-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Shotgun and machine gun hermeneutics
- Thread starter MartyF
- Start date
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
So, basically, if your position s supported by numerous passages of scripture, there must a problem.
Makes no sense to me.
peace to you
Giving a list of verses does not mean those verses support your position. If your position is so strong, you should be able to give a single verse and not resort to the logical fallacy of argument from verbosity.
Last edited:
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
And if a single verse is given you will be dismissed as having taken the single verse out of context.
If you give numerous verses that support your position, you will be dismissed as giving too many.
And so, if you disagree with the doctrines of grace, you have no need to support your position at all, no need to engage the text at all whether it be one or many. Just claim “logical fallacy” and continue on ignoring what has been presented.
thanks for the conversation
peace to you
Which is done on this board constantly.
Then ask, "How is it out of context?"
I don't like it either when a verse or idea is dismissed without explanation or sharing the alternate viewpoint.
There is a difference between using verses to explain your position and just giving a list of verses. For Example:
Jeremiah 3:7
Jeremiah 3:12
Jeremiah 3:19-20
Jeremiah 7:31
Jeremiah 8:19
Jeremiah 13:11
Jeremiah 14:10
Jeremiah 15:1
Jeremiah 15:6
Jeremiah 15:15
Jeremiah 18:7-11
Jeremiah 18:18
Jeremiah 19:5
Jeremiah 26:3
Jeremiah 26:6
Jeremiah 26:13
Jeremiah 26:18-19
Jeremiah 32:30
Jeremiah 32:31
Jeremiah 32:35
Jeremiah 36:3
So these verses prove my position and what I believe. Does this help you? Do you even know what my position is? I'm sure you're going to look up every passage here, right?
Just listing verses is rude because one insists on the other person doing the heavy lifting. It's disrespectful because one denies the possibility that the verses may be interpreted differently. It can be downright hostile if one believes interpretations not closely matching one's own is heretical and evil.
What are you talking about? I just gave you over twenty verses. Once again, you're assuming that people with opinions other than yours do not use the Bible. And there have been times I have engaged each and every verse of a scattershot by a Calvinist and it ends just as the online article says it does:
"Calvinist: Hah! I knew you would be silenced by the logic of my system and the irrefutable evidence of my many Scriptural proofs. To God be the glory!
Me: Well, I’m not really silenced, nor am I convinced …
Calvinist: That’s because you’re a depraved heretic.
Me: Oookaay … I gotta go. See ya later.
Calvinist: I’ll be praying for your soul that you would repent from your darkness and be brought into the light!"
Calvinists have not been ignored. Plenty of people online have discussed every verse which Calvinists have brought up.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
I have never accused anyone of being a “depraved heretic” if they didn’t agree with me. Tell you what, pick a verse, start a thread, and I’ll participate. I promise not to call you names.
peace to you
I don't remember ever witnessing this behavior from you. In fact, I don't remember you ever using a scattershot. In general, I believe you have been more cordial than I have.
I plan on starting something in the Bible study section soon. You are more than welcome to participate or not if you wish or do not wish to do so.
From the article: “...the authors seem to think that if they just quote Scripture, they have proved their point...”
It is not necessarily a Calvin/Armin. characteristic,
The tendency when reading ST texts is to read the statement and skim the numerous verses provided (then nod and agree).
But a through reading and understanding of the supporting verses occasionally shows that the proposition proposed is not as solid as one was left to believe.
Rob
It is not necessarily a Calvin/Armin. characteristic,
...and not necessarily a BaptistBoard problem,
... this same characteristic is often observed in some Systematic Theology texts. 
The tendency when reading ST texts is to read the statement and skim the numerous verses provided (then nod and agree).
But a through reading and understanding of the supporting verses occasionally shows that the proposition proposed is not as solid as one was left to believe.
Rob
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
The comments section sheds even more light than the article on the C-A debate. By author (highlighting added):
No. I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian. I believe that eternal life is a free gift of God to all who believe in Jesus for it, and that works play no part whatsoever in gaining, keeping, or proving eternal life. The whole Calvinism-Arminianism debate uses definitions for words and terms that I do not agree with, and so I am not in the ballpark for either team. I am in a completely different ballpark.
and
I cannot be more specific in a short little comment. My disagreements with the five points of both Calvinism and Arminianism []are not exactly with their theology or understanding of Biblical texts, but with something much more basic than that: their definition of certain biblical words and theological ideas, such as election, grace, salvation, atonement, justification, eternal life, forgiveness of sins, etc, etc. Both Calvinists and Arminians agree on the definitions of these words, and then argue about how they all fit together. I disagree with their definitions of these words, and therefore, their issues with each other are not issues for me.
No. I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian. I believe that eternal life is a free gift of God to all who believe in Jesus for it, and that works play no part whatsoever in gaining, keeping, or proving eternal life. The whole Calvinism-Arminianism debate uses definitions for words and terms that I do not agree with, and so I am not in the ballpark for either team. I am in a completely different ballpark.
and
I cannot be more specific in a short little comment. My disagreements with the five points of both Calvinism and Arminianism []are not exactly with their theology or understanding of Biblical texts, but with something much more basic than that: their definition of certain biblical words and theological ideas, such as election, grace, salvation, atonement, justification, eternal life, forgiveness of sins, etc, etc. Both Calvinists and Arminians agree on the definitions of these words, and then argue about how they all fit together. I disagree with their definitions of these words, and therefore, their issues with each other are not issues for me.
From the article: “...the authors seem to think that if they just quote Scripture, they have proved their point...”
It is not necessarily a Calvin/Armin. characteristic,
...and not necessarily a BaptistBoard problem,
... this same characteristic is often observed in some Systematic Theology texts.
The tendency when reading ST texts is to read the statement and skim the numerous verses provided (then nod and agree).
But a through reading and understanding of the supporting verses occasionally shows that the proposition proposed is not as solid as one was left to believe.
Rob
I do agree that there are times when giving a list of verses is good. Examples include when someone asks for a list of verses. A concordance is an example.
Another example when it is appropriate is when one is in general agreement with what you say or when the verses are added for a person who is in agreement. Examples include, as you mentioned Systematic Texts and and published church beliefs. But in both of these cases the lists are not made as an argument against those outside a particular belief system but rather for those already in the belief system. Once again, much like a concordance.
I don't necessarily agree with how systematic theology is done, but I don't have as much of a problem with listed verses in that instance.
And you are right. This doesn't just occur in Arminianism/Calvinism. In fact this style of debate is also called the Gish Gallop which is a totally different subject. This technique, although not used with verses necessarily, is used by some in arguments over the Sabbath.
There are a lot of people who feel this way. If you look at the pinned post from TCassidy, he recommended particular vs. general instead of Calvinism vs. Arminianism. There are some "pure" Calvinists here, but most just believe in the doctrines of grace. I don't know of a single pure Arminian. The closest and most popular would be Methodists.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
The point is that merely listing or reading lone verses is virtually meaningless in debate because of at least two related reasons:
- Context is ignored, which means meaning is uncertain.
- Usage of words in context determines their immediate meaning.
One may be able to transfer an idea from one passage of Scripture to another, but it is much less certain this will work with individual words.
What one means by "let Scripture interpret Scripture" may lead to illumination or to error.