Victor Reppert: Self-excepting Argument #199

Reppert posted a link to Alan Rhoda's post on "the theologian’s fallacy" (which I will be responding to at a later date). Basically, the theologians fallacy is just a name for "the general practice of appealing to some allegedly absolute authority - whether that be the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, the Mormon's revelation knowledge (i.e., "burning in the bosom"), or what have you - as a "trump card" for defeating rational objections." People who use this kind of reasoning are called, "Trumpers."

Reppert claimed that Rhoda's post was "relevant to some of the discussions [he has] been having here" with the Calvinists.

What is so ironic about this is that it has been Reppert, more than us, who have appealed to the "theologians fallacy" in this debate!

See, he has this "intuition." Nothing trumps it. Reppert is a trumper.

You see, Reppert uses his trump to deny inerrancy: "Inerrancy can't be right if it conflicts with my intuitions about what is good."

Or, Reppert uses his trump to defeat objections even if he holds to inerrancy: "I'll side with Wesley and say, 'If a text conflicts with my intuitions, then I'll just say we don't know what the text means and we may never know until we get to heaven.'"

Or, Reppert uses his trump to defeat an aspect of my theodicy: "Yes, God's plan is infinite, and he does have many reasons for things beyond our understanding, but he just can't have a good reason for reprobation because my intuition tells me so."

Reppert has been "Trumping" us since day one. Every single one of our arguments gets trumped by Reppert’s trump.

He then kicks us when we're down and posts a post about a fallacy that he claims we have been committing in this debate when, in actuality, Reppert's the Trumper.

I was fine to argue strictly from philosophy with Reppert. I even cited a whole host of non-Calvinist philosophers who backed the basic idea of my arguments. I clarified our position so he could attack it properly. I used philosophical arguments from non-Christians. I used philosophical arguments from prominent libertarians. I played Reppert's game. He trumped every single one of my (and Steve's) arguments with his "intuition."

Go to the dictionary and look up "Trumper" and you'll find this picture:

King of Trump