Yesterday, the Society of Evangelical Arminians (SEA) plugged an article by Jonathan Merritt:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-troubling-trends-in-americas-calvinist-revival/
This is yet another revealing look into Arminian priorities. According to Merritt:
While Calvinist Protestants—including Presbyterians, some Baptists, and the Dutch Reformed—have been a part of the American religious fabric since the beginning, Oppenheimer points to a more vocal and visible strain that has risen to prominence in recent years.
They’ve been called the “young, restless, and reformed” or neo-Calvinists, and they are highly mobilized and increasingly influential.
And why is Merritt alarmed by what he takes to be the increasing influence of highly mobilized neo-Calvinists? I don't think it's hard to connect the dots. On the one hand, some Calvinists are prominent culture warriors. And Merritt views that as a threatening development because he's on the other side of the culture wars. Just recently he was stumping for homosexual marriage. He opposes Christian civil liberties:
And what would motivate Merritt to position himself in that direction? Well, from what I've read (you can Google it yourself), Merritt was a closet homosexual until he was outed. So his political sympathies are unsurprising. He has a social agenda.
But why would SEA be in bed (pardon the pun) with homosexual activists? Why would SEA make itself a tool of the homosexual lobby?
Because, for SEA, opposing Calvinism is the all-important priority, even if that means an informal alliance with homosexual lobbyists.
Merritt cites a "troubling" example of neo-Calvinism:
Sometimes it seems as if Calvinists view themselves as judge, jury, and executioner of the Christian movement at large—determining who is faithful and not, who believes the gospel and who doesn’t, who is in and who is out. (One might call to mind John Piper’s iconic and infamous “Farewell, Rob Bell” tweet.)
Why is SEA siding with Rob Bell, hopeful universalist, proponent of homosexual marriage, and Oprah's spiritual advisor? Because, for SEA, opposing Calvinism is the all-important priority. The enemy (Bell) of my enemy (Piper) is my friend.
Why is SEA endorsing this article? Because anything is better than Calvinism.
UPDATE:
Yesterday, SEA puffed an article by Jonathan Merritt on "troubling trends" in contemporary Calvinism. And why is Merritt troubled by the increasing influence of neo-Calvinists? Because, as I point out, Merritt is a homosexual activist whose social agenda is diametrically opposed to the neo-Calvinists.
I then say:
But why would SEA be in bed (pardon the pun) with homosexual activists? Why would SEA make itself a tool of the homosexual lobby?
Because, for SEA, opposing Calvinism is the all-important priority, even if that means an informal alliance with homosexual lobbyists.
Thereafter, my combox is swarmed by Arminians who respond by saying, We don't care what motivates Merritt. We don't care about his political agenda.
Ironically, that corroborates my original point. Because opposing Calvinism is their all-important priority, it doesn't bother them if SEA is in bed with the homosexual lobby so long as Merritt is attacking Calvinists–even though the real reason he's attacking Calvinists is because he wants to kneecap them to lesson their impact on social policies (e.g. Biblical marital norms).
Like I said in my post, they adopt the philosophy that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And it's striking to see them corroborate my point.
This whole blog post is guilt by association. What? Because X says P at context C, therefore, since X says Q at context C*. therefore P at C is false because of Q at C*? What? Get a grip, Steve. I bet the person who posted the link had no idea of that association. You have to deal with the arguments presented in each respective context. Maybe X's argument P at C is a good one, and his argument Q at C* is a bad one. So what? It has no implications on bearing on each other.
ReplyDeletei) When, just three months ago, Kirsten Powers and Jonathan Merritt were denouncing evangelicals (including prominent Calvinists) for upholding Biblical marital norms, that was widely reported in evangelical circles. Is SEA really unaware of that controversy?
Deleteii) Second, you prove my point. Suppose the Arminian at SEA who posted that link had no idea of the association. That's because, as an Arminian, he didn't even think to take the elementary precaution of doing any background checks on Merritt. He simply seized on this hit-piece because anything slamming Calvinism is good, regardless of the source.
iii) If SEA posted a link to an article by Andrew Sullivan bashing Calvinism, would you defend that as well?
