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
"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."
ReplyDeleteHi Steve, I need a little help in distinguishing between this so-called "Theologian's Fallacy" and the basic epistemology of a presupp approach.
My understanding, flawed that it may be, is that everyone appeals to a final and ultimate authority. This final and ultimate authority may be themselves, be it their intellect, their feelings, their emotions, their experiences, or a combination thereof; or the final and ultimate authority may be Science (giving rise to scientism); or a Church like the Roman Catholic Church; or a Holy Book like the Bible.
And if anyone says that their intellect, emotions, experiences, or feelings determine which final ultimate authority to select from on any given particular issue, then it's their intellect, emotions, experiences, feelings, and intuition that's really the final ultimate authority. I.e., their locus of authority is within themselves. Let's be intellectually honest!
In contrast, to the degree that I'm not sinning, I take a reform presupp approach to the issue of epistemology and theology and the issue of following Christ as Lord, Master, and Savior, and my final and ultimate Authority is the Word of God, both Living and Written, the Living Word and the Written Word having harmonious and in-sync integrity. My locus of authority is external and outside of myself.
So my question is whether what I've just described falls within the domain and definition of the "theologian's fallacy"?
If so, I guess I have to plead guilty.
The problem isn't with having an external source of authority. It's hiding behind that authority instead of actually engaging with a rational objection.
ReplyDeleteI'm not Steve, but as I said I will be posting a longer post on Rhoda's post. I'll hoefully have something up by early next week.
ReplyDeleteI think Rhoda begs the question and attacks a straw man.
Steve already posted on it:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/rhodas-trump-card.html
Kaffinator said...
ReplyDeleteThe problem isn't with having an external source of authority. It's hiding behind that authority instead of actually engaging with a rational objection.
5/22/2008 11:48 AM
Whatever it is, Reppert's been doing it, as I demonstrate.
Exactly, Paul. Godspeed on your response to Rhoda.
ReplyDeleteDanka. :-)
ReplyDeleteThanks Paul for the link to Steve's prior post on Rhoda's trump card. It's quite good.
ReplyDeleteKaffinator: "The problem isn't with having an external source of authority. It's hiding behind that authority instead of actually engaging with a rational objection."
Well, some objections are rational and some are irrational.
Let's assume that the objection is rational. What does the accusation of "hiding behind that authority" look like in contrast with actually engaging the rational objection?
Lastly, if one holds to a final, ultimate authority, let's assume that this final, ultimate authority is also held to be SUPER-RATIONAL. Then, if a rational objection occurs, it is handled and met by a SUPER-RATIONAL final, ultimate authority.
I think the key lies in establishing first the merits and truths of the Final Authority that's being ascribed to. Then bring on the specific rational objection.
Kaffinator said:
ReplyDelete"The problem isn't with having an external source of authority. It's hiding behind that authority instead of actually engaging with a rational objection."
Yes, that can be a valid criticism. However, Rhoda vastly overplayed his hand.
I agree, Steve. To say “because the Bible says so” in an outward-facing apologetic is not fallacious. It’s merely unconvincing.
ReplyDeleteTUAD, a rational objection to the Christian worldview will assert some kind of internal contradiction. As a response, hiding sounds like “because the Bible says so”. Engaging sounds like, “there is no contradiction if you consider X, Y, and Z.” In other words, “engaging” is what the T-blog guys do pretty much continuously—that is, when they’re not merrily lambasting irrational objections.
Kaffinator: "TUAD, a rational objection to the Christian worldview will assert some kind of internal contradiction. As a response, hiding sounds like “because the Bible says so”."
ReplyDeleteI hear ya' Kaffinator. But as a real-life aside, I teach little kids to hide with this popular children's song:
Jesus loves me! this I know,
For the Bible tells me so.
Little ones to Him belong;
they are weak but He is strong.
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
The Bible tells me so.
I always thought that song needed more of an apologetic bent to it.
ReplyDeleteJesus loves me! This I know,
From Him all our blessings flow
Even though I’m in my youth
I know He’s my life and truth.
When a Reppert comes my way
God will tell me what to say
His word never contradicts
I’ll proclaim what He depicts.
-refrain-
I'm going to be billing Kaffinator for the cleaning expenses of my keyboard and my computer monitor. I shouldn't read his songs while drinking Pepsi.
ReplyDelete