In Defense of Christian Rap

I've been thinking about this subject for some time now. There are people out there, some of them perhaps reading this, that believe Christin rap is sinful.

Christian rap and it's fanbase is growing and gaining popularity. So if Christian rap is sinful, then we should be doing something to stop it. So today I'd like to present some of the main arguments against Christian rap, and we'll weigh each one. And these aren't just arguments made by crazy old grannies: many come from well-established pastors and well-meaning friends of mine. So don't think I'm misrepresenting the anti-rap side.

But before I begin, I want to just share a little bit about my personal experience... When I first heard about the existence of "Christian Rappers," I thought the term was an oxymoron. I scoffed at the idea, and rolled my eyes whenever I heard my friends talking about them. That is, until some friends had me actually listen to some Christian Rap. I loved the lyrics, since they were so full of good theology, and in time, I've grown to love the music style as well. So while reading this, if you are like I was before I heard Christian rap, then keep in mind: I was just like you.

So I did some research, and these were the four main, recurring arguments that I found in support of the idea that Christian Rap is sinful:

It's the Beat
Many argue that Rap (as well as rock, metal, Dubstep, even jazz, and essentially any "beaty" music) is inherently evil. Why? Because of the often fast-paced beat and the drums. The main claim is that the accelerated beat makes people violent, or that it has some sort of sexual element to it. Now, there is a grain of truth to this claim: A fast-paced beat will up your heart-rate, and can make you want to move around to use up that energy. Sex and violence are two ways to expel that energy (it should be noted that sex and violence aren't inherently sinful). And, admittedly, sex and violence are things we see promoted in secular rap. But when we look at Christian rap... Where's the sensuality? Where's the violence? It's not there. Why? Because, as the proponents of this argument seem to miss, there are thousands of completely innocent ways one can move around and expel energy without being sensual or violent.
Four other things must be noted under this argument: First, that not all Christian Rap songs are "beaty". Second, that Christian rappers preach against (sinful forms of) sex and violence in their songs. Third, that the desire to move around and expel energy can be resisted, and quite easily. Fourth, that "more acceptable" forms of music (such as hymns, worship, and classical music-- which I love, by the way) can, even without a fast-paced beat, have the same energizing effect and make you want to move. Are those forms of music inherently sinful as well?

Rap's Origins
Like the last argument, this one claims that rap music is inherently sinful, godly lyrics or not. The reason why is different, though. In this argument, Rap music is evil because of its sinful origins and history. Now, I won't contest the fact that rap's origins are sinful. But to say that its origin makes it evil... well, that I have to disagree with. Mainly, because that is what's known as a genetic fallacy: "The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue, is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context."
The second reason I reject this argument is because of the Cross. Do you know why and how the cross originated? Pretty evil, huh? And yet, what does the cross mean to us now? One of mankind's vilest inventions was used for God's greatest purpose. Can the same not be done with rap? I don't know about you, but I find that to be pretty profound.

Look at the Rappers
The anti-rap crowd will sometimes point to the rappers themselves to prove that Christian Rap is worldly and sinful. They point to the hoodies, the cocked-back hats, the bling, and the baggy pants worn by some Christian rappers. They point to the attitudes, mannerisms, accents, and vocabulary used by some Christian rappers. "See?" they say. "They look JUST like the worldly, sinful, secular rappers!" However, this is also a fallacy: the ad Hominem or Personal Attack fallacy. Instead of judging Christian rap based on its merits, they judge it based on the merits of the rappers.
Wait, did I say merits? I should've said appearances, because this is really what's going on, and it's very unbiblical. Do some Christian rappers dress just like they do in the hood? Yes. See for yourself:

From left to right: Christian Rappers Trip Lee, Lecrae, Shai Linne, and This'l.