You've accused me of guilt by association, but you haven't demonstrated guilt by association. Go back and make good on your allegation–if you can.
Deletedailyarminian
Delete"I bet the person who posted the link had no idea of that association."
For the same reason Dan Rather didn't bother to investigate whether the memos were forgeries. Due to liberal bias, he assumed the worst about George Bush.
Likewise, news outlets don't bother to investigate reported hate crimes. Due to liberal bias, they just assume the homosexual "victims" must be telling the truth.
SEA's theological bias and polemical agenda disarms it from considering the source.
Everything you said might be true. I don't think it is, but I'll grant you that. How does it address this issue I raised: Just because X says P at context C, and X also says Q at context C*, it does not follow that, therefore, P at C is false. Again, you have to deal with the arguments presented in each respective context. Maybe X's argument P at C is a good one, and his argument Q at C* is a bad one.
DeleteYou have yet to demonstrate that my post committed the guilt by association fallacy, even on your own definition. I'm still waiting for you to make good on your allegation. Quote the relevant sentences in my post that commit the alleged fallacy. Demonstrate how they commit the alleged fallacy. Giving your abstract definition of the fallacy does absolutely nothing to show how that applies to the actual case at hand.
DeleteI thought Calvinists were fans of logic?
ReplyDeleteSo why are you using a clear example of the guilt by association fallacy?
Maybe the next time a Calvinist organization quotes Mark Driscoll we should ask why it is they are endorsing plagiarism? Or the next time a Calvinist uses Warfield we ridicule them as endorsers of evolution? My favourite will be when they use Luther. Now I will get to accuse them of being anti-Semetic!
Back to logic school for you!
I've been critical of Mark Driscoll. By contrast, where did SEA criticize Jonathan Merritt?
DeleteSince I'm not Lutheran, that's not my problem.
I would be quite happy to distance myself from Merritt on that point.
DeleteYou don't have to be Lutheran. All you have to do is EVER cite Luther.
And are you going to tell SEA to publicly distance itself from Merritt?
Delete1. I don't get to tell the SEA what to do.
Delete2. They don't need to "distance" themselves from a person for the reasons already explained. Please look up the guilt by association fallacy.
3. The purpose of the SEA is not to create a specific form of evangelicalism or create a denomination. Their purpose is to encourage the intellectual defense of evangelical Arminianism without getting distracted by many other issues (many of which may well be important).
A typical cop-out by a partisan apologist. The fact that you can't dictate what SEA does hardly prevents you from, say, expressing your concerns to Brian Abasciano.
DeleteTo *say* I'm using a clear example of a fallacy fails to show that I'm doing that. *Talking* about logic doesn't make you logical.
Douglas Walton, probably the foremost expert on informal fallacies, doesn't think all cases of guilt-by-association are fallacious. So, as you'd expect, fans of logic are up-to-date with what the best logicians are teaching. You, on the other hand, employ the broad-brushed approach one finds in introduction to informal fallacies texts. We typically call these courses in "baby logic."
DeleteActually it's in the very nature of informal fallacies that they have exceptions to the rule. Most philosophers would accept that. But what you would need to show is that, in this case, we have an exception to the rule and I notice you don't do that. Saying there are possible exceptions to the rule is not an argument that this is one of them. For that you would need to make a case. I notice you don't do that.
Delete@aremonstrantsramblings
Delete"Actually it's in the very nature of informal fallacies that they have exceptions to the rule. Most philosophers would accept that. But what you would need to show is that, in this case, we have an exception to the rule and I notice you don't do that. Saying there are possible exceptions to the rule is not an argument that this is one of them. For that you would need to make a case. I notice you don't do that."
How is Douglas Walton's not "all cases of guilt-by-association are fallacious" tantamount or otherwise parallel to such guilt-by-association fallacies are "exceptions to the rule"?
