tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post115771616438938948..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Of straw men and slippery slopes (part one of two)Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-18324475427126833952009-07-08T19:05:28.439-07:002009-07-08T19:05:28.439-07:00Enjoyed the post from a different perspective beca...Enjoyed the post from a different perspective because there was just a big argument in our congregations regarding which people we should regard as authoritative in regard to scriptural interpretation. I won't belabor the point, but I found this post and it didn't answer my question, but it did make me consider the following:<br /><br />I'm a flatlander who lives now in the mountains. I am constantly fighting real slippery slopes on my lot. I think a good bit of the issue depends upon where we see ourselves on the hill. Are we "pressing on the upward way" or are we already "standing on the higher ground?"<br /><br />I don't remember exactly how he said it, but I remember being struck by Dietrich Bonhoeffer's decision to join the resistance movement against Hitler in opposition to his own pacifist beliefs. In his Ethics (I think) he said that no matter what we do we will fail except for the grace of God. So we do the best we can. Perhaps the right metaphor isn't climbing or maintaining a slope. For most of us (perhaps I'm speaking for the Lost rather than the found) it is more like a person who has been suddenly thrown into the water and is seeking to swim toward the light. All around we slip and strain, and we pray that in spite of our self righteousness and in spite of our sinfulness and in spite of the error of our best efforts, we know that the God who loves us is out there seeking to pull us from the morass.Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15946061096582878102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158069485188996512006-09-12T06:58:00.000-07:002006-09-12T06:58:00.000-07:00Luke & Rachael -- No mere opinion, held merely as ...<B>Luke & Rachael</B> -- No mere opinion, held merely as an opinion, saves anyone from anything. The implication you infer is of your own creation.<BR/><BR/>Of course, a robust belief in inerrancy is necessary to be preserved from worldliness -- for reasons explained in the post.<BR/><BR/>In fact, everything else was already answered in the post, or in the comments.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158069342354153882006-09-12T06:55:00.000-07:002006-09-12T06:55:00.000-07:00j441 -- excellent work. Thanks.<B>j441</B> -- excellent work. Thanks.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158067472006254282006-09-12T06:24:00.000-07:002006-09-12T06:24:00.000-07:00I am once again hoisted upon my own petard.I am once again hoisted upon my own petard.David A. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00465387359523299616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158012952561701612006-09-11T15:15:00.000-07:002006-09-11T15:15:00.000-07:00Interesting thread. But i'm wondering about the au...Interesting thread. But i'm wondering about the author's claim (or, at least, the implication) that a doctrine of inerrancy keeps the Church from sliding into wordliness.<BR/><BR/>I'm no inerrantist, and that for a couple different reasons. The first is that to me a great majority of the Bible looks an awful lot like narrative; and I quickly lose my grasp on what it means to say of narrative, or poetry, that it's inerrant. What does it mean to say the Song of Songs is inerrant? Maybe someone out there can give me something to go on here.<BR/><BR/>Second, as someone in this thread already noted, most inerrantists hold that its only the original manuscripts that are inerrant--not the ones we have now; this gives inerrantists an out on all the seeming contradictions. But it also makes the doctrine pretty doggone useless. How can the doctrine of inerrancy keep the Church from wordliness when, as inerrantists themselves admit, we don't even have the inerrant documents themeselves? Inerrantists at least owe us an account of how we're supposed to know the original--and hence inerrant--parts of the Bible from later scribal copying mistakes, or interpolations, or whatever. (And here it won't be much help just to say that, wherever there's a seeming contradiction we can't iron out, *that's* where something went wrong in transmission. That would be circular and, for someone not already on board w/ the doctrine, entirely unconvincing.)<BR/><BR/>I'm also puzzled by the fact that inerrantists often criticize others for making use of extra-biblical commitments to interpret the text. But I've never been able to find a place in Scripture where inerrancy itself is unambiguously stated. Certainly there's nothing in the canon about a distinction between original and non-original manuscripts. But then it seems as though inerrantists are guilty of a tu quouque: they're guilty of precisely the thing they accuse their opponents of, namely, making use of extra-biblical premises (the very doctrine of inerrancy) to interpret Scripture.<BR/><BR/>Maybe some of you all can help me w/ this.