"Eww! Yucky!" You might say. But I bet that's what people said about John the Baptist, in his long beard and camel hide. Long story short, Man looks on the outside, but God looks on the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).
As for the mannerisms and vocabulary used by Christian Rappers... well, that's just how most African Americans living in the hood talk. It just makes sense that if that's where you came from, and that's who you're witnessing to, then that's how you should talk. Saying that's sinful could be considered racist, besides being unbiblical and completely unhelpful.
The one thing I do like about this argument is that it can be turned around so easily. If you're going to judge Christan rap based on the merits of the rappers, then look at their fruits (Matthew 7:20), not their appearances. And what are their fruits? Well, most Christian rappers lead missions efforts in urban areas, preaching on the streets, feeding the poor, planting, pastoring, and supporting churches... the list goes on. Through these men, God has saved many people from lives of addiction, abuse, drugs, alcoholism, gang violence, prostitution, and more. I honestly have a really hard time arguing with those kinds of fruits. What about you?

Giving in to the Culture?
This argument makes me kind of sad. Like the last argument, it's not really an argument against rap, but against the rappers themselves: another personal attack fallacy. Those who oppose Christian rap accuse Christian rappers of cowardice, caving in to the culture, and compromising with the world. Wow. If only these people actually knew a thing or two about the people they're making these accusations about. It puts their ignorance on display, in a way. Though --and I will touch on this later-- this is the case with most arguments against Christian rap.
Christian rappers are not caving to the culture. Most of them were raised in the culture of drugs, rape, murder, and gangs. Now that they've been saved by Christ, they're on an all-out war to fundamentally change that culture for Christ, using Christian rap as part of their ministry.
Christian rappers are not cowards. Many of these brave men and women are spearheading missions to the deepest, darkest and most violent hoods, where other Christians --the REAL cowards-- dare not go.
Christian Rappers are not compromising with the world. Instead, they've taken something from the world and have turned it to good use, like the cross mentioned earlier. They have, essentially, plundered the Egyptians. Besides: if these rappers DID compromise with the world, then the world would love them. But that's not the case: the world hates them (John 15:9). As a recent example, Christian Rapper Bizzle made a song that preached against homosexuality. As a result, he has received loads of criticism, hatred, and even many death threats. Doesn't sound like a compromiser or a coward to me.

Now, there are a few common factors visible in each of these arguments, and I'd like to talk about them.

The first is cultural elitism of sorts.
If you're going to make a case that something is sinful, then you should bring up Bible verses, or at least biblical principles, and apply them to the subject. Instead, we talk about music styles, sideways hats, and the use of ebonics to praise God. In other words, the best people can come up with is that Christian rap is evil because it's different. Different from the white, western, civilized, classical culture that we've been raised in. Different from what we're used to. I'm sorry, but if you go around the world and visit Christians in other cultures, guess what? You're going to find a LOT of differences, cultural differences. The Christians you meet will eat differently, speak differently, and have different artistic and musical tastes. Being different doesn't automatically make them all evil.

The second common thread is ignorance.
Many of the people making these arguments have never listened to Christian rap, and (as shown by some of their arguments) know next to nothing about the rappers themselves. Now, that doesn't make them wrong, and I'm not saying they have to meet the rappers and listen to their music before they can make any arguments against them. I mean, I don't need to engage in cannibalism to know that it's wrong. But I should at least know a thing or two about cannibalism (like that it involves the murder and consumption of human beings), so that I can use biblical principles to refute it (like the commandment not to murder). Most people opposing Christian rap do neither of these things, as is clear by their most popular arguments.

The third common factor is a lack of scripture. I've touched on this a little bit already, but the common arguments against Christian rap contain little to no scriptural support. In light of this, I suppose it makes sense that they have to fall back on ignorance and cultural elitism to condemn Christian rap.
"Now now" you say "just because there's no verse against rap doesn't mean rap is okay! The Bible doesn't specifically mention abortion, and yet, you yourself oppose abortion." and you're right, totally. The Bible doesn't specifically address some of these issues. BUT, we should be able to apply basic biblical principles to these things. The Bible doesn't say abortion is wrong, but it does say that murder is wrong, and abortion involves murder, so I can logically conclude that abortion is sinful. No such Biblical principles can be put in a similar logical progression to show that Christian rap is sinful. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

As this long post comes to a close, I want to make a few things clear.
Rap, Christian or otherwise, is not inherently sinful. That should be clear already. However, we should also be careful about making blanket statements. You can't say that ALL rap is sinful, but in the same way, I can't say that ALL Christian rap is gold. I'm sure you could find some that isn't all that great.
But my purpose in this post is not to say that all Christian Rap is great. Nor am I saying that you should all become fans of Christian rap, or that you're a sinner for not doing so. My goal is to show that the arguments against Christian rap fall apart, and like the cross, rap --though created for evil-- can be effectively used for God's Glory.

