Just so there's no confusion, the Title of this post is not part of some cooking instructions.
ok, I'm not planning on posting over the weekends usually, but I was just here at my computer typing in my notes from a book I'm reading (The Other Side of Calvinism, by Vance) and had a thought I wanted to share. Maybe someone could comment and help me out...
When there is a debate about a topic, why do authors feel the need to make ad hominem attacks? (That simply means that you argue against the person making the opposing argument instead of attacking their argument.) For example, let's say I wanted to argue with Mr. Shannon Young about the types of food that he brings to Home Bible Study. "You should not listen to the choices of food that Shannon brings to Bible Study because 'Shannon' is actually a girl's name!" That would be an Ad Hominem attack, and truly has no point to the argument. There are times that an attack against the person becomes pertinent. Another example would be: You should not be concerned about missionaries in Italy because Michael uses too much gel in his hair, and he also uses a Mac.
Anyway, in reading this book about Calvinism, I am truly realizing that it does not matter what the man John Calvin did, wrote, believed or taught, at least as far as it goes for me today. That is, just because he baptized babies, persecuted heretics or whatever other evils he did, has no impact on the truth or fallacy of what he wrote on election and predestination. I've got to be fair to Vance (the author of the book). He does not just come out to rail on Calvin, but rather he is placing the man into the historical setting and helping the reader try to understand the environment and the life of the man whose name is so attached to these doctrines. Now, I can't think of anything nice that Vance said about the man either!
- I expect there will be more to come on this issue while I'm going through this book. Stay posted!
7 comments:
Andy -
Great post - I agree that attacking someone's character rather than just trying to refute them with the Scriptures is terrible. I think people do that when they cannot refute them with the Scriptures so they resort to that level - I would say that about any topic...if you resort to character attacks it is because you are weak Biblically on that subject.
I noticed something when reading a book with which I disagree, the King James Only Controversy by James White. He would make legitimate arguments about his position, but then he would try to add on every other additional thing he could think of to try to make his case stronger. He wouldn't use those arguments by themselves, but felt free to add them on. Sometimes people will do the Ad Hominem just to make their point even stronger, when if they did a good job on the first part, it's not necessary.
Great post, it's even better than mine was today!
I think that your comment on hair gel, however, was a bit blasphemous. You better publicly repent, brother.
Something I really try to be faithful in doing when debating a topic is to just stay true to the Scriptures and not try to cloud that with other irrelevant arguments. Paul stated when debating - "Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture? (Gal. 4:30)" - Great question - not "nevertheless, what kind of man was the person teaching the Scripture?"
Peculiar Pete, I could point you to Romans 12:2 where it commands Christians to not be conformed to this world... Blasphemy? Nah, I don't think so. But, hey, if you want to justify yourself...
Listen Andy...Shannon is actually a traditional Irish boys name...of course I'm not Irish, and oh well...I don't know what my parents were thinking. I have snails in the freezer right now for next Home Bible Study : )
This post has been closed for comments...
Post a Comment