Lesson Goal
I hope to teach how to preach logical sermons.
Lesson Intro
How do we recognize deception? How do we avoid self-deception? How often have we heard fellow Christians say things that seem rather half-baked and irrational? How often have people in the scientific or educational community ridiculed Christians for their inconsistent arguments or vice versa? This sermon topic introduces the idea of teaching right reasoning, common sense, in order to minimize logical fallacies in the church.
I can hear some of you now. "I don't want to become a trial lawyer, nor do I want to look at something from a worldly source. I'm only interested in godly issues." Good for you. However, remember that we must explain these godly issues to people who understand how the world thinks. In an increasingly well-educated world, we don't want to appear to be from the planet Irrelevant. Also, logical thinking is not pagan worldliness. It contains universal principles which are discoverable by converted as well as unconverted people. Let's use the good things of the world to spread the greatest news of all.
Lesson Plan
This chapter teaches some basic introductory principles regarding logic. It helps the preacher to use right techniques of argument and uses examples of some urban legends in the Christian community to show how good or bad arguments produce good or bad teachings.
Lesson Body
Many sermons by otherwise moral and upright preachers are a mix of good and bad forms of argument. Good arguments contain the three elements of being (1) consistent, (2) sound and (3) complete. To be truly consistent none of the theories in our preaching or indeed our theology can conflict. To be completely sound our logic may not allow us to infer something false. To be complete, our preaching needs to all pertinent proofs for any position must be given. Not all of our beliefs, doctrines and teachings will achieve this level of consistency, soundness and completeness, but that ought to be our goal. Our theology at 40 ought to be more mature than our theology at 20. That may involve some changes, anything from minor to revolutionary changes, depending on what kind of Bible college we went to in the first place and how far off-center we were.
It could be said that there are 4 main kinds of argument: inductive, deductive, inferences and analogies. These are further divided into endless lists and varieties of argument. Let's look at a very brief list of areas of good and bad logical construction in the Christian world. These are placed in roughly alphabetical order, and are just a sample of some of the issues to be considered in preparing sermons that are logical: -
Ad Hoc (Improvised, Impromptu)
Ad hoc means that I make up a reason for believing something on the fly. There is no time for research of a logical argument, so I invent something. This is the kind of argument that we often hear fellow Christians use when we are put on the spot and need to give an answer for our beliefs. For example, "Why do you so many Christians raise their hands these days?" Ad hoc answer, "Oh because the high priests in ancient Israel had blood on their hands when they were anointed to office and they raised them up. This pictures the blood of Jesus, and I'm raising my hands symbolically picturing the blood of Jesus on my hands." The problem with this ad hoc argument is that it is based entirely upon fiction. Better to have simply said either I don't know, or that the Bible gives examples of the raising of hands in worship.
Solution: Show that the answer was given off the cuff, without adequate forethought or research.
Post Hoc (False Cause)
C followed B, therefore B caused C. For example, in Acts 2:4 we read that people were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues. Some Christians believe this is a cause-effect relationship, that speaking in tongues is always an outward evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit. However, it does not say that the one caused the other; merely that one followed the other. It does not say that the one follows the other every single time merely that it occurred this time. In fact if we research the words "Spirit filled" or "filled with the Spirit" throughout the Bible we find that vastly different details are given (Exodus 35:31; Luke 1:15; Luke 1:41-42; Luke 1:67-68; Luke 4:1; Acts 4:31; Acts 6:3-5; Acts 7:55; Acts 9:17-20; Acts 11:24; Acts 13:9-10; Acts 13:52; Ephesians 5:18-20).
Rather than B causing C, it may also be the case that both are the results of A, something different again. For example, "Low church attendance is being caused by our preacher's depression." In fact the low attendance and the preacher's depression may be caused by some other problem in the church.
B caused C only slightly, but A was the major cause of C. For example, "The filioque controversy caused the Great Schism of 1054." Actually the Great east-west Schism in the Church was growing for 500 years before the filioque controversy and was not complete for a couple of hundred years afterwards. Papal authority was a greater cause of division.
