Green on Taking an Opponent at His Word Regarding His Own Position

Status
Not open for further replies.

Taylor

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Please note that nothing in particular on the board prompted me to post this. I just came across it in my reading tonight, and I know that I myself can be a big offender in this area.

"However frequently it may be done—and it is done very frequently—nothing can be more unfair or illiberal, in controversy of any kind, and especially in religious controversy, than to make our own inferences from opinions which we dislike, and then to charge those inferences on the holders of the hated opinions—when the holders themselves utterly disclaim the inferences, and give sufficient evidence that they are not influenced by them. We may not only think that certain inferences follow from a given position, but admitting that they actually and legitimately follow, yet if those with whom we litigate deny them, and are manifestly not influenced by them, to charge them with the guilt or criminality of such inferences, is most uncandid and unjust."

—Ashbel Green, Lectures on the Shorter Catechism of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America: Addressed to Youth, vol. 1 (Philadelphia, PA: A. Finley and Towar & Hogan, 1829), 161.​
 
What? Do you mean you did not understand the post? Don't agree with it? Or what?
The statement is hard for me to understand. I am not sure of the context. It seems like it is speaking about things we adhere to and what influences us to believe something. It seems to be saying we shouldn't be basing truth on our bias' or because of things we dislike. We all have them and therefore we argue what we believe based upon them.

I was raised to be neutral or agnostic about religion, therefore I based my perceptions and truth from that foundation. I even violated the second commandment just because someone told me I would perish and go to hell for doing it. I wanted to test the hypothesis and I did. I didn't die. I was testing the hypothesis as neutral as I could. I just wanted proof. So I grew more hardened against religion as a child because I didn't perish. The older I got the less hardened I became to religion when I started to examine the Decalogue more closely. My conclusions changed because my perception of the world changed. I disliked religion but I kept an open mind toward it.

Yeah, I am confused by the paragraph a bit. Help me flush it out.
 
Oh yeah, I mentioned Calvinism because I believed it based upon the Word and my experience of coming to Christ. I did not like it. I hated it for some time actually. I thought it was unfair. But I believed it based upon what I read in the book of John.
 
The statement is hard for me to understand. I am not sure of the context.

Green is giving a lecture on the doctrine of God's decrees. In this particular section, he is dealing with common cavils against Calvinism, the chief among them being that belief in absolute sovereignty makes God the author of sin. Green here is simply saying that just because you reach a conclusion from my beliefs, it doesn't mean that I hold to such a conclusion. To attribute one's own conclusion of someone else's belief to that person is unjust. Hence the paragraph quoted.

I posted it because I often offend the other direction. I will say sometimes that Arminian theology makes salvation the work of man. Of course, I really do hold such to be the valid conclusion of Arminian soteriology. But it is not right for me to say that therefore all Arminians believe that salvation is the work of man.
 
That helps a lot. Thanks. The Arminians I know would say it is both the work of God and man, prevenient grace influencing mankinds decision. Ultimately it comes down to a person's decision though.
 
Can you tell my why it is wrong for you to do that?

Because it's not true. There is a difference between theology A logically leading to conclusion B, and saying that someone who holds theology A believes conclusion B.

In other words, there is a difference between...

P1. If theology A, then conclusion B.
P2. Theology A.
C. Therefore, conclusion B.

...and...

P1. If theology A, then conclusion B.
P2. Theology A.
C. Therefore, whoever holds to theology A must believe conclusion B.

The first is valid, the second is not.

If he says he doesn't believe it, then he doesn't. Now, it is perfectly proper and right, on the basis of the first syllogism above, to say that such a person is therefore being inconsistent with his theology. But to say that he believes something he says he doesn't is at best annoying and at worst false witness.
 
But to say that he believes something he says he doesn't is at best annoying and at worst false witness.
In other words we need to allow the person to define his own position and accept it. Syllogisms fall apart for me because of how terminology can be misunderstood between parties. Am I correct here?
 
I think Green encourages us to sincerely and lovingly try to understand our opponent's beliefs before arguing against his beliefs. Like in Pro. 18:13, "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

We should be more concerned with winning the soul than winning the argument.
 
Please note that nothing in particular on the board prompted me to post this. I just came across it in my reading tonight, and I know that I myself can be a big offender in this area.

"However frequently it may be done—and it is done very frequently—nothing can be more unfair or illiberal, in controversy of any kind, and especially in religious controversy, than to make our own inferences from opinions which we dislike, and then to charge those inferences on the holders of the hated opinions—when the holders themselves utterly disclaim the inferences, and give sufficient evidence that they are not influenced by them. We may not only think that certain inferences follow from a given position, but admitting that they actually and legitimately follow, yet if those with whom we litigate deny them, and are manifestly not influenced by them, to charge them with the guilt or criminality of such inferences, is most uncandid and unjust."

—Ashbel Green, Lectures on the Shorter Catechism of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America: Addressed to Youth, vol. 1 (Philadelphia, PA: A. Finley and Towar & Hogan, 1829), 161.​

Thank you, Taylor, that's a very useful quote. When we deduce the logical end-point of a statement made by a theological opponent, three major possibilities occur. First is that we are right, the opponent does hold those opinions, and either hadn't expressed it yet or didn't want to admit it clearly. Second is that we are right, position A does entail position B, but our opponent is guilty of an inconsistency. In many of these cases, one would speak of a happy inconsistency, because it's better to be a little incoherent than downright heretical. Third is that in our own elaboration of the consequences of a doctrine, we are making a mistake either through misunderstanding the original position or through believing things to be connected that aren't or at least don't have to be in the presence of other factors. And this is also why it's important to criticize positions more than persons.
 
Last edited:
Same question. I think it is true that all consistent Arminians believe that Salvation, in the end, is in their own hands. A 'consistent' Arminian and I'll add--who remains such--is not a Christian.

The key word is "consistent." I don't think Green is saying—and neither am I—that that just because someone says they don't believe a logical entailment of their theology, that such a logical entailment isn't true. It's just that something being true and someone believing said truth are two different things. So, yes, I agree with you: consistent Arminianism is hardly Christian. And yet, I would also hardly say most Arminians actually believe the entailments of their system.

In the end, we are free to criticize the consistency of someone's belief, but we really aren't free to say someone believes something they categorically deny.
 
The keyword is "consistent." I don't think Green is saying—and neither am I—that that just because someone says they don't believe a logical entailment of their theology, that such a logical entailment isn't true. It's just that something being true and someone believing said truth are two different things. So, yes, I agree with you: consistent Arminianism is hardly Christian. And yet, I would also hardly say most Arminians actually believe the entailments of their system.

As I always say, "Blessed inconsistency." Many an inconsistent Arminian, no doubt, will we see in glory. Then they, like us, will have all the chaff burned away and finally will know the truth--will know even as they are known. (1 Corinthians 13:12)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top