Pages

Thursday, March 13, 2008

The Pied Piperette

PIPERETTE SAID:

“I don't see how Witherington is committing the NTS fallacy. He is responding to someone who is giving a real life example of another person, and rightfully so, he states that it is nearly impossible to say anything about the person's salvation.”

No, he seems to be saying more than that. If a putative apostate returns to the faith, then either he was never truly saved in the first place or else he was never truly an apostate.

That’s a much stronger stance than merely claiming that it’s “nearly impossible to say anything about the person's salvation.”

To the contrary, he appears to be claiming that it is possible to say something quite definite about a person’s salvation; namely:

i) That a true apostate has lost his salvation in the irremedial sense that he can never regain it;

ii) That someone who returns to the faith after leaving the faith never had a salvation to lose.

So Witherington is drawing some lines in the sand. That’s quite different from taking an agnostic position about someone’s state of grace.

Now, perhaps you take him to mean that when he says these are “possible” explanations, he is using that as a disclaimer to indicate that he’s noncommittal on these explanations as the best available explanations.

However, I think the more likely interpretation is this: he is claiming that these two explanations are the only two possible. He’s just not sure which of these two explanations is correct in the case of someone who left the faith and later came back.

He is ruling out other explanations. These are “possible” because other explanations are impossible, given his theological framework.

I think that’s clearly in view when he talks about apostasy as a “soul destroying act.” That’s a very firm statement. So he seems to have very definite views about what is possible or impossible in this situation. The only ambiguity is regarding the which of the two explanations is the best explanation in any given case.

He may not know how they apply at a concrete level, but at an abstract level these two explanations delimit the boundaries of an acceptable explanation. One or the other.

“His response then is keeping to the exegetical basis that he holds to (you can disagree with him if you want on that) in Heb 6 and listing out the possibilities that are applicable to this real life friend that Aleksandra has… I dont see how this is a problem. His theological precommitments are based on his interpretation of Heb 6. An application of one's scriptural/theological understanding to a hypothetical model (which in this case is extended to a friend that is briefly described by "Aleksandra") would be what everyone should be doing...Catholic, Jew, Jehovah Witness, Reformed, Arminian. Agree or disagree with Arminianism, I dont see the problem here.”

i) I’m not sure what you mean by a “hypothetical model.” This is not just a thought-experiment like the proverbial brain-in-the-vat. This is something that actually happens on a fairly regular basis. A man (or woman) is raised in the faith. At some point turns his back on the faith. At a later date, returns to the faith.

ii) More to the point, how do you think your statement avoids the charge of the NTS fallacy? Yes, his answer is conditioned by his theological precommitments. Even if you think they *derive* from his interpretation, rather than *drive* his interpretation, that’s irrelevant to the NTS fallacy.

I take it that Flew’s fallacy is a throwback to the verification principle. Remember his famous parable of the invisible gardener?

“But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?…A fine brash hypothesis may thus be killed by inches, the death by a thousand qualifications…What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or of the existence, of God?”

I view the NTS fallacy as a variant on the verification principle. What real world evidence would ever count against Witherington’s Arminian interpretation?

How don’t see how Witherington’s explanation escapes that charge. The only way to disprove the fallacy is not to deny that it is valid, but to deny that it is sound. To challenge the criterion of falsifiability.

But if an Arminian does so, then so can a Calvinist.

iii)” He is not creating an exception with a different piece of scripture.”

Where did I say he was? Or are you claiming that the Calvinist is creating such an exception?

“It is a different thing to say that one's theology is dictating another piece of scripture somewhere else. If you want to show that, then the parallel would work, but you'd have to find another citation where the same special pleading is found.”

Same issue as above. How do my comments on Witherington depend on my having to find another citation where the same special pleading is present? How does the NTS fallacy hinge on that condition?

“Yeah, but my point was that the parallel doesn't really work.”

Why not? What have you said about Witherington that a Calvinist couldn’t say for himself?

11 comments:

  1. If Peter Pike and I got married I think you could do some satire.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To quote William Wallace in Braveheart: "Well, it's a bit sudden, but all right."

    (And people thought my Avs jersey wouldn't get me any proposals.) :-P

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "So Witherington is drawing some lines in the sand. That’s quite different from taking an agnostic position about someone’s state of grace. Now, perhaps you take him to mean that when he says these are “possible” explanations, he is using that as a disclaimer to indicate that he’s noncommittal on these explanations as the best available explanations."