Solution: Show that the sequence is incidental and that either no cause-effect relationship is proven, only a minor cause-effect relationship, or that both were actually caused by something else.
Ad Hominem (To the Man) ? Bad Use
When personal defects are irrelevant to the argument, attacking the man is wrong. We are all familiar with this kind of bad argument. For instance, it is not logical to say that because Augustine, the Catholic Church, Calvin or Luther had some major sinful behavior that their teaching on a particular issue is likewise wrong. Another example: We are all disgusted by politicians slinging mud. Smearing another person's character may not prove anything about their ability to govern, but the press loves it and the average voter does not think logically. Another example, "He can't be a good Christian preacher because he's an a-millennialist."
Solution: Show that the person's defects or circumstances do not affect the truth.
Ad Hominem (To the Man) ? Good Use
When personal defects are relevant to the argument, attacking the man is allowable. Jesus did this when attacking the Pharisees. For instance, when pointing out that a particular argument is inconsistent with what a person believes, attacking the man is appropriate. For example, Jim argues that he will not condemn what neither Jesus nor the Apostles condemn, but Jim believes that dancing, card playing and make up are wrong. It is a valid argument to attack the claim that Jim holds on the grounds that it is inconsistent with other beliefs he holds. He may be the most wonderful Christian in the region, but his belief system is not consistent. Another example, "You say that you don't believe in the guitars. Yet you believe the Psalms which speak of a ten stringed instrument." Another example, "You say that you don't believe in church tradition, anything that the church has taught since the days of the Apostles. Yet, you believe in the Trinity and the New Testament, both of which were put together about 300 years later."
Solution: Show that the person's belief is built on contradictory ideas, cognitive dissonance.
Ambiguous Term (Equivocation)
Many words that we use have ambiguous meanings. For instance, "I take a gamble every year with the weather and what crops I plant, but I won't invest in the stock market, that's just gambling." This argument uses the word gambling in an inconsistent manner. It equivocates. Another example, "Where there is no vision the people perish, so we need to make big plans, dream big dreams, have big ambitions." This is a common equivocation. The word vision in the verse being misquoted (Proverbs 29:18) actually refers to God's revelation, not lofty plans or thinking big, as wonderful as that may be. If our big dreams are not God's revelation, they are not the vision that the verse is referring to.
Solution: Identify the ambiguous word and how it is falsely used.
Amphiboly (Ambiguous Sentence or Grammar)
A phrase or sentence is structured in an ambiguous manner. Example, "Last week I prayed for the priest in my robes." Another example, "For our church fundraiser, let’s all save soup labels and waste paper."
Solution: Expose the ambiguous words and the two possible meanings.
Appeal to an Authority
We Christians appeal to authorities a lot. It is appropriate to appeal to an authority that is an expert or eye witness. For example, the Apostles were eye witnesses of the Resurrection. However, merely dropping a big name into the discussion, does not, of and by itself prove a particular point. For example, "So and so says that Christians in this country will be persecuted within 20 years."
Solution: Show that the person is unqualified, the quote is out of context, or most experts disagree on the point.
Appeal to an Anonymous Authority
It's hard to refute an anonymous authority, such as rumor or an unnamed expert. The news media use this one all the time, quoting anonymous sources. We have no way of verifying whether or not that source is even relevant or qualified. For example, "Theologians agree that the sons of God who married women were angels." Oh, really? What theologians? Another example, "Psychologists agree that attending a church causes emotional problems." Which psychologists? What churches? Where’s the proof?
Solution: Show that because we don't know the source, we have no way of knowing its trustworthiness.
Appeal to Consequences
A preacher can easily point to bad consequences of holding a particular belief, instead of arguing whether or not the belief stands on its own merits. For example, "You can't believe in evolution, because that means you don't believe the Bible is true" or the other extreme "You can't believe in creation, because that means you believe myths and not facts."
Solution: Show that one proposition does not necessarily follow the other.
