As Francis Chan releases his antidote to Rob Bell's controversial best seller it seems that some have been drawn in by the humble and conciliatory style of his promotional video. Don't be fooled by the tone however this is a fine example of sophistry.
He employs the sophists skills of presenting an argument that is hard to disagree with only to deliver a conclusion that is not really connected with his original thrust. It goes like this:
1. It's good to study
2. Study is a humbling process
3. This is a very important subject
4. Some people have spoken about it with a lack of care
5. God's ways are not our ways
6. We need to be careful
All the way through these points his hearers nod in agreement - what is there to disagree with.
He then goes on to present a Calvinistic understanding of the subject as if this is the only way in which we can be true to his previous points.
It is sophistry because you can agree with his first points and still come to a different theological view point.
His humble style is appealing but not necessarily affirmation that he is right. Yet it is this style and his initial points that make people think that his conclusion must be correct not the veracity of his conclusion.
I look forward to reading the book for more humble calvinistic insights.