re somewhat in the dark about Tennessee Williams and altogether ignorant of modern religious drama. You come back with something like, “The trouble with you, good friend, is that you want to write off the simple Christian who doesn’t have your theological awareness. You need to love and accept others no matter what their limitations!”

See how easily you’ve shifted the ground on him. Instead of challenging your non sequitur, an opponent will forget all about drama and come charging back with a defense of his character. If you can keep him off balance long enough the battle is won.

A variation of this technique involves overwhelming your opponent with smothering love. You put your arm around him in your most expansive manner, give him a brotherly hug, and simply say: “Bill, we love you even if you don’t know what you’re talking about.” He’d probably prefer that you loathe him and answer his proposition, but it’s hard for a Christian to repudiate love. So he’ll smile weakly, drop the argument, and try to get away from you as soon as tactfully possible.

Non-direetive counseling provides another technique for non-debating. You reflect your opponent’s statement with a question mark at the end. To take the same example, with thoughtful look and furrowed brow you would respond: “You feel that Williams’s plays are essentially theological?”

Your opponent will think you know enough to question his thesis. He can’t afford to let you think he isn’t aware of all possible objections so he’ll begin to enumerate them.

He may respond with, “Oh, I know the religious plays seem more theological on the surface, but they lack understanding of the human dilemma!”

Now you have another question to hang around his neck: “I see, you feel Williams has real insight into the human dilemma?”

You can carry this on till your opponent has chased his tail for so long he’ll retire from the field exhausted.

A final technique is the “yes … and” method. With this method you can effectively reverse your opponent’s statement and so confuse the situation that he may agree with you. Suppose he says, “The Church must be concerned with redeeming the structures of society.”

Your answer is, “Yes, you’re exactly right, and to redeem the structures of society we must touch the hearts of men and bring them to a saving knowledge of Christ. You certainly hit the nail on the head!”

At this point the opposition will be confused. He can’t be sure you’re really trying to reverse his statement, and he won’t want to give up this kind of flattering support. So he’ll bend his position a little to give room for your amendment. If you play your cards right he may move away from his original position and remark to others what a perceptive mind you have.

Now go to it, friends. And just remember the one cardinal rule of theological debating: Never get sidetracked onto the issues.

TREATING UNIVERSALISM

The article “Presenting One Way to the Universalist” (July 28) was the most adequate and useful brief treatment of the subject we have seen. As you probably realize, the universalist viewpoint, with its related pantheistic attitude, is very popular, at least in a simplistic form, among young people today and provides the most common arguments against the claims of the Bible for these people.

Unfinished Business

Lennoxville, Quebec

Dr. Krishna rejects the view that “a loving God will surely receive a man sincerely seeking him in some remote region, such as Tibet, where the Gospel of Jesus Christ may never reach him at all.” This view is apparently rejected because “it makes Christian evangelism indefensible”.…

One should proceed with great caution when engaged in the business of listing and defining God’s actions, lest undue limits are placed upon Christ!… Should we not be willing to admit that Jesus may decide to reach that man in Tibet, regardless of geography and the availability of suitable evangelists?…

Let God do what he will! If Christ should decide to directly contact one who has no other means of hearing the Gospel, this certainly does not “make Christian evangelism indefensible.” It merely reinforces Christian evangelism. Shall the practice of medicine be considered indefensible because Christ sometimes effects miraculous cures?

Since Dr. Krishna opened his remarks with a quote of C. S. Lewis, I will close with one from Lewis’s Mere Christianity: “God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.” Lewis goes on to point out that such possibilities are no excuse (and certainly not a reason) for Christians to ignore the work that they are expected to do.

Los Alamos, N. Mex.