Appeal to Force or Threats (ad baculum)
A hearer is told that something bad will happen if they don't obey a certain suggestion. For instance, "If you dance, play cards and wear makeup, you are headed straight for hell." Another example, "You had better give up that glass of wine with Sunday dinner if you want to be a preacher in this church." Another example, "If you don't vote for the Christian party in the election, then Christians will soon be persecuted for their beliefs." Another example, "If you watch the Harry Potter movies you are supporting witchcraft."
Solution: Show how the threat is unrelated to the proposition.
Appeal to Pity or Special Pleading (ad misericordiam)
The hearer is asked to agree with the preacher because they feel sorry for him. For example, "How can you say I'm wrong? I sacrificed ten years of my life for this church." So what! Wrong is wrong! Another example, "I hope you like our plan for the new church building because we have spent many long hours working on it." So what! If it's a good or bad plan, it's a good or bad plan on its own merits.
Solution: Show that the pity has nothing to do with the merits of the situation.
Appeal to Popularity or the Bandwagon Fallacy (ad populum)
The appeal to an idea as popular proves nothing, except the dishonesty of the preacher. For instance, "Everybody knows that grandpa's generation oppressed women." Who is everybody? Another example, "Every mainstream Christian believes in the Trinity." I do, but it's not its popularity that makes it true.
Solution: Show that popularity is not what makes an idea right.
Appeal to Emotion, Lust or Pride
This can be an appeal to prejudice, desire, envy, hatred, fear, pity, pride or other emotions to persuade the hearer. It is similar to the snake's argument in the garden of Eden. Prejudicial terms are sometimes called buzz words. For example, "All educated people know that Moses was an ignorant goat herder who could not read and write." This inserts the prejudice that those who might disagree are not "educated" people. In fact an education about the facts would show the opposite about Moses. For instance, the Black Stele shows writing 300 years older than Moses, and the Ebla tablets revealed literature, legislation and records in the same region a thousand years before Moses. Another example, "Thinking people will reject the idea of an anti abortion law." This prejudices the hearer to stop thinking and blindly believe that those who stand up for the rights of the innocent are somehow unthinking people.
Emotion is not wrong, and an emotional appeal is not wrong if it appeals to us to act in a way we already know is right. We came to the decision about what was right and wrong with cool, calm emotionless logic. Now we need a motivation to act, an e-motion that causes a re-action.
Solution: Point out the prejudicial buzz words and show that they have nothing to do with the facts.
Appeal to Ignorance (ad ignorantiam)
X is not known to be true, therefore X is false. Or, Y is not known to be false, therefore Y is true. This is a special case of the false dichotomy, because it assumes that all propositions are either known to be true or known to be false, which is not the case. There is a third alternative, things which are neither known to be true or false.
Solution: Argue that it may be true or false and that we don't know all the facts.
Appeal to Style over Substance
The manner in which a preacher preaches is believed more than the content of his sermons. This is a very popular lack of logic in churches today. As I was jokingly taught: if you don't have very good content in your preaching, shout louder. For example, "Pastor Fred really knows how to preach and move a crowd. He is a really anointed preacher." Anointed means appointed by God, not necessarily enthusiastic, dramatic or even persuasive. This is bad logic and a popular urban myth.
Solution: While the style may be appealing, or not, it is the content that proves a point.
Begging the Question (petitio principii)
This is also known as circular reasoning or a self-referencing inconsistency. A say B, B says A, so both must be true. A contention is alleged to be true without any evidence outside the contention itself. For instance, "God is true because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it is the Word of God." You and I believe that both of these statements are true, but the reasoning is illogical.
Solution: Prove that either A or B is independently true, regardless of A or B.
Burden of Proof
XYZ is an unproven statement but widely believed. XYZ has not been proven to be false, so XYZ must be true. For example, "Nobody has proven that Jesus did not have a secret marriage and children, so it must be true." This is a bad use of the burden of proof argument, trying and prove something that seems logical but is badly researched, such as that a man like Jesus cold not have lived without having a relationship with a woman. It is in fact not a logical argument. It is an argument from silence.
Solution: If XYZ is generally accepted as true, XYZ has not been proven to be false, and then until it has we can reasonably accept that XYZ is true. For example, "Youth pastor John has a good reputation. His annual police report continues to reveal no misconduct, so we can reasonably accept that our children are safe in his care."