I'd like to close with a quote from an article by Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:

"...I have made many of the same arguments [against Christian Rap] myself. In my head. Thankfully not in public. Am I holding back?
No, I allow myself those arguments in my head when I want to absolutize my preferences and satisfy myself in the righteousness and superiority of my own musical taste and theology. The problem for me is that my theology of music will not allow me to stay self-satisfied on the matter, and by God’s grace I have not made arguments out loud that would violate that theology.
Rap music is not my music. I do not come from a culture in which rap music is the medium of communication and I do not have the ear for it that I have for other forms of music. But I do admire its virtuosity and the hold that is has on so many, for whom it is a first and dominant musical language. I want that language taken for the cause of the Gospel and I pray to see a generation of young Gospel-driven rappers take dominion of that music for the glory of God. I see that happening now, and I rejoice in it. I want to see them grow even more in influence, reaching people I cannot reach with music that will reach millions who desperately need the Gospel."

Using the Bible to Defend Life

John Barros (left) and Scott Klusendorf (right)

My stomach churned. It always does in situations like that. The donuts I'd had for breakfast weren't helping. Even though it was early December, the light of the sun was warm on my shoulders. But such is Florida.

I was with a group of other homeschooled Christian teens -- all close friends of mine -- helping pastor John Barros to convince people not to kill their babies at an abortion clinic in Downtown Orlando. John Barros had been doing this about six days a week for years now. He had experience. Me? This was my first time.

John Barros uses an interesting method. He reads and quotes scripture, a lot. It's very normal for Pastor Barros to take a megaphone, turn to the book of Revelation, and preach judgement upon those inside the clinic (he let my friend Jacob do the reading on that day). And it gets results: people walk out of there, convicted of their sin, too scared of hell to follow through with killing their baby.

To be honest, I felt uneasy about this method. However, I bowed to Pastor Barros' authority and experience, and went along with it. I mean, come on: He'd been doing this six days a week for years, and this was my first time. He knows what he's doing, I don't.

But one thing Pastor Barros said really stood out to me. My friend Jacob and I had just failed to convince a Haitian man to let his baby live. What had we done wrong? John Barros old us this:

"You can't reason with them. You just need to keep giving them scriptures."

Several months later, I was at a homsechool convention in Cincinatti, Ohio. Scott Klusendorf, pro-life advocate and president of Life Training Institute, gave several talks on how to engage people on the topic of abortion and present a water-tight case for life.

His approach was totally different from Pastor Barros'.

Mr. Klusendorf's argument for life does not involve ANY scripture verses. Instead, he relies almost exclusively on science and logic to make his case. You can see for yourself on his website.

Mr. Klusendorf's method, like John Barros' method, also gets results. He speaks at schools, churches, and conventions, and also debates leading "pro-choice" advocates. Many people are convinced by his flawless logic.

These two prominent pro-life heroes use completely different methods to combat the same evil. Who uses the correct method?

This blog hasn't seen any lively discussion in a while (the forums have been silent for almost a year), and so I'd like for people to post their opinions in the comments and let me know what they think.

Which man has the better method? Are they both right? Are they both wrong? Should we use scripture only and not try to reason with people, or should we reason with them using science and logic and leave the Bible out of things? What do you think?

In my opinion, I think both men are right, but I think Scott's method is more sound. Why? Well, the Bible has little to no weight with the unbeliever. They couldn't care less what a 2,000 year old book says about how they should live their lives. Trying to use the Bible to convince them abortion is wrong would be a waste of time.

Should we still use the Bible? Yes. And Scott does use it to present the gospel --as we always should when engaging unbelievers-- he simply doesn't use it when making his case for life.

I'm still forming my own opinion on the matter, but I would like to hear yours. What part does the Bible play in making the case for life?

Sola Gratia: Submit Your Objections!

