Discussion Questions

David Bercot says fallacies are “very effective” and can help someone “win over your audience when you don’t have the facts on your side”; what does that imply about human nature and what kinds of persuasion God expects Christians to resist—even when the argument “sounds logical” or “clever”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If fallacies can help someone win even without the facts, what does that say about people and how we get persuaded? What kinds of “clever” or “logical-sounding” arguments does God want Christians to resist?

He contrasts “winning debates” with “looking for truth”; in your experience, where do you see Christian conversations (sermons, apologetics, online arguments) drifting into “trial lawyer/politician” modes, and what heart-motives might be driving that drift? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where have you seen Christian talks (sermons, apologetics, online debates) focus more on winning than on finding the truth? What do you think is going on in people’s hearts when that happens?

Bercot calls heavy dependence on commentaries and other non-primary materials “one of the chief fallacies…particularly in the biblical world”; what would it look like for a church or small group to re-train itself toward primary sources (Scripture text itself, early Christian writings, original contexts), and what might we have to give up to do it? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What would it look like for a church or small group to rely more on the Bible text and early Christian writings instead of mostly commentaries? What comforts or habits might we have to give up to do that?

He notes that fallacy lists online often portray “creationists” or “right-wing Americans” as the ones saying “something stupid,” and says that framing is “in itself…a fallacy”; how does that observation challenge the way you evaluate sources that already agree with your politics or theology? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If a source makes one side look dumb from the start, how should that affect how much you trust it? How does this challenge the way you judge sources that already match your politics or theology?

When Bercot describes being quoted out of context and thinking, “I said that? That doesn’t sound like me,” what does this reveal about how easily “truth” can be distorted without outright lying, and how should that change the way Christians repeat claims about teachers, authors, or entire traditions? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can someone twist the truth just by quoting you out of context, without lying? How should that change the way Christians repeat claims about teachers, authors, or whole traditions?

In his “fallacy of the beard” example, an evangelical ridicules obedience by asking, “How many works do you need…to get saved?”; how does that question subtly reshape the New Testament’s way of speaking about salvation, and why do you think modern evangelical instincts often feel safer with a line you can quantify? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does asking, “How many works do you need to get saved?” change the Bible’s way of talking about salvation? Why do you think many evangelicals feel safer with a clear, countable line?

Bercot says he holds the “biblical belief” that “obedience to Christ is essential” and that “works (meaning obedience) do play a role in our salvation”; how would early Christians—who catechized converts and expected a changed life—likely hear that claim, and what parts of modern “assurance” culture might react most strongly against it? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How do you think early Christians would hear the claim that obedience to Christ is necessary and that works (obedience) matter in salvation? What parts of today’s “assurance” culture might push back the hardest, and why?

He argues that labels like “baptismal regeneration” function like political labels (“racist,” “hate speech”) because they give a “giant head start” and shut down discussion; where have you seen theological labels replace careful exegesis, and what would it take to discuss baptism, salvation, or church tradition without using the shortcuts? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where have you seen labels like “baptismal regeneration” used to shut down careful Bible study? What would help people talk about baptism, salvation, or church tradition without leaning on labels as shortcuts?

In the ad hominem examples (Kent Hovind attacked for taxes/house/degree; James White bringing up Mary and Rome; the Jehovah’s Witness minister calling an ex-member a “jerk”), what do these illustrate about how credibility is weaponized, and what practical commitments could your group make to refuse “character assassination” even when you disagree strongly? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What do these examples show about attacking someone’s reputation instead of dealing with their arguments? What specific rules could your group agree on to avoid character attacks, even in strong disagreements?

Bercot warns that testimonial stories and miracle claims can be persuasive yet logically weak (the prayer answered by a JW knock; wheelchair “healing”; Catholic/Orthodox miracle stories); how should Christians weigh personal experience without becoming cynical, and what standards of discernment would honor God while refusing to treat anecdotes as proof of doctrine? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can Christians take personal stories and miracle claims seriously without treating them as proof of doctrine? What kind of standards could help us test these stories in a way that honors God without becoming cynical?