Feedback: Teaching By Example
Bodie Hodge,
M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI
Biblical
Authority Ministries, September 29, 2025 (Donate)
To start off, I
wanted to do something different: to show you how I break down a hostile letter
and how to look at it biblically. Hopefully, this will give you some pointers
as to how to respond to such inquiries in the future, whether in person, email,
or on forums, before we jump into the bulk of the responses.
One of the
first things I do is pray for wisdom and discernment in responding. My prayer
is that each response I do will honor and glorify God. Then I read the letter
and try to discern what the person believes while pointing them to Christ.
Christ work on the Cross and His Subsequent Resurrection is sufficient for salvation; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)
When reading
R.B.’s email (see below, unedited), he is very hostile toward the Bible,
appearing to be a non-Christian. He is likely an atheist (or unaware of being a
variant form of atheist called a “humanist,” who, perhaps inadvertently, sees
humans as the ultimate authority—for instance, on a subject like morality as
opposed to God being the authority).
He has
obviously encountered Christians who were not well versed in apologetics—or he
is basing his claims on common caricatures of creationists from skeptics.
This gives us a
head start as to how to handle the response: use the Word of God, but also show
why we use it. We may also have to
use some philosophy to show that the view the inquirer is using is not well
grounded.
Remember that
each hostile email is an opportunity to share the truth. Here is RB’s letter
exactly as it arrived.
Letter,
Unedited:
i would just like to
comment that the only proof of creationism is the bible. the bible was written
by men. men can lie. man is capable of the most horribly attrocities on the
planet. you ask us not to believe in the word of God, but the word of men who claim
that they are speaking for God. most people pick ad choose what they want to
believe in the bible. if you believe one part of the bible, you have to believe
every single word. you can't take parts word-for-word, and change the rest of
it through your own interpritation. all i hear is that science is all wrong
because it disputes the bible, but the bible itself is the only evidence of any
creationist claims. dinosaur bones were burried by the devil to test our faith.
you can just discredit any scientific evidence by saying "it doesn't say
that in the bible." it doesn't say anything about chemistry in the bible.
does that mean that all chemists are wrong because their explanation is not in
the bible?
R.B., U.S.
Response:
Thanks for the
inquiry. I am responding below with both sincerity and respect.
[Note: I like
to start many letters like this to show the author that I am not trying to be
harsh by any means. It is difficult to read the tone of a letter or email, so
be up front and say (and mean!) that it is written with kindness. Even though
someone may send a hostile email, we should not treat them as an enemy. The
false philosophy and false principalities are the enemy (Ephesians 6:12).
We
need to keep in mind that all Christians were once enemies of God who were
saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 5:10; Ephesians 2:8). God
first loved us, setting the example for us to pass along love and respect for
others created in His image (1 John 4:9; John 15:17). In fact, we are commanded
to use gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15)]; this response will also be done
in a point-by-point style.
i would just like to
comment that the only proof of creationism is the bible. the bible was written
by men.
Of course, the
Bible was written by men, but his
claim here is that God was NOT involved. He has no way of substantiating the
validity of his claim (no God involved in the production of the Bible) except
by blind faith which is arbitrary. For someone to truly make this statement, he
would have to be transcendent and omnipresent.
He would have
to be able to “see” into the spiritual realm and verify that God did not
influence the writers of the Bible many years ago. Such attributes that this
person is inadvertently claiming are attributes of God. So, in essence, R.B. is
claiming to be God, or just repeating what he has heard from others, who claim
to know more than God.
This is a
worldview issue right from the start. One can believe R.B., or any human, is
“god” (i.e., humans seen as the ultimate authority), or one can place his faith
in the true Creator God and His eyewitness account in His Word, seeing Him as
authoritative. One can respond by pointing out that he is claiming to be God
with this statement.
men can lie.
This is true,
but not because R.B. is saying it. It is true because God says it (Romans 3:4).
And R.B. apparently believes that lying is morally wrong. In a response, one
can point out that for R.B. to say this; he is borrowing morality from the
Bible by at least admitting to the concept of moral truth.
But
interestingly, one could ask R.B., “Were you lying when you claimed the Bible
was written merely by men?” What this shows is that, logically, by the writer’s
own standards, he could be lying. Of course, this should be done with
gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15).
man is capable of the most
horribly attrocities on the planet.
Again, this is
true, but not because R.B. said it. In fact, I am glad that he recognizes this,
because it gives us two ways to respond.
1.
Originally, God made the world perfect, and there were no atrocities. But
because of man’s sin, the world is now subject to such things. It serves as a
reminder that we need a Savior from sin and this sin-cursed world.
2.
Many people often try to blame God for such atrocities, yet the reader rightly
recognizes that man is involved. Man’s sin, again, is why such things exist.
Both of these
answers lead into the gospel message.
Another thing
that is useful is to show that R.B. is borrowing Christian morality to argue
against it. Consider the illustration below:
Image in original article
He is borrowing
from the Bible’s morality to say such things are wrong.
you ask us not to believe
in the word of God, but the word of men who claim that they are speaking for
God.
Note the
fallacy here. He is assuming that his statement above (that leads to a human
claiming to be God) is true; hence, he is building on it. We need to point out
the fallacy and then show what this philosophy leads to (the “don’t answer,
answer” strategy from Proverbs 26:4–5). One could say:
I
don’t accept your proposition that God had nothing to do with His Word, but
let’s assume for a moment that you are correct. How do you propose to save
yourself from sin and death if salvation has not come through Jesus Christ?
Also,
why would you be upset with horrible atrocities and lies? By saying lies and
horrible atrocities are wrong, you are borrowing from a biblical worldview. In
a worldview that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible, why are such things
wrong? Such things would be governed by chemical reactions in the brain. Why
would anyone be upset about titanium reacting with boron?
most people pick ad choose
what they want to believe in the bible.