Cause and Effect Oversimplification
This is an oversimplification that X caused Y, when in fact A through X may have caused Y. For example, "The Great Schism was caused by the filioque controversy." This is an oversimplification. It was caused by the filioque controversy, territorial disputes, the ecumenical Patriarchy of Constantinople, the supremacy of the pope, the language divide between Greek and Latin, leavened versus unleavened bread for the Eucharist, novel western liturgies, etc.
Solution: Show that the causes and effects are complex.
Cause and Effect Reversal
This is simply a false or misinformed claim that Y caused X, when in fact X caused Y. For example, "The Catholic Reformation caused the Protestant Reformation." False, it was the other way around.
Solution: Show that the cause and effect are reversed.
Deceptive Emphasis or Deceptive Advertising
A comma is inserted in the wrong place or a phrase is emphasized in the wrong manner, to deceive or give a different meaning. Example, "I say to you today, You will be with me in Paradise," instead of, "I say to you, Today you will be with me in Paradise." This is used by those who teach the soul-sleep doctrine. Another example, "In large print: Our product costs only $99.95 [why not $100?]. In small print: plus tax of $4.95, plus $14.95 shipping and handling." To be fair, honest Christian businessmen tell me that because the consumer is so geared to the deception of $X.99 pricing, the industry is forced to use this method, otherwise consumers will actually go down the street where they perceive that prices are cheaper. It would probably and sadly take legislation to give everyone a level playing field by outlawing this practice.
Solution: Expose the deception.
Does Not Follow (Non Sequitur)
This is the claim that B follows A, when it does not. For instance, "Evangelicalism causes suicide. Suicide is increasing; therefore evangelicalism must be growing in influence." Another example, "Evangelicalism causes suicide. Evangelical churches are shrinking in this area; therefore we should see a corresponding drop in suicide."
Solution: Show that the sequence is fictitious.
Fallacy of the Conjoined Question
This is a dishonest use of the word and. It conjoins two unrelated activities as if they are correlated. For example, "All Christians ought to send their children to a church school and support a Christian's right to raise their children in their own beliefs." This assumes that the two ideas go together. They don't. Another example, "When will evangelicals stop oppressing women?" This assumes that evangelicalism and the oppression of women go together. They do not, but that is a popular prejudice.
Another example is Romans 14. Some, who insist that a Jewish Sabbath day is still to be observed, conjoin the examples of food and days as if Paul were talking only about food-days. Paul was discussing disputes with weak Christians. Some people claim that he was not speaking broadly including that the day of rest was a choice, but only that fast-days were a choice. However, there is nothing in the context to prove this beyond doubt. Paul does not use a phrase similar to fast-days or food-days. Because Paul leaves the word day open, without an adjective, or an antecedent describing it, he leaves the ambiguity open, and it seems logical that food and days are not conjoined as one. The logical conclusion then is that Paul is not writing about fast-days, but that these are two separate examples of the chapter's topic, and that the days being discussed are ANY days that we might set aside to honor God. This makes a Sabbath day, ANY Sabbath day (Including Saturday or Sunday) permissible, but not a legalistic obligation.
Solution: Show that the two conjoined activities are dishonestly or illogically connected.
Fallacy of the Exception
When a circumstance is an exception or accident, a generalization about it cannot be made. A rule does not mean there are no exceptions. For example, "We should never lie. Rahab should not have lied, even to save people's lives." The fallacy here is a belief that all choices are between good and evil, but sometimes in real life we must choose between the lesser of two evils. Another example, "All abortion is wrong, therefore no Christian should ever get an abortion." The fallacy here is in not understanding that on some rare occasions an abortion is a choice between two lives, because either mother or child will die. Conversely, the exception does not prove the rule. For example, "Terminally ill patients are allowed to use a cocaine derivative so everyone ought to be able to use cocaine." No.
Solution: Recognize the difference between an exception and a generalization.