After many Google searches, I was unable to find any objections to the doctrine of Sola Gratia! Apparently, the Catholics affirmed Sola Gratia during the Council of Orange around 530.

So our biggest supplier of anti-Sola arguments, the Catholics, really have nothing to say on the issue. I couldn't find arguments from anyone else, so I'm afraid I have no material for my usual "Common arguments against..." post.

...Unless YOU have an argument against Sola Gratia! If you have a question about, objection to, or argument against Sola Gratia, the doctrine of Grace Alone, then please share it! Otherwise, I'll just move right on to Solus Christus.

Well? Anyone? It doesn't matter whether the objection is one you've heard from someone else or if you believe it yourself, any argument will do! Leave it in the comments and I'll do my best to address it!

Noah vs. Calvin: The Flood, the Ark, and Reformed Theology

Artist's rendition of the replica ark that's being built. Honestly, I liked the boxy one better than this new curvy one.

I had the privilege of visiting the Creation Museum in Cincinnati, Ohio this past Thursday. While at the museum, I was exposed to a lot of information about the Flood, Ark, and Noah. I already knew most of what I read there, but I got to thinking: How does the flood and the ark fit with reformed theology?

Noah's faithfulness in building the Ark to be saved from the flood is often pointed to as a metaphor for Christian salvation, and I think we can all agree that it is a good one. However, different denominations have different views of how salvation works, and as such, they have different ways of applying those views to the flood account.

How does Calvinism (which, BTW, technically isn't a denomination) hold up in comparison? Today I wanted to look at two objections involving the flood which are raised against Reformed Theology, one by Catholics and one by Arminians.

We'll start with the Catholic one first.

Like with Abraham, Catholics like to use Noah's example to try to refute the doctrine of Sola Fide, which we covered recently. Noah had to work to build the ark to be saved, and so the Catholics say that we too must work to be saved. This seems reasonable at first. Noah and his family would not have survived if they hadn't built the ark, and so it seems that their salvation would not have been possible without their works... right?

My position on Noah is the same as my position on Abraham. Noah's faith, like Abraham's, is what saved him, and his works, also like Abraham's, were the evidence of that faith. Indeed, Just like Abraham, Noah is listed in the "faith hall of fame" in Hebrews 11.

"By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith."

Though Noah's works did play an important part, we must remember that his works are not what saved him, and that those works were a result of his faith. This same faithfulness to God was the whole reason God had chosen to save Noah in the first place!

Consider: If Noah had works, but not faith, would he have been saved? Nope. He would've been a goner. But could Noah have been saved if he had faith, but not works? Well, if he didn't obey God and work to build the ark, it would be clear that he didn't have any faith at all. However, Noah was saved because if his faith, which produced works.

Now, let's move on to the Arminian objection.

The Arminians try to make the case that Salvation hinges upon man's "free will" because those who perished in the flood did so because they chose, of their own free will, not to get on the ark. This of course flies in the face of election. The Arminians add that, according to recent evidence, there even would've been extra room for these sinners on the ark! But the question is... How much room? Enough to fit every single living human on the ark? This is the glaring problem with this argument. The ark was not big enough to save every single human being, but was only intended to hold a select number, regardless of any "extra room." If the flood account truly is an example of how salvation works, then the Ark serves to bolster rather than refute the doctrines of Election and especilly Limited Atonement. And as we're about to see, God intended for these ungodly to be destroyed, regardless of their "free will."

Arminians will, as is their custom, quote the 2 Peter verse that says God is "not willing that any should perish" (2 Peter 3:9), to say that God wanted the pre-flood sinners to be saved, but God's will was thwarted by their free will. However, it's clear that this verse does not apply, and for two reasons.
The first is that it contradicts with the flood account in Genesis 6, which says this:

"So the Lord said, 'I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created'" (Verse 7)

"So God said to Noah, 'I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them.'" (Verse 13)

