I have just realized I miss out one of the fallacies committed when I offered a rebuttal of Wenxian's post here and here. This is the logical fallacy of total concept transfer, in which the conclusions of a concept from one area is applied similarly onto another area en toto, without consideration of the differences between the two areas.
This logical fallacy belongs to the same class as the logical fallacies of equivocation and amphiboly, as all three fallacies are based on some type of equivocation. The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the meaning of one word used in two different contexts are equivocated, the fallacy of amphiboly occurs when the meaning of one phrase used in two different contexts are equivocated (or when one phrase can have two different meanings), and the fallacy of total concept transfer occurs when the meaning and application of one principle/ theory from one discipline/area is applied in the same manner (equivocated) to another discipline/area. The different fallacies are ilustrated as shown:
Fallacy of equivocation:
My wife drove me up the wall yesterday. Therefore, my wife can drive the car. (Equivocation of the word 'drive')
Fallacy of amphiboly:
I want to study ants in my car. (So is the person studying ants while he is in his car, or is the person studying ants which are found in his car? — Equivocation over the phrase 'study ants in my car')
Fallacy of total concept transfer:
Objective truth exists, since the statement 'there is objective truth' is either true or not true. If it is true, then objective truth exists; if it is not true, then it is objectively true that 'objective truth does not exist', which is a contradiction and thus absurd. (Consequentia mirabilis) Therefore, objective truth exists and relativism is wrong.
Now, I have tasted and am convinced that this cake is nice. Since there is objective truth, the fact that this cake is nice must be objectively true, and therefore no one can say that this cake is not nice without denying the truth.
OK, so what exactly is the fallacy committed in Wenxian's post? In that post, the principle of the regulative principle of worship, which is only linked to worship by the way, is taken out of its doctrinal context and applied in the same manner onto the doctrine of baptism. Worship and baptism are two different areas of the Christian life, and each of them have specific passages from Scripture addressing them both. As both of them are scriptural practices, the practice of both of them must be found within the pages of Scripture, and thus the principle of Sola Scriptura must be applied to the practice of both of them, as with any other practice which Christians do. The regulative principle, however, is something which is only liked with worship and therefore, to take this principle, rip it out of its biblical area of application, and applying it to baptism is to commit the fallacy of total concept transfer.
In closing, let me give one last example of the fallacy of total concept transfer, courtesy of Dr. James R. White as stated in his blog here:
Roman theology is Arian. Why? Because its man-centered sacramental system denies the Lordship of Christ, hence his deity, in providing perfect salvation for the elect. While the Scriptures emphasize Christ's ability, man-centered religious systems like Rome emphasize man's ability and reduce Christ to a mere helper, one who tries, but often fails, to accomplish His intentions. Since God cannot fail, and Rome presents a Savior who tries, but fails, to save, then Rome is Arian. (The fallacy is committed when one applies a concept in Christology and applies it to the area of Soteriology)
12 comments:
Hello,
One thing i address here:
[. As both of them are scriptural practices, the practice of both of them must be found within the pages of Scripture, and thus the principle of Sola Scriptura must be applied to the practice of both of them, as with any other practice which Christians do. The regulative principle, however, is something which is only liked with worship and therefore, to take this principle, rip it out of its biblical area of application, and applying it to baptism is to commit the fallacy of total concept transfer.]
Let me tell you what i mean in my passage. I mean that God is to be approached at His terms when it comes to worship or baptism or the Lord's supper.
It is regulative because we do not go on and add to the restricted definitions of certain terms, be it in terms of 'what constituites worship' or otherwise.
This means that when the Lord tells us to baptise someone, we baptise not according to our own freedom of interpretation, by solely on what can be safely deduced as correct from the text. Those that we are unsure, we do not do!
Your side is not in error when it practices credobaptism for new converts but my point of contention is that ontop of that, there is a 'subset' of baptism called paedobaptism. However to me, this paedobaptism is not true subset at all!
Why? Because you yourself have said that faith is a PRE-requisite for baptism (look at your posts, in my refutal to faith 'marking' someones entry into the covennant in OT/NT). PRE-requisite means that the person must have XXX to achieve his primary aim ABC. If you are still stubborn at this point, look up your level 4000 modules in NUS - they have prerequisites! Babies do not have faith YET. You cannot argue headship by father/mother in terms of surrogate faith because faith is a personnal thing. Hence, by what you say, you say that the baptism for the infants is actually a null one: something that the Lord himself did not define. For you argee wholeheartedly that baptism must be in the pre-requisite of faith!
If you don't need faith for baptism, then prove it (no rhetoric please). For i can't find a biblical example to show this. You'll be hard pressed. And if this is true, we can baptise people who come into the church whether they profess faith or not.
If i be harsh with you, i believe that i read you to be saying that that the Lord's definition of 'who to be baptised' is inadequate. I believe the Lord is being very clear when he did not include infants in baptism in all baptismal accounts in Scripture. Children are blessed by the Lord outside of baptism when Jesus says to let children come to Him. But this blessing is different from the covennant of grace. Why? Because the child in question at that time is a non-believer. By the way, the context is to be LIKE a child, not a child. Jesus was btw addressing the attitude of the heart.