Fallacy of Ignoring the Evidence
Important evidence is deliberately glossed over. For example, "Good works are spoken of many times in the New Testament, but we don't need to do good works." Another example, "Forgiveness is an important Christian concept, a basis of our salvation, but we cannot forgive Bill Clinton."
Solution: Show that we cannot ignore the evidence.
Fallacy of Hiding or Excluding the Evidence
Important evidence is deliberately left out. For example, "Abraham obeyed the Ten Commandments." The fact is that the Ten Commandments were not given until long after Abraham's death. Abraham obeyed God's torah (law, instructions), but nothing indicates that he even knew the Decalogue.
Solution: Show the evidence that has been hidden and how it changes the outcome.
Fallacy of the Package Deal (junctim)
This is a false assumption that certain independent things must go together as a package. For example, "You believe in social justice, so you must believe in the ordination of gays too." Another example, "I just found out that preacher so and so believes that the Exodus and the miracles of Christ were literal. Next he'll be saying that women can't wear pants and men have to have short hair."
Solution: Show that simplistic categorization of people is erroneous.
Fallacy of the Slippery Slope or Thin Edge of the Wedge
An exaggerated if-then scenario is often used to support our fears. For example, "If you dance, before you know it you will be having sex outside of marriage and be heading for the abortion clinic." This slides the slippery slope from dancing to the abortion clinic. It is bad logic. Another example, "If you have one glass of wine in public, you will setting a bad example and contributing to the whole world having drunken orgies." This assumes that the moderate drinker is heading for a drunken orgy. It is bad logic. Another example, "Rock and roll is sex. If you listen to rock and roll, you will begin to think that sex outside of marriage is okay, and before you know it, you will be doing it and have a bad marriage that ends in divorce." This slides the slippery slope from music to divorce. It is bad logic.
Solution: Show that the imagined cause and effect rarely if ever occur.
False Analogy
A is like B. B has a certain property; therefore A has the same property. For example, "The death penalty is state sanctioned murder; therefore the death penalty is wrong." This argument relies upon the false analogy of the death penalty with murder. Another example: "Kidnapping and false imprisonment are wrong; therefore the state may not take a person against their will and put them in jail." This argument relies upon the false analogy of false imprisonment with prison.
Solution: Show how the two things are different, a false analogy, and therefore affects the conclusion in two different ways.
False Dilemma or False Dichotomy
Either A or B. Only A or B exists. Two choices are given when there are really more. For example, "Either we have a pure church or we preach the gospel to sinners. We must preach the gospel to sinners, but we cannot allow sinners in the door." Another example, "Denominational leaders only want to control us and take our money, but independent churches only tend towards heresy and abuse." Another example, "You either believe in creation or evolution." Another example, "You are either a Christian or you are a Catholic." Another example, "Everything is good or evil, black or white." Another example, "If you are not for me, you are against me." Another example, "Everyone is either totally good or totally evil."
The fault with all these arguments is that they all present only two possibilities, a false dichotomy. There may be a myriad of other views in each case.
Solution: Define the two possibilities and show that there are other options.
General to Specific (Deduction, Syllogisms)
All A's are B therefore this A is also B. Example, "We don't want that in our country, that's American." When I hear this kind of bigotry, I usually tell people that they had better pull their phones out of the wall and remove all their electric lights, because those too are American inventions. You don't want something because you have concrete evidence that it is bad, not because of where it comes from.
A syllogism is a conclusion derived from 2 premises. One example of a syllogism is the undistributed middle. All A's are B, all C's are B, therefore all A's are C's. Both A and C have some characteristics of B, but not all characteristics of B. For example, "Pentecostals speak in tongues. Charismatics speak in tongues. Therefore all Charismatics are Pentecostals."
Solution: Show where the generality is wrong, and that the specific has no relation to the general conclusion. In the case of a syllogism, show the weakness of the conclusion.
Hasty Generalization
This occurs when the survey sample is too small to make a conclusion. I remember a famous apologist who went to Australia to preach. His audience was small and those who came to hear him were unresponsive to his presentation. He announced this on his radio show and concluded that God will punish Australians for their lack of enthusiasm for the Gospel. The real problem could have been a whole lot of things, such as his lack of cultural relevance, the lack of advertising, and a whole host of other things. No way could he make a generalization about a whole nation based upon one limited experience.