It's clear. God's intention was to judge the wicked for their sins. He didn't say "I'm gonna send a flood, and any humans that don't get on the ark will die." His purpose was to destroy mankind for their sins. Noah was an exception, and God made a provision for him and his family, but the rest of the world had been condemned, like a global version of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The second reason the 2 Peter verse doesn't apply is that "any" doesn't really mean "any," which should be clear in light of the previous point. So what is meant by "any" in the verse? The answer is in the first part of the verse. Let's look at what it says:

"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

The keywords are "promise" and "us." "Us" refers to the elect, to whom this "Promise" is directed at. If you read the whole chapter, you'll see that the promise being referred to is the promise of Christ's second coming, and of the "day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly." (verse 7)

Peter is basically saying that the reason it seems like God is taking long to fulfill the promise of his second coming is because all of the elect haven't been brought in yet, and until they are, He's holding off his destruction because He doesn't want them to be included in it. He's not willing that any of the elect should perish, but the ungodly, on the other hand, He intends to destroy (according to verse 7).

Once again, this strengthens Calvinism rather than weakening it. It's clear in the case of God's first as well as second judgement of the world, that God has condemned mankind because of their sins, and that He chose his elect (in the case of the first judgement, Noah and his family) for salvation.

In conclusion, neither argument puts a dent in the tough, biblical, armor of Reformed theology. Both miss the true meaning of the texts they're based out of, texts which actually support a reformed, Calvinistic view of salvation.

Do you think I did justice to these objections? Do you have anything you would add to any of the arguments made in this post? If so, I'd love it if you left a comment!

Sola Fide: Part 2

Sorry this post is a little late. Today we'll be dealing with common arguments against Sola Fide.

Martin Luther said that Sola Fide was the "doctrine by which the church stands or falls." But can it stand up to the opposing arguments? Let's take a look.

James 2:14-26
James 2 seems to be the go-to passage for Catholics who want to promote Salvation by faith+works. Here's what the passage says in full context:

'What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.'

By this passage alone, it may seem like Salvation is by a combination of faith and works. But you have to understand what James is talking about here. The key verses are 17 and 18:

Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

James is not saying that salvation is a combination of faith and works. He's saying that true faith will produce good works, and that faith that does not produce works is no faith at all. Works are a result of salvation, not the other way around.

Abraham
After James 2, those trying to promote justification by works like to point to Abraham. Abraham is mentioned in the above passage, reproduced below:

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."

This passage refers to Genesis 22, where God commands Abraham to sacrifice his only son, Isaac. Genesis 22:1 says:

"Some time later God tested Abraham."

What was this a test of? When we read the chapter, it becomes clear that it was a test of Abraham's loyalty, his trust, his faith in God. Abraham's works are not what saved him. He had a covenant with God long before God brought along this test, and was already saved by his faith. Abraham's obedience to God was an outward manifestation of hi faith. His faith produced his works, and his works bore evidence of his faith. In Genesis 22 verse 12, God says to Abraham:

"Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

Abraham proved he was faithful to God by his actions. That's what James is talking about when he says "Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?"  

"Now wait a minute" you say. "That sounds like salvation by faith+works." Well, it's not. Do faith and works work together? Absolutely. One without the other, as James tells us, is dead. But do works contribute to our salvation? No. If that were the case, then Christ's death on the cross was not sufficient for salvation, because we must work to earn it. Faith is what saves, works are the natural by-product.

Sola Fide creates false converts who continue in sin
A variation of this argument is also used against Perseverance of the Saints, the doctrine represented by the "P" in TULIP. It basically says that people who believe Sola Fide (or Perseverance of the Saints) take a "once saved, always saved" approach to salvation, thinking that since they're saved by faith, that they don't need to do any good works. They think that they can just say a prayer, maybe get baptized, and then live a sin-filled life doing whatever they want because they're saved by faith. But this is not the case.

As we discussed above, true faith will produce good works. If someone claims to be a Christian but lives a sinful life, then it's clear that they don't have true faith. "You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:17-20). Sola Fide does not produce false converts who continue in sin. People continue in sin because they do not have true faith. If they had true faith, they would produce good works naturally.

Matthew 21

"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." (emphasis added)

Does this mean that we're saved by works and not faith? Not really. Catholics often overlook or leave out the following verses:

"Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’"

Sounds like good works, doesn't it? But what does Jesus say?