Let me express my appreciation of the fine testimony by Professor Krishna against Indo-Aryan universalism. I am in accord with the three areas in which he lifts up Christ: in his moral perfection, in his teaching, and in his resurrection. But does not the Gospel of John in the verse immediately following the one cited, that is, John 12:33, refer the text to still another way in which Christ was lifted up and in which we ought to lift him up as we present him to men: “This He said signifying what death He should die”? As often occurs there is a multiple meaning in John’s words, but certainly one of the meanings is that of presenting Jesus Christ as crucified in our stead.

Decatur, Ga.

THANKS FOR TIMELINESS

A friend made me a gift subscription to your fine magazine, and I want to thank you for recent timely articles which I found very interesting, particularly “Amish Education and Religious Freedom.” by Glenn D. Everett (June 9), and in the July 28 issue, Purushotman M. Krishna’s “Presenting One Way to the Universalist” … and the very understanding editorial “Whose Freedom?” about my denomination, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Dr. Preus is carrying on valiantly.

Houston, Tex.

ON ROMAN INTOLERANCE

“A case can be made that much of the persecution of Protestants in certain countries with predominantly Catholic populations, such as Spain, has rightist political more than religious roots” (Editorials, “Neither Left Nor Right,” June 23). Not much of a case! The virtual total suppression of Protestant activity from 1939 to 1946, followed by the severe restrictions based upon legal disabilities from which Protestants suffered until recently, was based upon a concordat negotiated between Pope Pius XII and General Franco in terms of which Romanism was recognized as the established religion of Spain “to the exclusion of all others.” The sting was in the tail!

When, under world pressure, Franco endeavored to alleviate the legal and actual restrictions upon Protestants, the existence of this concordat proved a major stumbling-block.

The basis of Roman intolerance is the doctrine that Rome is the one and only true Christian church. That doctrine was not repudiated by Vatican Council II. In fact, it was emphatically reaffirmed in the document on religious liberty.

The Protestant Association Secretary of South Africa

Cape Town, South Africa

SECURE SECURITY

I have been a reader of your magazine for some years, and generally find the material it contains both interesting and helpful. But in the July 28 issue there is a brief editorial, “Insecure Security,” on which I am moved to comment.…

There is no duplicity in the Social Security system, and it seems to me most unfortunate that a magazine such as yours should make such a statement.…

Social Security has never failed an eligible person. Over 27 million persons are receiving regular monthly income under this program, insurance benefits paid for by the contribution of covered workers and their employers. And there is adequate provision for the future—unless Congress should take an unprecedented step and increase benefits without increasing contributions proportionately.…

The editorial states, … “Unlike private pension plans, however, the ‘trust fund’ is not invested but is spent for current expenses.… The insurance company would invest his money, the government merely spends it.” Surely there is misunderstanding here.… The trust fund … is managed by a Board of Trustees who report regularly to Congress on the state of the fund. The money in the fund can be used only to pay benefits to eligible persons, or for administration of the program, or it may be invested. The only way the government can get the money for current expenses is to borrow it from the fund, just as it borrows money from insurance companies, or banks, or individuals, by selling bonds. When a sufficient balance accumulates in the fund the trustees buy such bonds, and the fund earns interest on the bonds, as any owner would.…

To speak of the fund being bankrupt is nonsense. In the fiscal year 1970–71 … the assets of the fund increased by $1.7 billion.

Former member

U.S. Social Security Board

Washington, D. C.

CARING FOR THE ORPHANS

Your July 28 news article titled “Korean Orphan Appeal: How Long?” was commendable. It was well researched and … is a real contribution toward both better understanding of real needs of the children and better ways of solving these needs.…

The Christian Reformed World Relief Committee has endorsed foster care for several years. It has gone one step further in initiating an in-country adoption program known as “CAPOK”—Christian Adoption Program of Korea.… In 1969 CAPOK was licensed as the first in-country adoption program in Korea. A total of 1,500 adoptions have been completed. The work continues at a level of 200 or more children each year and is gradually being handled by an indigenous staff.… Our concern now is that national Christians will administer, support, and continue the program. Then the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee will also be ready to phase out of Korea.