Actually, Walton's work shows that it's far more fluid than "exceptions to the rule." Indeed, GBAs are a *subtype* of ad hominems, and this subtype is comprised of multiple subtypes itself. Thus, it's not even clear which particular subtype of GBA you're accusing Steve of committing. According to some subtypes, we clearly don't have a GBA argument in those senses. In other cases, it's (a) still not clear that we even have a genuine GBA argument, but if it is, (b) it's clearly open as to whether the GBA argument was employed fallaciously. For example, when GBAs are employed to show bias or prejudice (which is clearly consistent with what Steve is doing here). This is because GBAs (in many of its forms) can be used fallaciously or not, and this is highly dependent on the context of dialogue, and the intentions of those who employ them (e.g., shifting burden of proof, etc).
DeleteNow, since you're the one making the accusation, one would expect you to do the leg work and demonstrate that, in this case, Steve employed a fallacious GBA argument. This will require, of course, being familiar with several of the relevant mitigating circumstances Walton discusses (in his voluminous work on ad hominem arguments in general). The situation is not as you pretend. It's not as if there's this contextless 'rule' that applies in 99% of the cases (or whatever) and I'm claiming Steve's in the 1%. It's that, as sophisticated exponents of the structure and role, it's going to be highly context sensitive.
Even more than this, work in the new-but-growing field of virtue argumentation has shown that ad hominems serve a purpose in pointing out various intellectual vices, which, of course, fits right in with Steve's main claim in the OP. The associations of certain people can show poor epistemic judgment. Indeed, as the Scriptures say, "Bad company corrupts good character." It is often telling of various character flaws (which can be intellectual, epistemic, and moral) who we choose to rub elbows with. The clear and obvious no-no is when we argue something like: (i) a is a associated with group G, (ii) group G is [insert negative judgment], (iii) therefore, a's argument is false. But clearly this paradigm case of GBA isn't what's going on here.
So, to make your case with the care required, you'd need to address several weighty issues. I see you didn't do that.
I think you are giving Steve's piece too much credit Mr Fletcher. An analysis such as this might be in place had Steve actually laid out a proposal in this kind of depth but he's come nowhere close to that. I just think you are deliberately trying to muddy the waters here by pointing out that there are a good many philosophers (not just Walton) who question whether every case of an ad hominem really constitutes a logical fallacy or whether there might be a valid point being made.
DeleteIf you or Steve think his piece qualifies then you should state exactly how it is exempt from the charge. Until such a time it does not follow that Steve's should be assumed to be one of them.
Steve's 'argument' (if one dare call it that) appears to be:
Enabling those who hold to 'g' is disreputable.
M advocates for 'g'.
M advocated 'c'.
SEA promoted M's case for 'c'.
Therefore,
SEA enabled M's case for 'g'. (SEA are disreputable by consequence.)
(There is, of course, the added accusation that SEA has thereby made itself a "tool" of the gay lobby which is, frankly, just as absurd.)
Now in his book 'Informal Logic' Walton does suggest that there could be a small number of cases which might render a certain form of ad hominem argument to have some sway in that it might tell us something about the internal inconsistencies of the person making the argument. Walton, at least in that book, however never makes any reference to Steve's genre of argument as being legitimate and, in fact, quite a few of the things he says about ad hominems being fallacious appear to apply to Steve. Walton makes it clear that any exceptions here are likely to point to the inconsistency of M's advocating both 'c' and 'g' simultaneously but this does not imply that SEA would be guilty of the inconsistency by merely promoting M's advocacy of 'c'. Neither does it say anything about SEA's view of 'g' that SEA promotes 'c'. And that is the charge you would need to demonstrate in order to justify Steve's ridiculous title to this piece.