"And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’"

This passage does not advocate salvation by works+faith. These people had good works, didn't they? But Jesus says they practice lawlessness. Their works had no faith behind them, and thus, were dead.

There are other verses like this which seem to indicate that works contribute to salvation. But on closer inspection, we find the same thing: Salvation is by faith, and good works are the result. Not the other way around. Hebrews eleven rams this point home quite nicely.

"By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.
By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, “and was not found, because God had taken him”; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

By faith Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed, and she bore a child when she was past the age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised."

This passage lists the many good works done by these Bible heroes, but the repeated phrase is always this: "By faith."

Well, that's what I could find. I recommend that you do your own research on the subject, you're bound to learn some really good stuff. As last time, if you think I didn't do justice to a certain objection, or have heard of another argument that you want to see addressed, leave a comment! I'll see what I can do for you. :)

Stay tuned for the next post, which is on Sola Gratia!

Sola Scriptura: Part Two

Now we come to the second part of our two-part series on Sola Scriptura, as we make our way through the Five Solas of the Reformation. In this post, we will be tackling the most common objections, arguments, and scripture verses used to try to debunk Sola Scriptura. Let's get right to it.

Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible!
We already dealt with this in the last Sola Scriptura post, but I thought it would be good to mention it again. Though Sola Scriptura isn't explicitly mentioned in the Bible, it can be logically inferred from what is taught in the scriptures.

Until the invention of the printing press, the Bible was not readily available for most Christians. How could they possibly have applied Sola Scriptura?
This argument is usually brought up by Catholics, in an attempt to justify tradition. If the Bible isn't available, than tradition is necessary, and Sola Scriptura is impractical at best. But here's the problem: the Bible's authority is not based on it's availability. The Bible is the word of God, and thus, its authority is universal, regardless of its whether or not you have access to it.

If it weren't for the Catholic Church, you wouldn't even have the Bible!
This argument basically says that we Protestants are shooting ourselves in the foot when we challenge the Catholic Church with Sola Scriptura, since the Catholics are the ones who decided upon and compiled the canon of scripture. Essentially, they say we have the Catholics to thank for the Bible, because we wouldn't have it without them. But that's not quite how it is. We don't have the Bible because of the Catholic Church. On the contrary, we have the Bible in spite of the Catholic Church! Let me explain. For a long time, the Catholic Church didn't want the common person to have access to the Bible, but instead wanted them to rely on the Church to get their daily dose of Biblical truth. The Bible was stuck in Latin, and was not translated into other languages until around the time of the reformation. In this way, the Catholic Church maintained a "monopoly" of sorts on scripture and it's meaning, forcing everyone to accept their interpretation of the scriptures, since the common people of the Middle Ages couldn't read (much less read Latin). It wasn't until the reformers came along that the Bible began getting translated into common languages, and even then the Catholics did everything they could to stop it, by persecuting and excommunicating people such as William Tyndale, John Wycliff, and Martin Luther. If we have anyone to thank for the Bible, it's not the Catholics. It's the Reformers and the printing press.

There are thousands of Protestant denominations! How's Sola Scriptura workin' out for ya?
Catholics argue that Sola Scriptura is a dangerous doctrine, and creates disunity between Christians. Most Protestants hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but how many Protestants agree on what the Bible means? Not many, as is evidenced by the many different Protestant denominations which exist throughout the world. Thus, Catholics say that interpretation of the Bible should be left to the Catholic Church authority and none else. Otherwise, we get the divided mess that Protestantism is.
But this argument doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove that Sola Scriptura is wrong or bad, it just proves that mankind is fallible and tainted by sin, as we pointed out in the last post. And for the record, there is division in the Catholic Church as well. This argument only reinforces the fact that there is no human can infallibly interpret the scriptures, and that includes the Pope.

The Bible says we should follow tradition!
Yet another Catholic argument, used in the defense of the traditions that Sola Scriptura attempts to tear down. I Corinthians 11:2 and II Thessalonians 2:15 are some of the verses Catholics cite. However, we must remember, Sola Scriptura is not an argument against all tradition. It is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical, and anti-biblical traditions.The traditions Paul was referring to in those passages were not in disagreement with scripture. Traditions that do disagree with scripture should be discarded, which is the whole point of Sola Scriptura.

