Where was that said? I seem to have missed it.Yes, but that's not what's been said. What's been said is that there have been bad people who subscribe to Belief A, and that therefore Belief A is wrong. That is a fallacy.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Where was that said? I seem to have missed it.Yes, but that's not what's been said. What's been said is that there have been bad people who subscribe to Belief A, and that therefore Belief A is wrong. That is a fallacy.
Read posts #3 and #4.Where was that said? I seem to have missed it.
Of course I agree. I just haven't seen it stated that a belief in continued revelation is wrong because it's a papist thing.In terms of whether a position is logically true or false, it is a fallacy. However, if he changes the tactic and says that it can be dangerous for a spiritual life, that is certainly a legitimate charge, and one I have a small degree of sympathy with.
Still not seeing it.Read posts #3 and #4.
Of course I agree. I just haven't seen it stated that a belief in continued revelation is wrong because it's a papist thing.
Really? Post #3 is nothing but a list of bad things that people have done with continuationist theology, from Roman Catholics to Mormons, apparently as a logical base for why pastors should "immunise the church membership against charismatic delusions and heresy." If you're looking for a quote where someone commits the fallacy in the form of a nice and neat syllogism, you're not going to find it. But, as I'm sure you know, arguments do not have to be explicit to exist. It seems rather clear to me, anyway.Still not seeing it.
Be careful you're not putting words (or neat syllogisms) in someone's mouth.Really? Post #3 is nothing but a list of bad things that people have done with continuationist theology, from Roman Catholics to Mormons, apparently as a logical base for why pastors should "immunise the church membership against charismatic delusions and heresy." If you're looking for a quote where someone commits the fallacy in the form of a nice and neat syllogism, you're not going to find it. But, as I'm sure you know, arguments do not have to be explicit to exist. It seems rather clear to me, anyway.
Correct.The OP didn't actually make a logical argument.
I cannot pretend to know his intent.I think he intended it to be such, but that's probably why you didn't see it.
Not necessarily. Perhaps you are assuming his argument here. Why not press him on it instead? ("Are you saying that continuationism is to be rejected on the grounds that...?")He brought out the dangers of papism as a reason to reject continued revelation.
I’m not assuming anything. I’m reading what was said, and it seemed plain to me. Just because you don’t see what I and others have seen doesn’t mean we are putting words into others’ mouths.I am unwilling to assume another's argument, and thus I cannot judge whether it is fallacious or no.
Yes. Both the Westminster and Baptist Confession state:Is the Westminster Confession and the Baptist Confession of 1689 Cessationist?
As a former charismatic I am VERY aware of the door that is being opened. Important decisions about business and marriage partners should not be the subject of inward impressions, dreams, visions and prophecies. This is to open the door to mysticism. It is in my opinion much more in keeping with the mysticism of Roman Catholicism where visions and dreams are commonly currency. I want this door firmly closed, locked and bolted! My detractors feel that I am limiting God and denying that God can work any way He wants to.
As well as the Reformed confessions, it is worth reading Calvin's Institutes I:IX. Calvin addresses the issue of the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Word. Steve Lawson also addressed this in the 2013 Strange Fire conference.Yes. Both the Westminster and Baptist Confession state:
I understand why you wish not to do such. Now would this be a "standard" on par with scripture? If not why not, if you say these writings convey what you believe to be true events of God's immediate work in creation. In other words, you are saying Keener's work, being the standard, ought to be morally binding to every Christian to believe.No. I have done that so many times on this board. I'm not going over that again. In any case, Keener's two volumes on miracles is the academic standard.
I understand why you wish not to do such. Now would this be a "standard" on par with scripture? If not why not, if you say these writings convey what you believe to be true events of God's immediate work in creation. In other words, you are saying Keener's work, being the standard, ought to be morally binding to every Christian to believe.
I don’t understand this comment. Is not the point of discussions like these to get to razor’s edge precision? Are Christians supposed to be against logical rigor? The thread’s title asks about a confession, yet at several points the OP brought up irrelevant material that, to some of us, detracted from the question itself. In analyzing the logic there, are we not actually trying to keep the thread on track? Again, this is a strange comment.OP asked a perfectly honest and valid question and his supposed logic on an example gets analyzed to death - how is that edifying?
Of course not. As Reformed we believe in the distinction between ministerial and magisterial authority. Only Anabaptists and EO ignore that distinction.
Example: are your words on the same level of Scripture? If no, why should I believe you?
That's not how epistemology works.
So if one believes the writings of someone who attests to a miracle, outside of scripture, why would you not say it is morally binding? That is exactly how epistemology works in how one defines justified belief from opinion.
He asked a question and then gave examples how non-cessationist practices were damaging in other Christian denominations based on his experience as a charismatic and from what he has read. Those were examples that supported his initial question and concern and were not fallacies.I don’t understand this comment. Is not the point of discussions like these to get to razor’s edge precision? Are Christians supposed to be against logical rigor? The thread’s title asks about a confession, yet at several points the OP brought up irrelevant material that, to some of us, detracted from the question itself. In analyzing the logic there, are we not actually trying to keep the thread on track? Again, this is a strange comment.
That's where a study of dialectic and rhetoric comes into play.
Those were examples that supported his initial question and concern and were not fallacies.
OP was asking for information and help yet the two of you jump all over him.
Is that why you post here, to win a debate?
And "razor's edge precision"? Is that a requirement for posting on this board?
Jacob, you really think God expects every Christian to have the same level of study in dialectic and rhetoric that you do in order to make a comment on a Christian discussion forum?
Sometimes I wonder by your posts what your purpose really is in quoting your extensive learning as sometimes it comes across as anything but edifying (hence your comment about winning a debate).
And you think logical fallacies make Christians look bad
This comment is extreme.He asked a question and then gave examples how non-cessationist practices were damaging in other Christian denominations based on his experience as a charismatic and from what he has read. Those were examples that supported his initial question and concern and were not fallacies.
This is discussion forum, not a formal debate. OP was asking for information and help yet the two of you jump all over him. Give me a break. Just take a look at Jacob's comments about "if this was a debate I would have won" to get a bit more insight into his thinking. Is that why you post here, to win a debate?
And "razor's edge precision"? Is that a requirement for posting on this board? Do you want your every comment to be evaluated by this standard? Do you treat Christians at your church this way? Do you talk to your spouse this way, analyzing her every comment and example to see if it meets your standard of logical rigor and razor's edge precision? Try that offline and see how well that goes.
Frankly, a few of you come across as unnecessarily argumentative, unkind, and uncharitable in your answers and your speech is worthy of rebuke. Many here answer the same kinds of questions with charity, kindness, and helpfulness and set a good example for the rest of us at the same time using precision and carefulness in their answers without coming across as jumping down someone's throat and arguing about things that don't need to be argued about.
If we concede that special revelation still can happen I cannot see there being any checks and balances to restrain speculation and feelings.