I have demonstrated how ridiculous this argument is by the fact that we would not think a Calvinist is advocating anti-Seminitism if they recommended Luther's book 'The Bondage of the Will' as a reliable discussion on the subject of free will. If I inferred that this Calvinist was taking any view on the issue of Jewishness from the fact that he merely recommended me one essay by Luther on a specific subject not related to the other then I would clearly be in the wrong. It would certainly not make that Calvinist a "tool" of the neo-Nazi lobby to recommend that book either. Unless, of course, you are able to demonstrate otherwise?
@aremonstrantsramblings
DeleteA few quick points:
"I think you are giving Steve's piece too much credit Mr Fletcher. An analysis such as this might be in place had Steve actually laid out a proposal in this kind of depth but he's come nowhere close to that."
What does "depth" have anything to do with it? If Steve's point is correct, or if Mr. Fletcher's point about Steve's point is correct, then it stands on its own.
"I just think you are deliberately trying to muddy the waters here by pointing out that there are a good many philosophers (not just Walton) who question whether every case of an ad hominem really constitutes a logical fallacy or whether there might be a valid point being made."
How is referring to an expert on informal fallacies like Walton on the topic "deliberately trying to muddy the waters"?
"If you or Steve think his piece qualifies then you should state exactly how it is exempt from the charge. Until such a time it does not follow that Steve's should be assumed to be one of them."
Given what Mr. Fletcher said, why should one assume guilt-by-associations are "the rule" in the first place? That's something you haven't shown at this point.
"never makes any reference to Steve's genre of argument"
This assumes your characterization of Steve's argument is correct.
aremonstrantsramblings
Delete"I have demonstrated how ridiculous this argument is by the fact that we would not think a Calvinist is advocating anti-Seminitism if they recommended Luther's book 'The Bondage of the Will' as a reliable discussion on the subject of free will."
Luther's Bondage of the Will is unrelated to his anti-Jewish tracts. By contrast, Merritt's attack on neo-Calvinists is clearly related to his homosexual cause. If Arminians wish to turn a blind eye to that connection, that once again illustrates their fanatical, unscrupulous tactics.
Demonstrate the connection then. (Something you should have done in the first place.) ;)
DeleteI've been documenting the connection in response to Skarlet.
DeleteActually, SEA should have been aware of the connection in the first place. But because SEA is predisposed to glom onto anything anti-Calvinistic, it ignored the connection. And as shameless apologists like you keep illustrating, militant Arminians don't care even after the connection is brought to their attention.
"...shameless apologists like you"?
DeleteOh dear Steve. It started out badly for you and now, rather than make a case, you are lowering yourself to name-calling tactics. I'm used to this approach during discussions on the internet but usually it's the New Atheists doing it.
You don't show a "connection" by merely noting that many Calvinists also happen to be anti-gay. That's not enough. I have shown above how your supposed argument functions and I have given good reasons to suppose it to be a clear case of guilt by association. You appear to think there are no Calvinist churches or church organizations out there who are pro-gay! Sorry to tell you this but they're not all Westboro Baptist Church 'Calvinist' you know!
I have found your reactions to be completely superficial and lacking in logic. Given that you are now lowering yourself to name-calling and petty insults I think I would rather get back to having discussions with some of the atheists on the internet who can behave in a superior manner to you.
Thanks anyway.
You never made a case. You gave your own definition of guilt-by-association, but you never attempted to apply that abstraction to the specifics of my post. I invited you to quote the sentences in my post which, according to your definition, constitute the guilt-by-association fallacy. You balked at the challenge.
DeleteInstead, you keep running interference for Jonathan Merritt. It's more important to you to support SEA, no matter what, than to oppose Jonathan Merritt. You keep tipping your hand.
I didn't merely "merely noting that many Calvinists also happen to be anti-gay." Rather, I documented that a homosexual activist (Merritt) is targeting Calvinists because they are influential culture warriors. So you misrepresent the argument. You're just another Arminian demagogue.
BTW, do you also dismiss the letter of Jude for "name-calling tactics"?
