The "apostolic salvation" logical fallacies

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by npetreley, Mar 30, 2003.

  1. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    I had forgotten the word "bifurcation" and was looking it up when I stumbled on excellent descriptions of the logical fallacies behind the whole "apostles are saved differently than we are" arguments. The argument is based on three logical fallacies.

    First, it starts with the assumption it attempts to prove (circular reasoning).

    Circulus in demonstrando. This fallacy occurs when one assumes as a premise the conclusion which one wishes to reach.

    The Bible never actually says that apostles are saved differently than we are, so the fallacy approaches the text with the assumption and interprets it that way. The Bible never says that apostles are NOT saved differently, either, which is also used as support for the conclusion. Both of these are "argument from ignorance".

    Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance". This fallacy occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it has not been proved true.

    Having established the premise based on logical fallacies, the burden of proof that anything is otherwise is then placed upon the people challenged (calvinists), which is closely associated with argument from ignorance.

    Shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

    When nobody can "disprove" the logical fallacies, victory is claimed, but it is based entirely on fallacies lacking any substance.
     
  2. William C

    William C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nick, a whole post topic just for me? I'm honored. We have come so far from those early days when you said that my posts weren't even worth addressing. :D


    More to come soon. [​IMG]
     
  3. William C

    William C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    First let me clarify something. I believe that everyone who is saved is saved by God's grace which provided Christ's atoning work on the cross. You would like for it to seem like I believe something different than that so as to completely discredit and dismiss my arguments, but it only works in your own mind.

    This perfectly discribes Calvinism. It assumes that the Apostles were appointed, chosen or called to specific tasks in the same way that the rest of mankind is appointed, chosen or called to salvation. The scripture doesn't support this assumption.

    Again it's not so much about the apostles being "saved" differently as much as it is their being effectually appointed to a specific task and the fallacy of Calvinists to apply passages concerning this divine appointing to a soteriology for all mankind.

    Let me give you an example. In Galatians 1:15 Paul is stating his qualifications for apostleship and he says,  "But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me...

    Some might take this text and teach that God sets all believers apart from birth as a matter of soteriology. That is just poor hermeneutics. The very thing that sets Paul apart as being an authority should not be applied to everyone else so as to remove its uniqueness and thus it authority. It would be like the people of Ninevah reading the book of Jonah which tells the story of God's effectual calling upon Jonah to preach to Ninevah and determining that they must also be effectually called to salvation simply because Jonah was effectually called to preach to them.

    God's divine appointing of a messenger doesn't necessitate his divine appointing of those in their audience.

    You mean like when you and Sturgman argued that God also hardened the Gentiles based upon the fact that I could not prove that He didn't? Sturgman acknowledged that he was arguing from silence, you have never been honest enough to do something that objective.

    Hey Arminians, doesn't this stuff sound exactly like what Calvinists have been doing to Arminians for centuries?
    [​IMG]
     
  4. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    .
    More logical fallacies. Equivocation, argument from ignorance, and "you too".

    First you start with circular reasoning. You assume that all instances of being chosen are for tasks, not for salvation and then apply that to the text in order to equivocate on the word "chosen" and stick with the conclusion you got from circular reasoning.

    Then you take the equivocation (the false parallel) and say the calvinist version is not in the Bible. Then you say "you argue from ignorance, too". Which would be true, if you hadn't changed the subject by pivoting on a word that has two or more applications (the equivocation on what it means to be "chosen").

    .
    Same deal. You've changed "chosen for salvation" to "chosen for specific tasks". You say that the effective calling soteriology isn't there for calvinists based on having changed the subject. The calvinist definition of what it means to be effectively called is in scripture, however, as has been demonstrated in other threads. And it is demonstrated directlyf rom scripture, not using arguments from ignorance.

    Circular reasoning and non sequitur. You have concluded that the fact that Paul is different in some respects means he is different with respect to soteriology (non sequitur), and then use that as your basis for understanding the text with respect to soteriology.

    .
    It doesn't necessitate that it is not by divine appointment, either. Once again, you are arguing from ignorance.

    .
    That's equivocation, circular reasoning, arguing from ignorance, AND "you too". First, circular reasoning: You assume that hardening is equivalent to total depravity and then interpret the passages that way, despite the fact that the Bible never equates the two (arguing from ignorance). Then you equivocate on that point (consider them equal when you have not proven they are) and continue to argue from ignorance that they are. To top it all off, you base your defense on "you and sturgeon do it, too" (which is a lie, anyway, since I do not equate hardening with total depravity, so it is false that I do it, too.)

    See? You're all debate fallacies and no substance.

    (edited to clarify the first section)

    [ March 30, 2003, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: npetreley ]
     
  5. William C

    William C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you know how evolutionists and scientists think they have discredited Christianity because they have an explaination of how nature works?

    They can explain how the planets revolve around the sun or how babies are formed in the womb thus removing some of the mystery and thinking that it somehow dismisses Christianity's claims of creation.

    You are attempting to do the same thing. You think that by being able to explain my "debate tactic" that my claims have no value. I call it "label and dismiss." If you can find a name for my "debate tactic" then it somehow in your mind it makes you feel good about not being able to answer it.

    Nick, whatever helps you sleep at night, I understand. If you can't answer my arguments, that's ok, just label me and dismiss it. I'm sure that will help you feel better about you deficient theological stance.