Executive Director

Christian Reformed World Relief Committee

Grand Rapids, Mich.

RESTORING THE L.C.A.

There are many ultra conservative Lutherans who would probably like your canceling out of the Lutheran Church in America, but I suspect that in spite of your statistical report (News, “The Lutheran Generation,” August 11) the LCA considers itself very much a part of living Lutheranism. One doesn’t just typeset out three million Lutherans—before judgment day, anyway!

Ebenezer Lutheran Church

Milwaukee, Wisc.

• You’re right. The LCA lost only 38,000 members last year.—ED.

EDITORIAL FINE ART

Your editorial entitled “Whose Freedom?” (July 28) was a masterpiece of insight expressed very succinctly. The issue is indeed whether or not the AATS will intimidate its member seminaries when they teach unpopular doctrines regarding the Scriptures or anything else. Permit me to offer additional thoughts for another article:

1. Why have not the Concordia seminary faculty and its Board of Control appealed the AATS-imposed probation, as the AATS constitution permits?

2. Should not seminary vice-president Arthur Repp now resign his position as vice-president of the AATS to avoid a conflict of interest?

You did a real service to your readership by exposing the AATS action for what it is. I sincerely hope many in our Synod will profit by the editorial and refuse to “knuckle under” to the demands of the AATS and those among us who would use the threat of loss of accreditation to stifle a faithful witness to Christ and his Word.

University Lutheran Church

Muncie, Ind.

Indeed, with or without “official” or unofficial “accreditation,” no church can survive as a true church of Jesus Christ if it cannot—or will not—teach its future pastors to rely on the sole, supreme, sufficient authority of Scripture, involving both its truthfulness and trustworthiness.

With the Father’s full heavenly “accreditation” (baptism and transfiguration) the Teacher come from God told those in disagreement with his teaching (and interpretation), “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matt. 22:29). Who approves—“accredits”—whom, and why, and how?

Trinity Lutheran Church

Billings, Mont.

I wish to thank you for printing “Whose Freedom?” The last few sentences express exactly my feelings in this matter concerning Concordia Seminary in St. Louis.

San Antonio, Tex.

CRUSADE COVERAGE

Leslie K. Tarr’s news article “Graham in Cleveland: Action at Second Base” (August 11) provided excellent coverage of the crusade.… One thought from a fan not only of CHRISTIANITY TODAY and Billy Graham but also of the Cleveland Indians: please note that Frank Duffy is the shortstop and Jack Brohamer relinquished his second-base position to Graham.

Zionsville, Pa.

ANSWERING THE HUMANISTS

Thank you so much for running the article on Matthew 25:31–46, “On Separating Sheep From Goats” (August 11). I must admit that I, too, have been intimidated by the humanist’s use of this passage. One of my colleagues used to use it to prove that the approach in Robinson’s Honest to God was based on biblical teaching. I never knew exactly how to respond, except with the same rejoinder that Thebeau used, that such a universalistic interpretation flatly contradicted most of the New Testament. Thebeau’s suggestion that a favorable response to the Christian message is implied in the parable is also suggested by the fact that the righteous replied to Christ by calling him “Lord.”

Pepperdine University

Los Angeles, Calif.

Someone goofed on that sheep-goat article. Since when must we separate faith and works? You can separate between sheep and goats, and between faith and works as steps of experience, but you always find both faith and works in the same person! You find the means of salvation and the mark of salvation in the same person if he lives long enough after regeneration, but that doesn’t mean that the mark is the means.

Cynthiana Baptist Church

Cynthiana, Ky.