<BR/><BR/>LukeLuke and Rachaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00065798398185249423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157969164358657212006-09-11T03:06:00.000-07:002006-09-11T03:06:00.000-07:00If the slippery slope is about unfaithfulness in o...If the slippery slope is about unfaithfulness in one area of doctrine or practice, the question is what will prevent further unfaithfulness? Assuming of course that such unfaithfulness is intentional rather than stemming from ignorance.<BR/><BR/>Dan your example of a reconfigured view of inerrancy is a prime example of that.Martin Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08019053545918223050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157934556307322172006-09-10T17:29:00.000-07:002006-09-10T17:29:00.000-07:00Thanks for sharing your opinion, David. There's a ...Thanks for sharing your opinion, David. There's a real danger in making God-statements like you do, however. Unless you have in fact read every article and text on philosophy in the world, when you make a blanket God-statement such as yours, without actually sharing the attribute of omniscience, you run the risk of simply being flat-out wrong.<BR/><BR/>As you are.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157856269691939232006-09-09T19:44:00.000-07:002006-09-09T19:44:00.000-07:00Actually, the slippery slope arguement is always a...Actually, the slippery slope arguement is always a "logical" fallacy.<BR/><BR/>Always. <BR/><BR/>Even if your conclusion is correct (and thus true), you have not in any way used logic to prove it's correctness when you use the slippery slope arguement.<BR/><BR/>It is not just I who calls the slippery slope arguement a logical fallacy - it is every text book that teaches the philosphy of logic.David A. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00465387359523299616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157836208336810502006-09-09T14:10:00.000-07:002006-09-09T14:10:00.000-07:00Jerry,Thanks for the clarification. My point prima...Jerry,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the clarification. My point primarily is that someone who posits more discontinuity between the testaments is not going to be convinced by arguments that require NT prophecy to look like OT prophecy. <BR/><BR/>My own experience is that most people in the P&C camp would hold to more discontinuity. Therefore, it is easy (easier?) for them to reject an argument that NT prophecy must be like OT prophecy.<BR/><BR/>Dan, thanks for the link.Taliesinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06250806687440204400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157835982937656192006-09-09T14:06:00.000-07:002006-09-09T14:06:00.000-07:00Jerry Wragg,Good stuff but you have written more i...Jerry Wragg,<BR/><BR/>Good stuff but you have written more in this thread than you have at Expository Thoughts in the last year. We need to talk.Paul Lameyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04586488041794193370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157832792304598812006-09-09T13:13:00.000-07:002006-09-09T13:13:00.000-07:00Yes, Taliesin; you are wrong in how you're develop...Yes, Taliesin; you are wrong in how you're developing dispensationalism. I'll not take that subject further on this blog, but may point you <A HREF="http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2006/02/what-dispensationalism-isnt.html" REL="nofollow"> HERE</A>.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157830935374447512006-09-09T12:42:00.000-07:002006-09-09T12:42:00.000-07:00The definition of a dispensation, as cited by John...The definition of a dispensation, as cited by <A HREF="http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/biblical-prophecy/BP0301W1.htm" REL="nofollow">John Ankerberg</A>: <BR/><BR/><I>Theologically it is "A religious order or system, conceived as divinely instituted, or as a stage in a progressive revelation, <B>expressly adapted to the needs of a particular nation or period of time</B>."</I> <BR/><BR/>Now, for a dispensationalist, arguments like: <BR/><BR/><I>the whole fantasy that prophecy -- defined and described emphatically, unambiguously, and at great length in the OT -- has suddenly and without notice been transmogrified into something totally different in the NT</I> or<BR/><BR/><I>If 2000 years of church history is not permitted to demonstrate transitions in God's economy, then neither should the classic OT definition of prophecy (1500 years worth) be suddenly and mysteriously "changed" for the church without clear NT warrant</I><BR/><BR/>don't seem to have a lot of merit (IMO). If this is a new dispensation, distinct from the dispensation of the Old Covenant, arguing continuity with the Old Covenant (without explicit statements in the New Covenant to support said continuity) does not seem to me to be a valid argument.<BR/><BR/>Maybe I'm misunderstanding dispensationalism, but if not ...Taliesinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06250806687440204400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157823497390105062006-09-09T10:38:00.000-07:002006-09-09T10:38:00.000-07:00Jerry -- thanks for responding to the Grudem point...<B>Jerry</B> -- thanks for responding to the Grudem points.<BR/><BR/>I'd only add this thought: the whole fantasy that prophecy -- defined and described emphatically, unambiguously, and at great length in the OT -- has suddenly and without notice been transmogrified into something totally different in the NT, because it was to be tested.... Eesh.