    Yes this is how I take him. But I think you'd have to read a little more into his intentionality in order to attribute anything else. I wasn't saying he was agnostic in terms of the possibilities of Aleksandra's friend.

    Concerning your "hypothetical model" question. I think you "got it" but dont realize it as you stated: "He may not know how they apply at a concrete level, but at an abstract level these two explanations delimit the boundaries of an acceptable explanation."

    "Even if you think they *derive* from his interpretation, rather than *drive* his interpretation, that’s irrelevant to the NTS fallacy."

    The point wasn't that it was particularly relevant to the NTS fallacy. My point was that his perspective/theology isn't changing his stance in the event of "new evidence" (in this case, Aleksandra's friend). That would be reading into the mental process of Witherington.

    1. Witherington believes A and B concerning Heb 6 and that apostates cannot/will not come back.

    2. Aleksandra's friend stated she stopped believing and then believed again.

    3. Witherington deduces that as far as Hebrews 6 is concerned, the possible truths are A or B (stated in his post) concerning Aleksandra.

    This is not the NTS fallacy. Anyways whatever, I dont agree with Witherington's view anyways.

    Peter, please exegete my previous comment to show that I was proposing. If you can, I will marry you. LOL just kidding.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just to clarify, I think the pivotal point in determining all of this is justifying this portion that you noticed:

    Now, perhaps you take him to mean that when he says these are “possible” explanations, he is using that as a disclaimer to indicate that he’s noncommittal on these explanations as the best available explanations.

    However, I think the more likely interpretation is this...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mr.and Mrs. Pike To Be,

    Where are you planning on registering? :D

    ReplyDelete
  7. We are registered at Dave's Discount Pawn & Loan. If I can get my toaster, the 17" TV, and my brother-in-law's tackle box back (preferably before my bro-in-law finds out about it), it would be worth marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  8. http://www.crateandbarrel.com/family.aspx?c=2019&f=26945

    ReplyDelete
  9. PIPERETTE SAID:

    “Yes this is how I take him. But I think you'd have to read a little more into his intentionality in order to attribute anything else.”

    Did I? Witherington also said: “Our author does seem to believe that one can go too far, past the point of no return and of restoration. This text then cuts both ways, against either a facile notion that forgiveness is always possible no matter how severe the sin in question is, but it equally must count against the ‘eternal security’ sort of argument as well.”

    http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/02/christian-apostasy-and-hebrews-6.html

    “My point was that his perspective/theology isn't changing his stance in the event of ‘new evidence’."

    Which is precisely why he would be susceptible to the NTS fallacy, as defined by Flew. Witherington’s Arminian theology is immune to falsification in light of new evidence. He simply assigns the example of Alexksandra’s friend into a preexisting slot. Experience is not allowed to shape his interpretation.

    “1. Witherington believes A and B concerning Heb 6 and that apostates cannot/will not come back. __2. Aleksandra's friend stated she stopped believing and then believed again. __3. Witherington deduces that as far as Hebrews 6 is concerned, the possible truths are A or B (stated in his post) concerning Aleksandra. __This is not the NTS fallacy.”

    And how is that not the NTS fallacy? If no real world evidence could ever count against his Arminian interpretation of Heb 6, then why wouldn’t that commit the NTS fallacy? And why wouldn’t that be parallel to the charge against Calvinism?

    As I said before, if it’s a fallacy for either, then it’s a fallacy for both.

    The best way to challenge the NTS fallacy is not to challenge its definition or the application of its definition, but to challenge the criterion of falsifiability.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Did I? Witherington also said: “Our author does seem to believe that one can go too far, past the point of no return and of restoration. This text then cuts both ways, against either a facile notion that forgiveness is always possible no matter how severe the sin in question is, but it equally must count against the ‘eternal security’ sort of argument as well.” "

    Again, the whole difference is that Aleksandra's friend is a real life situation in which Witherington is listing possibilities according to his theology. The above quote you cited is concerning the actual verse.

    Piperette

    ReplyDelete
  11. PIPERETTE SAID:

    “Again, the whole difference is that Aleksandra's friend is a real life situation in which Witherington is listing possibilities according to his theology. The above quote you cited is concerning the actual verse.”

    i) How does that exempt Witherington from the NTS fallacy? Isn’t the point of that fallacy that no real life situation would every count against so-and-so’s theory? Hence, his theory in unfalsifiable. Hence, his theory commits the NTS fallacy.

    ii) How does your explanation acquit Witherington while convicting the Reformed interpretation (of Heb 6) of the NTS fallacy? How would a real life situation alter the Reformed reading?

    ReplyDelete