Solution: Show that the sample is too small for an honest conclusion.
Irrelevant Conclusion
A proves B, but C is claimed. Example: "Support our church camp committee. The Gospel needs to go into the entire world." Another example: "Support our call for women's ordination. Men have caused most of the world's wars."
Solution: Show that the conclusion is dishonestly or illogically connected to the statement.
Reduction to the Absurd (reductio ad absurdum)
If X is true then so is Y. But Y is absurd, therefore X is not true. This is also called taking the argument to its logical conclusion.
Scene 1: For example, imagine that a televangelist promises that if you send him money and a request for healing you will be financially blessed and God will heal you if you only have faith. He gathers all the letters with offerings removed in a big pile on the floor asking God to mightily bless your health and wealth along with thousands of others. He shouts healing and financial blessings over the pile while a choir sings praises and a band plays in the background. He pours olive oil all over the letters and announces healing and that a whole bunch of new millionaires will be created.
Scene 2: The second part of this scenario is the absurd yet logical conclusion if you believe the televangelist to be genuine. People all over the world start experiencing incredible healings and thousands of new millionaires suddenly spring up. As a result, the news media are alerted and investigate the fantastic phenomena. Droves of people are turning to God for healing and wealth. Hospitals close down in cities all over the world as the healing spreads, and millions of poor people become fabulously wealthy.
Solution: Scene 2 is absurd, so scene 1 is not true.
Straw Man
This is attacking B when A is the real argument. Example, "People who want women's ordination just want to water down the doctrines of the church." Another example, "The reason that not many volunteer to be missionaries is that they don't like the inconvenience. There are more important things than convenience."
Solution: Show that B is not the real argument, but that another reason such as A is the real reason.
Unrepresentative Sample
This is the generalization from a small sample that is not typical. For instance, "Our survey of conservative Baptists showed that 50% don't like CCM [contemporary Christian music]. Therefore 50% of Christians don't like CCM."
Solution: Show that the sample is an exception and so has nothing to do with any generalization.
Vague Term
Some expressions are so vague as to be useless. Yet, it may seem impressive on the surface. For instance, "It is often said that Willow Creek and Saddleback are the fastest growing churches in America." What does that mean? Absolutely nothing! The term "fastest growing" is not even defined. Are we talking in terms of raw numbers or percentages? If I use a percentage as a measure then the fastest growing church is the one that started last year with one person and now has ten. Why that's 1,000% growth in a year. And if we use that as our standard, the fastest growing churches in the world are usually the thousands of small and little known churches, not a few mega churches.
Another example, "How many spirit-filled churches are there in town?" What does that mean? Ask people and they may give you various definitions such as tongues-speaking, full of spiritual gifts, a praying church, full of the fruit of the Spirit or just a gracious and loving church. The term "spirit-filled" can be used in a vague, judgmental, haughty manner not the humble manner that we would expect of someone truly filled with the Spirit of God.
Solution: Show how the term is vague and how it can better be used.
Preparation
1. Find an Urban Myth
There are many urban myths among Christians. These legends range from pop culture, amateur theology, and worship legends to common misquoting of the scriptures. They are very often logical fallacies. As you read widely and mix with Christians of all parts of the spectrum, you will come across these doctrinal myths on a regular basis. Choose one that will not split the church, but will be of genuine help in learning how to rightly divide the word of truth. Discover the bad logic in the argument and show how proper logic works to formulate the orthodox doctrine.
2. Search the Commentaries
Check with as large a number of commentaries as possible on the particular scripture you have in mind. Especially seek out those that go into greater depth.
3. Create Points
Use points that fit with your analysis of the logical fallacy, or use the natural points within the text of scripture.
Example Sermon
Title: "Sabbatarianism"
Goal
To encourage resting in God in faith and obedience.
Intro
Jesus was a Jew. He went to synagogue. He rested on the Jewish Sabbath, from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. Does that mean that we also ought to rest on that day? A popular myth among churches that worship on Saturday is that Hebrews 4:9 says that the Jewish Sabbath continues for the Church today.