<BR/><BR/>Don't these folks have Deuteronomy 13:1-11 18:21-22 in their Bibles?DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157817572980987802006-09-09T08:59:00.000-07:002006-09-09T08:59:00.000-07:00David -- I may not have made this clear enough. St...<B>David</B> -- I may not have made this clear enough. Straw-man argument is, by definition, a fallacy; slippery slope is not. If you insist on calling it the "slippery slope fallacy," the phrase then would refer only to those arguments in which the inferences are invalid.<BR/><BR/>One twist I put on it, deliberately, is that some sometimes complain that they've been "straw-manned," when actually their opponent has shown a legitimate progression of implications of their position. That they themselves do not go all the way down the path of inference <I>does not in itself mean</I> that the path itself does not go there. It only need mean that they've not yet gone that far.<BR/><BR/>As with Paul and the Corinthian resurrection deniers, Lindsell and the errant-Bibleteers, (at least some) cessationists and (at least some) Charismatics.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157817315444057782006-09-09T08:55:00.001-07:002006-09-09T08:55:00.001-07:00recovering:Dan did a series of posts (over a month...recovering:<BR/><BR/>Dan did a series of posts (over a month ago) outlining his position. The last of these is <A HREF="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2006/08/tongues-across-waterresponse-to.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> and contains links to the other posts, plus a few other relevant posts, both by Dan and by Adrian Warnock.Taliesinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06250806687440204400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157817313680214812006-09-09T08:55:00.000-07:002006-09-09T08:55:00.000-07:00Sharon -- the answers pointing you to (say) Theope...<B>Sharon</B> -- the answers pointing you to (say) Theopedia are good ones. But there's no reason you can't be given a short answer.<BR/><BR/><B>Should-be-unnecessary disclaimer:</B> a <I>short </I>answer won't have everything in it. Otherwise it wouldn't be a <I>short </I>answer. (So now hopefully no one will feel obliged to demonstrate how much smarter he is by pointing out how <I>short </I>the <I>short </I>answer is.)<BR/><BR/>The SHORT answer is that JEDP refers to the "Documentary Hypothesis" <I>mostly</I> used to explain the authorship of the Pentateuch other than the Biblical attribution to Moses. Different literary threads or strata were credited to different editors or schools; "J" meant the author who used "Jahweh" (Yahweh) to name God, "E" the one who used "Elohim" (God), "D" the Deuteronomist, "P" the <B>P</B>riestly author.<BR/><BR/>It's long-discredited, IMHO; however it, being dead, yet speaketh -- but not in a good way.<BR/><BR/>So I was trying to say humorously that I'd just cull from different great comments here and weave it into a multi-sourced posting.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157808097083777672006-09-09T06:21:00.000-07:002006-09-09T06:21:00.000-07:00Slippery slopeThis fallacy occurs when a person is...Slippery slope<BR/><BR/>This fallacy occurs when a person is too quick with what they suppose to follow from various stages in their argument. <BR/><BR/>Take this example:<BR/><BR/>If we accept restrictions on free speech then opponents of freedom will soon be asking for more restrictions elsewhere and before we know it we'll be living under a totalitarian regime.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Straw man<BR/><BR/>This fallacy takes its name from the image of someone stuffing some clothes with straw and then beating seven bells out of the resultant opponent, supposing thereby that they have somehow won a fight. The fallacy occurs when an argument is countered by taking a weaker form of it and showing where it fails, assuming that this means the original argument has also been defeated<BR/><BR/>Take an example:<BR/><BR/>You say we should invest more in public health services, but taking everyone's money off them and deciding what they should spend it on for them is nothing less than totalitarianism.<BR/><BR/>both from http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html, a fine, fine website<BR/><BR/>They are not the same logical fallacy.<BR/><BR/>You are correct that, in particular with the slippery slope, your arguement may still be correct (usually not with the straw man - the straw man arguement is used when the person disagreeing has no sound arguemnts against you, so picks on a weaker arguement that is easily defeated - but does not address the original arguement in the least<BR/><BR/>However, while you may have reached the correct conclusion, you have not in any way demonstrated the proof of your arguement.David A. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00465387359523299616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157760674837119982006-09-08T17:11:00.000-07:002006-09-08T17:11:00.000-07:00Cent,Though not dead, I. Howard Marshall, F.F. Bru...Cent,<BR/><BR/>Though not dead, I. Howard Marshall, F.F. Bruce and Gordon Fee (and a lot of other people who make up the IBR seminar) are great examples of theologically conservative guys that have views on inerrancy that aren't as strong as mine. Biblical infalibility has seemed to be enough for some of these people, and has been (for theological purposes) functionally equivalent to a strong view of inerrancy. It's interesting, though, from purely a historical point of view, how many evangelicals have gone way further than Carl F.H. Henry in where inerrancy fits into their overall theological scheme.<BR/><BR/>As for Barth, I'd probably not be as hard on him as you are (though, again, that doesn't mean I agree with him).Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157755075029204062006-09-08T15:37:00.000-07:002006-09-08T15:37:00.000-07:00The can o' worms was why I wasn't going to comment...The can o' worms was why I wasn't going to comment on the documentary hypothesis (JEDP)...<BR/><BR/>Oh, well, <I>Q</I> anyone?Even So...https://www.blogger.com/profile/14208866122431178938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157754866639541282006-09-08T15:34:00.000-07:002006-09-08T15:34:00.000-07:00theblueraja offers the following summary: "Wallac...theblueraja offers the following summary: "Wallace's point was Henry's, which is this: a denial of inerrancy may run risks for abuses, but it doesn't necessarily entail a denial of authority or reliability of Scripture."<BR/><BR/>But, once we drop the doctrine of inerrancy, we're left with possibly errant scripture (small "s" intended) that is no longer authoritative or reliable.<BR/><BR/>Regarding authority, suppose someone wants to obey and acknowledges that he should obey God's word. But, all he has to go on in a possibly errant scripture. How does he know which portions are actually God's word (true Scripture) and which portions are man's substitute? This is Dan's point.<BR/><BR/>Regarding reliability, how can someone rely on a possibly errant scripture. To illustrate, I used to rely on solutions manuals provided by textbook publishers. But about ten years ago errors began to creep into these solutions manuals at an unacceptable rate. Today approximately 19 out of 20 answers are correct, but students can't be sure that a given answer is drawn from the pool of 19. Thus, I no longer put solutions manuals on reserve for students to use.<BR/><BR/>The care and effort devoted to properly interpreting Scripture is best justified if we're handling God's inspired, inerrant word. If the starting point of any interpretive exercise is a passage that MAY be God's word, then regardless of the quality of the interpretation, we're left with exposition and application that MAY flow from God's word.farmboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05445789397476595536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157753511197754402006-09-08T15:11:00.000-07:002006-09-08T15:11:00.000-07:00Uh oh, Sharon I believe you just opened pandora's ...Uh oh, Sharon I believe you just opened pandora's boxgeekforgreekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15123504676455212846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157751060132084542006-09-08T14:31:00.000-07:002006-09-08T14:31:00.000-07:00OK, I'll bite (and demonstrate my ignorance here) ...OK, I'll bite (and demonstrate my ignorance here) . . . . what is JEDP??Sharonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14534421623031122881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157749987739186492006-09-08T14:13:00.000-07:002006-09-08T14:13:00.000-07:00Thank you very much for noticing, Jim. I wondered ...Thank you very much for noticing, Jim. I wondered if anyone would; I think it's a first.<BR/><BR/>It'd be worth verbing a noun, too; some of the comments here are really superb. (Besides, Hebrew-speakers did it all the time.)DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157749343962451682006-09-08T14:02:00.000-07:002006-09-08T14:02:00.000-07:00Re: Dan's comment: Seriously -- some of you are ...<B>Re: Dan's comment: <I>Seriously -- some of you are putting these things so superbly that I'm tempted to JEDP your comments together into a better post than mine!</I></B><BR/><BR/>Okay, I've gotta admit, I've never seen JEDP used as a verb before! LOL here! (By which you can tell I'm not charismatic. If I were, I would be ROTFL.)Jim Criglerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11437189788683651969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157749200531188302006-09-08T14:00:00.000-07:002006-09-08T14:00:00.000-07:00Here's the acid test, Raja:If we make a list of al...Here's the acid test, Raja:<BR/><BR/>If we make a list of all the dead guys who denied inerrancy (that is, people who aren't still in-process and might be said to be able to still prove themselves on the right side of Scripture), how many of them who denied Scripture's inerrancy were theological conservatives and how many were theological liberals who eventually denied the faith?<BR/><BR/>If you weigh in, you're going to find one side of that scale almost empty, and the other side extraordinarily full. If you do the accounting, come back and let us know what you come up with.<BR/><BR/>Here's where I bait you on it: Barth is the perfect example of this -- he's prototypical of those who want to make Scripture into something less than inerrant.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.com