    I just call it MUMBO JUMBO. ;)

    BTW, you never have given me your view of hardening. Hmm, I wonder why? I call that the fallacy of AVOIDANCE :D
     
  6. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I don't think I'm doing this. I know that I'm doing it. I am demonstrating quite clearly that your theology is based entirely on logical fallacies and deceptive debate tactics, and therefore your theology has no substance. Anyone who cares to examine the facts will see that this is exactly the case.

    You have no substantive arguments to answer. You have arguments from ignorance, circular reasoning, non sequiturs, shifting the burden of proof, etc. To "answer" them is to fall for your tricks, which is pointless. It would be like arguing with a snake oil salesman. What's the point?
     
  7. William C

    William C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nick,

    I love you brother, but we are going to just have to agree to disagree.

    If you believe that my future posts are worthy of response, and you can respond in a manner that would be pleasing to our Lord, I will welcome your thoughts. But if you feel that one of my posts is mere trickery I ask that you follow the Matt 18 model and PM me and let me know how you feel I have sought to deceive and I will respond with a PM.

    I do not appreciate you setting me apart from the rest of the Arminians on this board as being a deceptive person who is not really seeking truth just because my arguments are different. There being different doesn't mean they don't have substance, they apparently have enough substance to provoke much discussion and even caused some would be Calvinists to really question this system and other Calvinists to go to the library and study up on some issues they didn't know how to respond to (this has happened on two occasions).

    Dallas, Russell55, Scott and other Calvinists on this board have often engaged me in thoughtful and meaningful debate. None of them, to my knowledge, have have gone to the extreme efforts you have to discredit my arguements with these types of accusations. For the most part they have disagreed with me and attempted to actually deal with the arguments that I present and that is all anyone can ask for. If you can't do that, fine, but please stop these attempts to undermine me and divert the discussion. I am growing tired of it. :(

    Also, speaking of substance, I can point you to a dozen or so responses of my fellow "Arminians" who have agreed or complimented the substance of my arguements. I don't see you ridiculing them by comparing them to "snake oil salesmen" and calling their arguments "from the pit." I wonder why you set me apart? Hmmm. :rolleyes:

    So, Nick you can think whatever you want. And honestly it would not hurt my feelings if you just completely ignored my posts, actually I'd prefer that. I would rather hear from the Calvinists on this board who will deal with the actual arguments instead of resorting to this type of bandering.

    I wish you well. [​IMG]
     
  8. William C

    William C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW, I'd still love to hear your position or even just a defination of what you believe about hardening. I've been asking you that question for 3 months now and still haven't gotten any response.

    Revealing. :rolleyes:
     
  9. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    As revealing as your inability to produce the verse that says we are written into the book of life according to our deeds.
     
  10. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    They are obviously trickery. I've said so here several times. I see no reason to pretend I haven't and go to PM at this point.

    The reason your arguments are different is because they rely entirely on logical fallacies. That's the point. You set yourself apart.

    The ability to provoke a response is not a measurement of substance.

    Your arguments discredit themselves by relying on logical fallacies. I simply point that out.

    Sorry. As long as you rely on logical fallacies, I will point them out.

    Again, you have shown that you can provoke responses from those who agree and disagree. That doesn't say anything about whether or not your points have any substance. If anything, it is often much easier to provoke responses from the opposition with logical fallacies than it is with substance. And anyone can get a cheer from those who agree with your conclusions. Big deal.

    Your arguments are built entirely on a deliberate use of deceptive debate tactics. Theirs aren't.

    I'm sure you would.
     
  11. William C

    William C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    As revealing as your inability to produce the verse that says we are written into the book of life according to our deeds. </font>[/QUOTE]You answer my question and I'll answer yours. I asked my question first.

    As to the rest of your comments I just have to say one thing:

    MUMBO JUMBO. [​IMG]
     
  12. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    More Black Magic...

    Bro. Dallas
     
  13. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's precisely the content of all your arguments, and all you've ever offered since you got here, Mr. Bill. That's my point.
     
  14. William C

    William C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    You know Nick if you would have said that there were a few of my arguments that rely on these so called logical fallacies maybe someone would take you seriously, but when you use words like "entirely" as if I have never made any arguments of substance it just goes to prove your lack of objectiveness and vindictiveness toward me in general.

    All of us use various debate methods. Some of us strive to use proper hermeneutics while others of us resort to personal attack, name calling, retreat, avoidance, and now a general dismissal of all arguments based upon so called deceptive debate tactics.

    If I were a swearing man I would swear to the fact that I have not intended to be deceptive in regard to my arguments and I don't believe that my questions are at all unreasonable. But I'm sure nothing I say could possibly convince you of that.

    Why do you think the doctrine of hardening, which even Calvinistic scholars teach is the process by which someone hearts becomes calloused by living in sin, doesn't have anything to do with the nature of man as related to "total depravity?"

    The fact that your unwilling to deal with these issues only strengthens my conviction that they are correct. You sound just like Arminians that I used to corner when I was a Calvinist.

    "Your just using tricking debate tactics," they would whine. Or they would start with the personal accusations like, "You Calvinists are just arrogant." Or the old bait and switch, "What about this verse, how do you deal with it?" Or the label and dismiss, "That's hyper-calvinism or double predestination and that can't possibly be right." And one of my favorites, "This is deceptive and 'from the pit.'"

    To me you just sound like a cornered cat desperately trying to scratch his way out of the corner he has been backed into. [​IMG]
     
  15. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Alright ... let's get back to the discussion and quit discussing each other ...
     

Share This Page

Loading...