Protestants are being hypocritical when they preach Sola Scriptura. They claim to follow the Bible only, but in reality, they follow the teachings of men such as Calvin and Luther!
Not exactly an argument against Sola Scriptura, but still an argument that I thought was worthy of mention, seeing as I'm a Calvinist and hear this a lot. Here's my answer: Men like Calvin and Luther didn't add their own separate teaching to the Bible, the way the Catholic Church has done. They simply interpreted what the Bible says to get their teachings. Whether their interpretations were correct or not is up for debate, since, as I've said, all men are fallible (including Luther and Calvin). So yes, a lot of Protestants follow the teaching of Luther and Calvin, but said teachings are derived from scripture, not added to it, and thus we are not being hypocritical when we claim Sola Scriptura while following said teachings.

Well, that's it. Six of the most common arguments I could find against Sola Scriptura, refuted. However, this is by no meas an extensive or exhaustive list. There are many more, but it would take a much larger post to address them all. If you think I didn't do a good job refuting these objections, or you know of a specific objection that you haven't heard a good rebuttal to, let me know in a comment, and I'll see what I can do!

Thus concludes our brief look at Sola Scriptura. Next up is Sola Fide!

Science Vs. Religion

I've decided that instead of jumping back into my series on the Doctrines of Grace, I'm going to be making a post or two about more general Christian issues and maybe Creationism. You know, to add a little variety, since I've been harping solely on Calvinism for the last ten posts or so. I hate postponing it farther than it already has been, but I figured you guys are kind of getting tired Reformed posts.

Anyway, in this post I'll be tackling a common argument (usually used in defense of the theory of Evolution) that I've seen in a lot of places, primarily online. The topic? Science Vs. Religion.

It's a trap!
The first thing you need to realize when someone starts talking about "Science vs. Religion" is that basically, it's a trap. Don't fall for it. I did in several debates, and it made things a lot harder for me.

So how is it a trap? It's simple. By agreeing to debate "Science Vs. Religion," you basically put yourself in a position where you have to defend all religions, as whole. Which is impossible, and not something a Christian should be doing anyway.

Richard Dawkins takes advantage of this trick in his book The God Delusion.

"... To forestall an inevitable retort to the book, one that would otherwise -- as sure as night follows day -- turn up in a review: 'The God that Dawkins doesn't believe in is a God that I don't believe in either'... I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented"

In essence, you'd have to defend all gods (and the religions built upon them) to reply to Dawkins.
By letting him (or whoever) decree the terms of the debate, you allow yourself to be put in an indefensible position. Unless you're up against an incompetent opponent (which, when I fell for this trap, I was), then you will lose such a debate. The key is to redefine the debate so that you're not defending all religions, but rather, just Christianity.

Faith Vs. Facts
Usually the people pushing this argument will point out that, among other numerous differences, Science is built on facts while Religion is built on (usually blind) faith.

Again, the first thing to do is to redefine the terms of the debate so that you're defending just Christianity. Because in reality, some if not most other religions are built solely on blind faith, with no factual backing... Unlike Christianity.

Christianity is actually built upon lots of facts. Archeology, time and time again, has affirmed the Bible. I won't go over any examples, since you should already know them (though I will probably go over them in future posts, eventually).

Science, on the other hand, relies heavily on faith. Evolution has never been witnessed, all we can do is look at the fossil record and other sources and have faith that all living organisms evolved from a common ancestor. This is the case with all theories: we look at the evidence, and then come to a conclusion based on it. We're not 100% sure that our conclusion is a correct one, but we have faith that it is.

So in reality, Science and Christianity both deal with facts, and both require faith.

So What?
People claiming "Science Vs. Religion" in the Evolution/Creation debate will often do their best to point out all the differences between science and religion. The previous point (faith vs. facts) is a example of this.

But so what if science and religion are different? Math and history are different too, but does that mean we should keep one and do away with the other? Of course not! Both are important. And in the case of science and religion, we can have both.