I'll make two points:
Delete1. I don't view Steve's 'argument' to take that form. I think you're placing too much weight on the (rhetorical and polemical) title. Rather, I view his post not as an argument so much as offering an explanation of data.
One problem you have here is that his post is one piece in a long chain of similar posts. Steve frequently documents SEA linking to (in approving ways and without any caveat lector) pieces that (a) are anti-calvinist and (b) either contain – or are written by someone who takes a stand on – e.g., (i) some denial of some classically Christian doctrinal matter, (ii) some denial of a doctrinal position SEA and Calvinists ostensibly share, or (iii) something at odds with some common ethical norm or (iv) at odds with an ethical norm SEA and Calvinists ostensibly share.
So, this is data. It is facts in evidence. You even agree with this in principle. Now, what explains the data? Well, a full explanation is probably complex, but at least one (part of) explanation is this:
E = SEA links to these pieces that instance (a+b(i-iv)) because what matters more to them than the violations in b(i-iv) are that the pieces instance (a). SEA could criticize, or at least provide a caveat lector for, b(i-iv). Or, they could not post the pieces at all. By posting the pieces, at appears that SEA cares more about the doing damage to Calvinism than damage to those positions instanced by b(i-iv).
So, I view Steve as offering an explanation of data. As such, I don't even see this as an instance of any classical GBA, much less a problematic one. What I take any negative imputation by Steve to SEA via their linkages might be to call in question certain motives or priorities. That is, the documented history of these repeated links to pieces instancing b(i-iv) by SEA sans any links to articles critiquing those positions, or even a customary warning distancing oneself from views the SEA ostensibly disagrees with (or, at least, we think a majority of SEA's readers disagree with those views), appear to show that those issues take a back seat to the (alleged) problems with Calvinism.
My second point:
Delete2. The attempted defeater by you of me vis-a-vis the links to something Luther wrote is simply otiose. Here's why such an argument you mention would be out-of-place: Luther lived very long ago. We know people from far off times and in far off cultures often believed weird, absurd, mistaken, etc., propositions. Moreover, we don't have those people here to question them and find out exactly what they meant, why they believed what they claimed to believe, and whether we have perhaps misinterpreted them. We agree as moderns, who know future generations will read our works containing some ethical or scientific etc., faux pas, to put these things to the side. Indeed, virtually every historical figure, say, pre 1600 (for convenience sake) held some whacky belief or other. If we had to distance ourselves from every stupid, wrong, immoral, position held by every divine, philosopher, etc., it would be a tedious work. So, if I quote an argument by Luther, it is agreed that we don't need to explain where, how, and why we disagree with them so as to avoid any hint that we agree with any of their dubious views.
So, I simply find your Luther argument to be otiose. Here's the better and more apt comparison you should have made:
Suppose that on a regular basis Steve linked to critiques of Arminianism by Fred Phelps. Suppose that Steve repeatedly linked to hit pieces on Arminianism written by, say, some convicted child molester. Suppose that Steve often, and without any distancing or qualification, linked to criticisms of Arminians written by someone who held to some heretical doctrine. In this case, I suspect that you, and people over at the SEA, would write a similar piece:
"Steve Hays appears to get into bed with anyone, no matter their moral or theological failings, just so long as they criticize Arminianism."
This (a) would happen and (b) would not be viewed as problematic, but would seem to be a fairly obvious, even if defeasible, observation to make.
Funny how Arminian commenters are emulating the behavior that Roger Olson imputes to neo-Calvinists. To paraphrase Olson: "Arminians are a tribe, and they’ve closed ranks. Somehow they’ve formed a mentality that they have to support each other because they are a minority on a crusade. Any criticism hurts the cause."
ReplyDeleteWhich is exactly how Arminians are responding to my post.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI'm sorry to disappoint, Steve, but I see constructive criticism among Arminians regularly. In no sense would it be accurate to say that any criticism hurts the cause. In fact, without accountability, without a band of brothers (so to speak) to help one with blind spots and such, any group sets itself up for disaster.
