Stoned-Campbell Disciple

Years ago I took a number of classes that were supposed to be of help in Christian apologetics. Every bachelor’s degree should require at least some exposure to history and philosophy but the class I had was called “Logic and the Bible.” Correct reasoning, as defined in various syllogisms, was the proper way of reading the Bible (it is not, exegesis and syllogisms are not the same thing).

Over the years, I have discerned great irony among some of my brothers and sisters. In an effort to establish their bona fide credentials they commit the most basic fallacies that we learn even in an introduction to Philosophy class. The three I see regularly are equivocation, special pleading and begging the question. The latter is especially prominent. Note this rather typical example,

“According to our progressive brethren, the way for the Lord’s church to grow is for it to surrender its biblical convictions concerning homosexuality, divorce and remarriage for just any reason, women preachers, the use of instrumental music in worship, belief in everlasting punishment in hell, its opposition to denominationalism, its conviction that the New Testament is the pattern which the church is to follow in all ages” (end quote)

This quotation is one extended logical fallacy, it is begging the question. What is the question? What is actually the “biblical” position on various topics. The writer simply assumes his position is correct and then condemns those who disagree with no effort given, nor expected from the Amen corner, to actually establish the correctness of whatever the biblical position may be on a given matter.

There is a “biblical conviction” regarding:

divorce/remarriage – his
women preaching – his
instrumental music – his
patternism – his

The writer has not established that his position is the “biblical conviction” in the slightest. But if you or I disagree with his fallacy then we are “progressive” and therefore do not actually take Scripture seriously. His position is simply assumed to be exactly and one hundred percent the “biblical conviction” without the slightest effort made to show that it is so.

The Bible’s conviction, not Bobby Valentine, disagrees with this brother’s question begging.

I do not grant his assumed conclusion as the “biblical conviction.” There is neither shadow nor turning in my own mind that the WHOLE BIBLE is inspired, authoritative, the unvarnished truth in all things that God leads us but I do not accept the fallacy of begging the question as a means of doing theology.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 10th, 2025 at 6:55 am and is filed under Apologetics, Bible, Exegesis, Patternism, Precision Obedience, Sectarianism, Unity. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.