Calling All Logicians
- Thread starter KMK
- Start date
- Status
I believe it is essentially a moral fallacy. There's probably some way to frame the contention logically or sylogistically, and show that the claim/conclusion does not follow from valid premises. The question itself has basically acknowledged the Creator-creature distinction, so it's just an assertion that God--assuming he is the way Paul has described him--isn't fair if he holds sinners accountable.
But Paul treats the resentful question and conclusion as a moral outrage. He answers, in essence, "What right do you have to call the righteous disposition of God respecting his creatures--of which you are one--into question?"
So Paul does not refute the assertion by demonstrating a reasonable failure, but an ethical one. It is enough that men should acknowledge that God has sufficient holy and righteous cause to do anything he pleases, however hard he may be to understand. And proving his divine Patience and Justice are perfectly accessible purposes to men's minds, if they allow God his own explanation (not that he owes them one; but he has provided one).
But Paul treats the resentful question and conclusion as a moral outrage. He answers, in essence, "What right do you have to call the righteous disposition of God respecting his creatures--of which you are one--into question?"
So Paul does not refute the assertion by demonstrating a reasonable failure, but an ethical one. It is enough that men should acknowledge that God has sufficient holy and righteous cause to do anything he pleases, however hard he may be to understand. And proving his divine Patience and Justice are perfectly accessible purposes to men's minds, if they allow God his own explanation (not that he owes them one; but he has provided one).
This is certainly true, but at least part of the explanation that Paul provides does not seem to touch so much on God's holiness and righteousness but His essential authority (which I admit is part of his sufficient righteous cause). Hendriksen points out, and I tend to agree, that the question/objection contains an equivocation on the two wills of God. If so, that would be a reasonable fallacy, no?
Far be it from me to dispute with the renown commentator. I just don't think it makes any sense to narrow Paul's rejoinder to a naked assertion of authority, of pure power. And I would like to see the actual logical dissection of the (proposed) argument, because the questioner still looks to me like he's offering simply a false (but common enough, even today) inference from the previous defense of salvation stemming from sovereign election. Here's the knee-jerk reaction to the jarring realization that election entails particular grace; individual destinies are foreordained prior to any human act. The heart that has not been rendered docile by grace instinctively rears in rebellion to such a display.
If God is righteous, then he's fair almost by definition. The accuser thus directly impugns divine righteousness, a major concept that permeates the letter. Paul reasserts that righteousness in the first words (v20) of his reply, "Who are you to talk back to God?". God's right (v21, exousia) is righteous; I think the next statement follows from the previous. And following that, he gives a reasonable proposal for why God might ordain matters as he did ordain them: because he finds it suitable to demonstrate both mercy and wrath, vv22-23, and neither of those determinations are more ultimate than the other.
It seems to me, the hypothetical questioner admits that God has undeniable and unopposable power (...for who resists his will?). And maybe the "equivocation on will" is comes in here, because divine ability and authority are perhaps being improperly divided? I'm not quite seeing it that way, again unless right and righteousness are acknowledged as essentially indivisible, or two sides of one coin.
Maybe "false inference" is what you're looking for. But I don't think that Paul so much deconstructs the questioner's error, as he rebukes the pride/rebellion that spoke. I have tried to restate Paul's assertive counter-proposal, which certainly includes reasons.
If God is righteous, then he's fair almost by definition. The accuser thus directly impugns divine righteousness, a major concept that permeates the letter. Paul reasserts that righteousness in the first words (v20) of his reply, "Who are you to talk back to God?". God's right (v21, exousia) is righteous; I think the next statement follows from the previous. And following that, he gives a reasonable proposal for why God might ordain matters as he did ordain them: because he finds it suitable to demonstrate both mercy and wrath, vv22-23, and neither of those determinations are more ultimate than the other.
It seems to me, the hypothetical questioner admits that God has undeniable and unopposable power (...for who resists his will?). And maybe the "equivocation on will" is comes in here, because divine ability and authority are perhaps being improperly divided? I'm not quite seeing it that way, again unless right and righteousness are acknowledged as essentially indivisible, or two sides of one coin.
Maybe "false inference" is what you're looking for. But I don't think that Paul so much deconstructs the questioner's error, as he rebukes the pride/rebellion that spoke. I have tried to restate Paul's assertive counter-proposal, which certainly includes reasons.
I would argue that it is an ipse dixit fallacy. Paul is essentially saying that God is the authority to say what is fair, not us. As Bruce mentions, the questioner implies that he is the authority on what is fair and thus appeals to an inappropriate authority (ipse dixit).
If one is looking for a logical error it would likely be the fallacy of conflation. The "will" of precept finds fault whereas the "will" of decree determines to harden some. Things that are categorically different are treated as if they are the same. As already noted, though, the apostle does not treat it as a logical fallacy but as an impious venture into the domain of sovereignty.
That will preach, brother! Thanks all. Your responses have been very helpful.
- Status