Thebeau begins his exegesis with the assumption that the judgment in the passage is of nations as corporate nations, and that the sheep and goats are nations. This interpretation leads to theological problems as serious as those of the “social-gospel advocates.” Does he mean to imply that the eternal destiny of the individual citizens of a nation is to be determined by the conduct of the nation as a whole?…

Obviously the judgment in the passage is of individuals.… The ta ethne of the passage refers to the nations of the world—the Gentiles—in the sense of the whole human race as over against just the Jews or Israel. The same word translated “nations” is used in the Great Commission and by Paul in Romans 16:26 in this sense.…

Christ is not speaking of the basis or means by which an individual becomes a sheep or goat but is speaking of the distinguishing marks of sheep and goats—and there is a vast difference.… His sheep hear his voice and follow him—they do his will.

(REV.) DOUGLAS ROGERS

Rock Hill, Mo.

The author errs in equating the judgment of Matthew 25:31–46 with the Last Judgment of Revelation 20:11–15, which involves the resurrected wicked dead. The judgment of Matthew 25 is a judgment of the living nations at the revelation of Christ at his Second Coming and occurs on the earth, not in heaven as the Last Judgment does, and transpires immediately preceeding the Millennium (see also Joel 3:2).

Little Rock, Ark.

AIDING CHRISTIAN LOVE

I think that the cartoon page “As Christians See One Another” in the August 11 issue was great. If Christians can start getting past the stereotyping of those who take an opposite position, meaningful discussion can take place, and true Christian love can win out. You are aiding the cause.

Kokomo, Ind.

MIXED ALLIANCES

A friend has just called my attention to a reference in a recent issue of your magazine to my father’s statement urging cooperation among Christians (“Getting It Together For Jesus,” July 7). I think it is quite typical of New Evangelical ethics that you would take a dead man’s quotation out of context and misapply it to make it appear that he was urging the very thing which he spent his life opposing—compromise with infidelity, cultism, Roman Catholicism, and apostasy. My father’s reference to receiving a hound dog if he came barking for Jesus Christ was used in opposing division among Bible-believing Christians because of doctrinal interpretations, another thing altogether from the sort of mixed alliances advocated by Key 73. My father never considered a man as serving Jesus Christ if that man was taking honors from the Roman Catholic Church, the World Council, and apostasy.

Chancellor

Bob Jones University

Greenville, S. C.

EXPOSING ATROCITIES

In regard to your editorial, “The Immoral Antidote” in the July 7 issue, your remarks about the atrocities mentioned by Mr. Wurmbrand and Roman Braga needed to be printed. Your last paragraph was unnecessary, especially the phrase “excessive repetition”.… With the heavy barrage of left-wing propaganda about “religious freedom” in Russia, the contributions of these men are appreciated. When Americans are calling for amnesty to draft-dodgers and an end to “the immoral war” in Viet Nam, we need to be reminded that the Communists are bloodthirsty revolutionaries who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals.…

The American people have become apathetic because of so many years of tranquility. It almost went unnoticed when our Navy men of the U.S.S. Pueblo reported similar atrocities they suffered in North Korea. You should have hailed Wurmbrand’s report and invited him to write an article exposing other atrocities. Wurmbrand is rapidly writing an appendix, twentieth-century style, to Foxe’s Book of Martyrs.

Broadbay Hills Baptist Church

Winston-Salem, N. C.

ON OBSERVING THE SABBATH

In regard to the your editorial “Sunday Laws and Human Welfare” (July 28): the author does no better job in trying to conceal the real issue than a kitten hiding under the bed while his tail is showing.… He can spare his crocodile tears for the store employee. One cannot be sure that given certain time off from regular work he will use it properly and according to ideal principles. Nor must he be compelled in this respect if we wish to continue to be a free nation under God.

Many merchants are of Jewish origin. They were emphatically taught to observe the real fourth commandment given to man from creation to everlasting as a sign between God and his people. How would we feel if the Jew tried to force us to observe the Sabbath of the Decalogue, the only day bearing God’s blessing? Can we then justify ourselves in palming off to him another day which bears only the inscription of tradition?

Santa Rosa, Calif.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.