DeleteThe reason that Arminians are responding to your post with disagreement is that it's just silly to be criticized for things that aren't really happening.
For example, you say that SEA has adopted the philosophy that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Not true at all. If that were the case, we could happily be citing Pelegius, because he was opposed to Calvinism as well. The fact that we don't stems from our habit of only posting from people we agree with on the specific topic.
Secondly, you claim that SEA is enabling homosexuals and is a tool for the gay-agenda peoples. Your proof is that SEA agrees with 1 gay agenda person on a completely separate topic. For example, suppose that I quote Thomas Jefferson about government, then you might accuse me of supporting Deism. Or suppose that a murderer tells me that 2 and 2 is 4 - you would expect me to disagree or not to repeat it, lest I be "enabling" murder.
You write, "Because opposing Calvinism is their all-important priority, it doesn't bother them if SEA is in bed with the homosexual lobby so long as Merritt is attacking Calvinists." No, it's because we only post things that we agree with (and we do not imply agreement about things left unposted), that it doesn't bother us to quote an agreeable quote even if we disagree about other things.
I mean, think about it, what if you ONLY quoted people who agree with you 100%, Steve?
i) The fact that you and every other Arminian commenter defends the SEA plug confirms the lack of self-policing within your movement mentality.
Deleteii) Merritt's article is hardly on a "completely separate topic." Why is he concerned with the "increasing influence" of neo-Calvinists? "Influential" in what respect?
Skarlet, part of being a good reader is to be attentive to the context, subtext, and intertext as well as the text. That's basic hermeneutics.
For point i) I don't understand what you are getting at. How would the involvements of commenters disprove the presence of constructive criticism between members, or prove that we've formed a mentality that any criticism hurts the cause?
DeleteFor point ii) I do see what you are getting at. There is the question of "why" one should believe something, which is facts. Then there is the question of "why" one wants to believe something, which is bias. I see nothing wrong with a person believing something with good reason, even if for a wrong motive. For example - suppose Bob wants 55 and 45 to equal 100 because he wants to kill 100 people (wrong motive), but his proofs for 55 and 45 equaling 100 are mathematically sound. I wouldn't throw out the mathematic proof simply because his motives are wrong.
And yes, I am all for paying attentive to the context, subtext, and intertext. :) We agree on that.
Public solidarity v. private criticism?
DeleteSkarlet
Delete"I see nothing wrong with a person believing something with good reason, even if for a wrong motive."
What's the relevance of that observation to what I actually said in my post?
I'm not sure what your question "Public solidarity v. private criticism?" is supposed to communicate in answer to my first question. You made the claim that our choices to comment here somehow "confirms" a lack of constructive criticism. But how so? That seems like a non-sequitur.
Delete"What's the relevance of that observation to what I actually said in my post?"
You asked, "Why is he concerned with the 'increasing influence' of neo-Calvinists?" Now, when I answered that "I see nothing wrong with a person believing something with good reason, even if for a wrong motive," it means that his motivations for concern are not important to whether his actual position and arguments make sense.
Skarlet:
Delete"I'm not sure what your question 'Public solidarity v. private criticism?' is supposed to communicate in answer to my first question."
Every Arminian commenter on this thread is closing ranks in defense of SEA's scurrilous endorsement of Merritt's article.
"You asked, "Why is he concerned with the 'increasing influence' of neo-Calvinists?" Now, when I answered that "I see nothing wrong with a person believing something with good reason, even if for a wrong motive," it means that his motivations for concern are not important to whether his actual position and arguments make sense."
i) I was responding to your assertion that his article is on a "completely separate topic." To the contrary, his concern about the growing influence of neo-Calvinists is hardly separate from his political agenda. Take his dispute with Albert Mohler and SBTS on homosexual marriage:
http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2014/04/22/god-gays-conversation-albert-mohler-matthew-vines/
Is it just coincidental that Mohler is a prominent Calvinist culture warrior? Is it just coincidental that SBTS is the flagship of Reformed Baptist seminaries? Is it just coincidental that he also targets Calvinist culture warriors at TGC? One has to have a pretty thick woolen blindfold not to see the pattern.