Plan
We will discuss Hebrews 4 and its use of the words rest and Sabbath. We will see that the Sabbath rest that it talks about is not a day of the week, but our eternal rest. We will see that to claim that this means that Christians must rest on Saturday is equivocation about an ambiguous term, which only the context can clear up.
Body
1. The Context
The context of Hebrews 4 is rest, and begins in the previous chapter. Quoting Psalm 95, the author introduces us to the Hebrews being disqualified to enter their rest because of rebellion. The rest in this context is a rest from Israel's enemies in the promised land. Although the weekly Sabbath rest pictures this, it is not the subject of discussion. Chapter 4 begins to speak of this rest in the promised land in eternal terms, as a promise to a new covenant people of genuine faith. Verse 3 encourages us that it is "we" who have believed enter that rest. The sense here is that we, who are of faith, enjoy some foretaste of eternity in our lives now. That eternal rest has been in existence since the foundation of the world, since God rested when he completed his works.
A people who rested on the last day of the week, did not enter God's rest. This is called "my rest" because God's rest on the seventh day of creation is equated to God's rest in eternity, not to Israel's observance of the Sabbath day. It is obvious that the word rest is being used in a different sense than the day of the week that we rest. Verse 7 indicates that God designates a certain day, not the day of the week to rest, but "Today," the day we hear his voice.
Verse 9 then parallels the structure of verses 5-6. There remains a rest that some must enter. There remains a joyful Sabbath rest to the people of God. Notice that this does not say that THE Sabbath day remains. It does not say that the SEVENTH DAY remains. The context is of our eternal rest. Verses 10-11 explain how that God rested from his work at creation and so we must rest from our human worldly works and enter our Sabbath by believing in the promise as verse 3 says and diligently obeying God as verse 11 says.
2. The Christian Sabbath
The word Sabbath can mean a day of the week, or it can mean our eternal rest with God. It is an equivocation, dishonest logic to say that Hebrews 4:9 means we ought to rest on a day of the week. Some people believe that the Christian Sabbath is Saturday and others believe it is Sunday. What they overlook is that neither Jesus nor the Apostles gave a command to rest on either day. Is it therefore wrong to rest on a day? Of course not. It can be a good tradition. Romans 14 gives us the freedom to choose a day. Sunday is convenient for most of us, unless we need to work to provide for our families. In such cases, there are other days to choose from. Galatians 3-4 warns us against the legalistic observance of the Jewish Sabbath and that principle would apply to treating Sunday in the same manner.
The Christian Sabbath is not a day of the week. We have the freedom in Christ to choose a day for bodily rest, prayer, family, church and spiritual rejuvenation. It is a wonderful principle, but not commanded by Christ, because our real rest as Christians is in eternity. We enter that Sabbath through faith and obedience.
Outro
We have discussed Hebrews 4 and its use of the words rest and Sabbath. We have seen that the Sabbath rest that it talks about is not a day of the week, but our eternal rest. We have also seen that to claim that this means Saturday is equivocation about ambiguous terms, which the context clears up.
So Hebrews 4:9 does not say we ought to rest on a Saturday Sabbath at all. There is no command from Christ or any of his Apostles to rest on any day of the week. The rest and the Sabbath being described here is our eternal rest with God through faith and obedience. So, do we believe God and obey him? If we do, then we who have believed do enter that rest.
Suggested Assignment
Find an urban myth that can easily be analyzed for its errors. Discover the bad logic in the argument and show how it is a fabrication. Then show how proper logic works to formulate the orthodox teaching on that point of doctrine or a proper exegesis of that scripture.
Lesson Outro
Christians sometimes say things that seem rather half-baked and irrational. People in the scientific or educational community sometimes ridicule Christians for their inconsistent arguments. We need to learn right reasoning as Christians. We must explain godly issues to well-educated people who stumble over bad logic and cannot often see the bigger faith picture. Learning to think logically can help us spread the greatest news of all to intellectual people and even strengthen our own faith.