Now, I'm not saying we should combine science and religion, any more than I think we should combine math and history into one subject. But they should be and are connected, just like math and history. Where would history, with all its important dates and figures, be without math? Similar to how math and history work together, science and religion (should) work together. If scientific evidence points to the existence of a God (which I believe it does), we shouldn't dismiss such evidence as being outside of the realm of science and inside the realm of religion. The two work together, and flow into each other.

In any case, just because science and religion are different, doesn't mean we should discard one of the two. Which brings us to the main problem of the "Science vs. Religion" topic.

Logically Fallacious
Why am I suddenly craving Lucky Charms? Never mind.
The main problem with "Science vs. Religion" is that it's a logical fallacy. Specifically, the "false dilemma" AKA "either-or" fallacy, which fools us into thinking that we have to choose between (usually) two things. When in reality, there may be more options to choose from, including "neither" or "both." And, as mentioned above, my position is that we can have both. In fact, we do have both (or at least, I and many others do).

"Science vs. Religion" is a fallacy. We don't have to choose one or the other: we can have both.

So that's the problem with "Science vs. Religion." It's a tricky argument meant to trap believers, and it's logically unsound to boot.

But that's not the end of the story! All we've done is defended from the attack. You can, if you want to, switch from defensive to offensive mode and turn the tables on your opponent. That's what we'll be doing in the next few points.

Who's the Bad Guy Here?
This first one also comes in handy when going up against the "Religion is violent because the Crusades/Inquisition/HitlerWasAChristian" argument.
Vox Day uses this argument in his book The Irrational Atheist:

"The five major religions of the world…have approximately 4.85 billion adherents, representing an estimated 71.3 percent of the world’s population in 2007, and they have been around for a collective 11,600 years. During the vast majority of those 116 centuries, the world has not been in any danger of extinction from weapons of any kind, nor has the human race been in serious danger of dying out from pollution, global warming, overpopulation, or anything else. Despite 116 centuries filled with hundreds, if not thousands, of diverse religions, all competing for mindshare, resources, and dominance, the species has not merely survived, it has thrived…In the last sixty years, science has provided a veritable witches’ brew of potential dangers to the human race, ranging from atom-shattering explosive devices to lethal genetic modifications, designer diseases, large quantities of radioactive waste…"

In essence: between science and religion, science (if anyone) is the bad guy. However, you need to be careful not to go off the deep end and become anti-science. Science and religion are both amoral. It's when bad people use them for immoral purposes that they become forces for evil ("Religion/Science doesn't kill people; people do!").

Where Would You Be Without Me?
One thing you can point out is that, believe it or not, modern-day science owes its existence to Christianity. Indeed, most of the great founders of science as we know it, such as Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Galileo, and Isaac Newton were Christians! Even Charles Darwin was a practicing Christian (though he later renounced his faith).

But that's not all. Dr. Melvin Calvin, a no-religious scientist and a winner of the Nobel Prize for his explanation of Calvin Cycle "dark reactions," says:

"The fundamental conviction that the universe is ordered is the first and strongest tenet [of science]. As I try to discern the origin of that conviction, I seem to find it in a basic notion discovered 2000 or 3000 years ago, and enunciated first in the Western world by the ancient Hebrews: namely that the universe is governed by a single God, and is not the product of the whims of many gods, each governing his own province according to his own laws. This monotheistic view seems to be the historical foundation of modern science"

As Nuclear Physicist and Creationist Dr. Jay L. Wile puts it:

"...early Christians understood that the world was created by a single God who is a Lawgiver, it made sense to them that the universe should run according to specific laws, and those laws should be the same everywhere in the universe. In addition, because they believed they had been given the image of God, they thought it was possible to understand those laws. That’s what prompted the revolution that produced science as we know it today."

So science owes religion. Big time!


So there you have it. "Science vs. Religion." Well, this post has gone on long enough! If you didn't already, you now have the proper tools to counter the "Science vs. Religion" fallacy.

Just remember: the purpose of a debate like this is not to "win" or to be right. You are not trying to destroy the other person. You are trying to convert them, to "give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15), and to "speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15). They are not our enemy.

Author's note: Jonny has never actually craved lucky Charms in his lifetime. Ever.