Sadly, this is
true, and it reveals how much humanism has influenced Christians. In essence,
what happens is that people (even Christians) use their own ideas to pick and
choose what they want to believe from the Bible.
So, Christians,
take note of what the real authority is in this situation: a person’s own
ideas, not God’s Word. The real authority to those who “pick and choose” is a
human, not God, i.e., humanism. Sadly, many Christians in today’s culture are
mixing Christianity with humanism (recall Exodus 20:3). As Christians, we
should always use God’s Word as the authority, not our own sinful, fallible
reasoning.
In response to
R.B., one could point out that R.B. is doing the same thing. He is opting to
believe that lying and horrible atrocities are wrong. He is picking and
choosing these things from the Bible to believe, whether he realizes it or not,
yet rejecting the rest—including its authority statements.
if you believe one part of the bible, you have to believe every single
word.
If R.B. really
believed this, then why doesn’t he believe the whole Bible, since he already
borrowed from its morality and concept of truth?
you can't take parts
word-for-word, and change the rest of it through your own interpritation.
Take note of
R.B.’s assumption here. He assumes that the entire Bible is written in the same
literary style. A remedial look at the Bile reveals poetry, metaphors, literal
history, prayers, genealogical data, etc. So, he gives a false assumption and
tries to build on it, so his entire argument breaks down.
The issue is
letting God interpret His own Word (Scripture interprets Scripture). This is
why understanding the context and the complementary nature of Scripture is so
important. It has nothing to do with human interpretation. Many, such as R.B.,
may be assuming “no God,” and therefore that God cannot interpret so people
must. But this is not the case.
Proverbs 8:8–9
and 2 Corinthians 4:2 reveal that the Scriptures are to be taken plainly or
straightforwardly. I like to put this in simple terms: Metaphors are metaphors;
poetry is poetry; literal history is literal history; and so on. So, there
should be no reason for outlandish interpretations, unless one does it of their
own mind (e.g., mixing it with humanism).
all i hear is that science
is all wrong because it disputes the bible,
I wanted to cut
this phrase off here and explain two things. First, science is not all wrong.
It is a methodology that actually confirms the Bible and most fields of science
were developed Bible believers.
And second,
R.B. is confusing the term “science” with secular interpretations of science
and evolution.
but the bible itself is
the only evidence of any creationist claims.
In reality, the
Bible is the foundation for creationists’ claims. But all facts can be used by
creationists as evidence. For example, dinosaurs are often taught as evidence
for evolution and millions of years, but they are used by creationists to teach
that God created them on Day 6 and that the bulk of the dinosaurs died in the
Flood of Noah's day leaving their fossils behind (that is those that were not
on the Ark).
dinosaur bones were
burried by the devil to test our faith.
If this is
intended as a caricature of our position (or a general creationist position),
it’s just a plain straw man argument. As just stated, dinosaurs existed and
their bones were buried in the Flood. Interesting that for someone who is
arguing against the Bible, R.B. seems to adhere to biblical teaching that the
devil exists!
you can just discredit any
scientific evidence by saying “it doesn’t say that in the bible.”
Again, take
note that R.B. is equating interpretations with “scientific evidence.” We do
not dispute dinosaur bones, we dispute the dates given for them, and we have
reasonable doubt for those dates.
Scientific models and interpretations offer great support for the Bible.
However, at the ministry we
like to point out that scientific models can change with new information, but
the Bible is still the inerrant framework within which to interpret scientific
facts.
it doesn’t say anything
about chemistry in the bible.
When there are
absolutes (i.e., “doesn’t say anything”) in a statement, it is good to re-read
it and see if that absolute is true. As a side note, in an atheistic worldview,
in which absolutes do not exist, it is interesting that absolutes are used
quite often!
Regardless, the
Bible does touch on chemistry, but the Bible isn’t a chemistry textbook.
Consider passages about iron, bronze, and copper. To purify such items and mix
alloys requires some chemistry. In fact, materials processing requires
considerable amounts of chemistry. Naturally there are some subjects not
mentioned in Scripture, but that is not a problem. For example, the Bible
doesn't say that using a club (or gun, or rope, etc.) to kill someone is wrong;
it says murder is wrong. The framework is in place.
does that mean that all
chemists are wrong because their explanation is not in the bible?
Note another
absolute (all) that tries to set up that creationists think all chemists are
wrong. Of course, there are creationists who are chemists, and because of God’s
attributes that we know from the Bible (logical, non-contradictory), we know
that chemistry is possible. So, it has little to do with this, even though R.B.
claims that it does.
Now that we
have answered the inquirer, it is good to sum up with the gospel—whether a few
lines or even more in-depth. It is always good to close with some encouraging
words about what to do next and even an invitation to learn more about Jesus
Christ and the Bible. Remember the great commission at the end of Matthew. We
want to see people saved. Perhaps something like:
I can see that
you have a strong moral conscious (lying is wrong, atrocities by man are
horrible, etc.), and this is good, since it comes from the Bible. R.B., I hope
that this response has challenged you to consider the truth of the Bible, which
seems to be your biggest stumbling block. I want to encourage you to study this
further and consider the claims of Christ.
Then perhaps
link to an article or chapter that explains the Gospel to make it a little
easier for them and close with:
With kindness
in Christ,
Bodie Hodge, a
sinner saved by grace.
□
Bodie Hodge,
Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various
churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers
in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding
news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight
Council.
Bodie
launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal
website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken
on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and
universities. He is married with four children.
Originally
at Answers in Genesis; Edited; Republished by permission.