ii) Quote where in my post I suggested that Merritt has good reason for what he believes about neo-Calvinists even if for a wrong motive? I haven't conceded that.
iii) But suppose, for the sake of argument, that he has good reason for what he believes, despite his motives. Does that excuse SEA for endorsing his article? Let's take a comparison. Suppose David Duke is running for national office. In campaign speeches, Duke claims that blacks commit murder at disproportionate rates (compared to other ethnic/racial groups). Duke has good reason to believe that, because it's true.
Yet it would be wrong for someone to approvingly quote Duke's campaign speech about black criminality. If you wish to make a point about black crime rates, you should quote a reputable source. Not a demagogue.
iv) Furthermore, suppose Duke was leading in the polls. That would be all the more reason not to favorable cite him as a source. Do you really want to aid his effort?
By the same token, although homosexuals are losing the argument, they are winning the war through coercive tactics. Should SEA be aiding a stealth homosexual activist? Even if that was not SEA's intent, that's the effect. And the fact that Arminian commenters are so cavalierly indifferent to the effect betrays their myopic priorities.
Here's another example of Merritt's agenda:
Deletehttp://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2014/05/21/jennifer-knapp-writes-book-faith-sexuality-fall-grace/
It's not even a hidden agenda.
Correction Steve:
ReplyDeleteWhat both Arminians commented on was the violation of logic being employed in the article.
And now you are doing the same. You are making an ad hominem attack on my motivations for posting. As if defending a group discredits someone? Sorry - who made that a fallacy? So when Christians defend Christianity are they also behaving like a tribe with closed ranks? Does their support for each other somehow undermine their arguments? ;)
In fact - neither of us even remotely said that "any criticism" which hurts our cause deserves to be uncritically criticized but what we said was that if you're going to criticize Arminianism (or the SEA) it's probably best not to employ logical fallacies when doing so.
Many thanks.
To the contrary, I'm applying Olson's standard to Arminians, in the very article which SEA endorsed. So are you going to disown what Olson said in that article?
DeleteDo you think Olson was making an ad hominem attack on the motivations of Calvinists in the article which SEA touted?
DeleteTGC have written articles endorsing some of the theology of Martin Luther.
ReplyDeleteMartin Luther was an anti-Semite.
Therefore TGC are "enabling" anti-Semitism.
Do you not see the obvious problem yet???
A glaring problem with your comparison is that SEA didn't include a disclaimer about Jonathan Merritt's ideological agenda. So your attempted argument from analogy fails.
DeleteTGC has publicly distanced itself from Luther's antisemitism. Where's the parallel disclaimer in the SEA post?
I beg you, for the love of logic, to please look up the guilt by association fallacy.
DeleteThe point is that by showing your agreement with a person on one issue is not to endorse their views on everything! No reasonable person makes the assumption that if you cite a person on one particular issue in support of your contention that you are agreeing with everything else they have ever said. Do you really think that for every theologian you have ever cited you have also listed a complete and exhaustive compendium of all their beliefs you disagree with them on? To do that would take an eternity. You'd never get anything written!
I've seen Calvinists cite Barth and make no comment whatsoever to his neo-orthodoxy. Do I thereby assume they are accepting neo-orthodoxy? Of course not. The reason is because when you cite a person in support of issue p you are obviously not inferring that you agree with their views on x, y, and z as well.
Its one thing to use a logical fallacy but then to have it pointed out to you and still attempt to defend it? If you cannot be reasonable then there's no point in trying to reason with you. I would rather not waste my time thanks all the same.
So you can't actually demonstrate that I committed the guilt by association fallacy. All you can do is to repeat your tendentious assertion, minus a supporting argument. Thanks for the tactic admission that your allegation is indefensible. You're just another ethically-challenged Arminian apologist.
DeleteSteve, aremonstrantsramblings has given you a very clear explanation of the logical fallacy, and you respond ad hominem. To repeat what he's saying: you are saying that SEA endorses homosexuality because they link to an article on a separate subject by someone who endorses homosexuality. That's like saying someone endorses arianism because they write approvingly of the law of gravity and Newton was an arian. What's your syllogism?
DeleteDemonstrate how I said SEA endorses homosexuality.
Delete“Further, Augustine is so much at one with me that, if I wished to write a confession of my faith, it would abundantly satisfy me to quote wholesale from his writings. But, not to be too prolix on the present occasion, I shall be content with three or four passages by which it will be established that not even in a single point does he differ from me. From the whole course of the work, it could be established even more fully how solidly he agrees with me in every particular.” (John Calvin - Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.63)
ReplyDeleteWell, It seems that you don't realize whom their master is associated with. Augustine taught the veneration of Mary, the intercession of saints, the worship of relics, the doctrine of the Catholic doctrine of justification ("make righteous"), purgatory and baptismal regeneration, apostolic succession, that sex was sinful if it were not for reproduction, that salvation was only through the Catholic Church, that the Christian faith could be forced upon unbelievers, and find that the best method of interpretation was allegorical and many other heresies. Not to mention that his theology was influenced by Neoplatonism, agnosticism and Manichaeism where he learnt how to argue in favor of his determinism. Will Calvin be guilt by association too?
It's revealing to see Arminian groupthink at full tilt. So many mechanical accusations of guilt by association with no attempt to demonstrate the allegation.
DeleteMoreover, Calvin is very discriminating in his use of Augustine. By contrast, the SEA plug contained no disclaimers.
But thanks for once again confirming the tribal Arminian mindset. Ironically, Arminian commenters keep illustrating what Olson accused Calvinists of doing: "They’ve closed ranks. Somehow they’ve formed a mentality that they have to support each other because they are a minority on a crusade. Any criticism hurts the cause."
<<<"But why would SEA be in bed (pardon the pun) with homosexual activists?">>>
ReplyDeleteYour use of the plural case shows a dark, deceitful mind.
It was a single article by a single person entirely devoted to the negatives of Calvinism.
<<<"Why would SEA make itself a tool of the homosexual lobby?">>>
One outed homosexual writing an article singularly devoted to the negatives of Calvinism is not "the homosexual lobby." (Back to dark, deceitful mind....)
<<<"Because, for SEA, opposing Calvinism is the all-important priority, even if that means an informal alliance with homosexual lobbyists.">>>
The SEA website is devoted to understanding the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. The article that troubles you so deeply is singularly devoted to that idea. There's no mention of homosexuality, the homosexual agenda or gay marriage. What alliance? Every idle word will be accounted for.
i) It's always revealing to seen Arminian love on display ("dark and deceitful mind").
Deleteii) If you don't think Merritt's contribution is part of a concerted strategy on the part of homosexual activists, you are hopelessly naive.
iii) I'm not troubled by the article. I'm struck by the fact that Arminians aren't troubled by abetting the homosexual lobby. Which repeatedly confirms my initial point about Arminian priorities. Arminians are the ones who ought to be bothered by SEA's tactics. But instead they defend SEA's amoral tactics.
iv) You have blinders on if you think his attempt to discredit Reformed culture warriors isn't subservient to his political agenda.
I wonder if the leadership of the SEA or any of the Arminians on this thread consider Merritt to be an "Evangelical Arminian"?
ReplyDeleteCan't keep up with all the comments here; but; I have wondered about Jonathan Merritt (and Kirsten Powers also) in their statements about homosexuality and "gay marriage", etc. - they seem to be very criticial of conservative politics and those of us who believe that "same sex marriage" is wrong and homosexuality is sin; but they don't seem to be clear in exactly what they are saying - are they saying that people who have same sex attractions can be Christian and "get married" - like Rachel Held Evans and Justin Lee and Matthew Vines ?
ReplyDelete