For paedobaptism to be 'correct', you must state me at least ONE case in the NT, not OT, where baptism was clearly for an infant. The word household does not count. The man may not be married right? And most 'households' are linked to 'hearing repenting and believing'...e.g. cornelieus.. Just one example, and i will be convinced. [Acts 2:39 is out because of my previous posting - it was out of context, Colossians 2 is also out because the link between circumcision was for credobaptism only: Because the word faith is a prerequisite for baptism as mentioned here. i.e.
[Col 2:12][12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. ]
My arguements may lack the rigor of logic at the end of the day, but unless you convince me scripturally, i will not suscribe to paedobaptism no matter how illogical my reasoning may be to you. While you address my arguements, you do not address my root, which is very important.
When the root of what i am contending is destroyed, all my arguements, sound or unsound, will collapse with it. This means i would expect a post on biblical proof of baptism of children.
The impact of your post is clear: if there is a biblical warrant for paedobaptism, a believer cannot CHOOSE to not do it. It would then become a command of the Lord. We do not pick and choose commands. Baptism does not save but it must be done in all righteousness.
Oh please take note i will NOT accept arguements such as 'because Calvin/Puritan reformers' said so and full stop. I respect them and they are my heros in many ways. However, their arguements do not seem to convince me at all. And man do not convince me at all apart from scripture. Inclusive of you of course. I have read your challenge and i tell you that unless you show me your biblical proof, your challenge is nothing and so would be all your arguements, however fallicious my reasonings might have been.
By the way your reasoning, is fallicious as well: e.g. you use immersion baptism as an refutory example for the Lord's silence but i never said it. So you are refuting something i did not say.
By the way, the word baptism measn to immerse. You have to grant me that. since the word means that, full immersion is defititely NOT wrong! And since you say that even the choice of words in Scripture is inspired, please realise that baptism has only one word used: to immerse. If what i say is true, your logic is fallcious as well.
This implies that you use false arguements to destroy something which may be a poor/false arguement. While i may have made them, you ought not use the same reasoning to refute it! (Since you refute it, you need to suscribe to a higher standard of reasoning). Isn't that hypocrisy?
[3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.]
If you see clearly from Scripture, do yourself a favor and show it! Don't tell me i have a 'plank of false/poor arguements' when you use the same line of reasoning! Use a superior line of reasoning and show me by example!
Sighz.
(Sigh)
First off:
"For you argee wholeheartedly that baptism must be in the pre-requisite of faith!"
No, I didn't say that. I was mentioning that adults who are being baptized must profess faith in Jesus Christ. I didn't mention anything about children excercising faith in Christ when they are baptized. And don't blame me if you don't understand what I was trying to tell you, and then accuse me of lying.
As for the rest of your arguments, pardon me if I place little weight on them. You are not addressing the issues I have put up on this post, but you are still assuming the regulative principle as normative for baptism throughout your entire reply. Pardon me if I do not accept your ipse dixit. When you can prove that there is a command in Scripture that explicitly says that baptism must be ONLY done according to the formula used for adult converts in the NT, then I will accept your application of the regulative principle to baptism. Otherwise, I will just stick to Sola Scriptura, thank you.
And just to refresh your memory, the difference between regulative principle and Sola Scriptura, besides the fact that they are referring to different things, is that the regulative principle states that only what is allowed in Scripture is adhered to, whereas Sola Scriptura includes all implication and application of Scripture, besides the explicit commands found therein. So your fallacy of equivocation using the word 'adding [to Scripture]' to refer to the regulative principle while accusing us with regards to Sola Scriptura is wrong.
With regards to argumentation, read my previous reply. Please do yourself a favour and find out what reductio ad absurdum means, before accusing me of something I didn't do.
And I think I will just limit this post to discussing the issue of regulative principle and baptism. If you want to pick any other issues, go comment on the previous post on baptism; all points not related to the fallacy of total concept transfer will be ignored here.
Dear WenXian/Daniel/Myself,
While Christ has been longsuffering with our stubborn sins, let us be patient and gracious with each other. I am learning more about Christ and His Word each day, and I may be wrong on a lot of things. If I am your brother, teach me. I am willing to learn from you. But what I am seeing here is unnecessary anger, an eagerness to win an argument, and a lack of the fruits of the Spirit in some of the doctrinal discourses. Please, let us not be quick to separate from one another!
Wenxian, I know you managed to get on the Dean’s List, and have definitely proved yourself to be more than able to analyze various academic topics. I realize that you are a serious student, and give yourself wholly to your studies so as to achieve excellence in your schoolwork. But let us allow more time for the Spirit to work with our friends and us. I have perused your blog, and have seen the kind of academic results you are capable of. Praise God for a good thinking mind. Use it for God’s honor and glory, and His glory alone. If we are wrong, do not avoid talking with us. Teach us and show us the Truth. I may be slower in mind than some. So give us time to understand and to think.
If we are sharing the gospel with our unbelieving friends, will we be so quick to “separate” ourselves from them if they reject the gospel?
“And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also (1 John 4:21)”
In Christ,
Vincent
Oh... I see that Wenxian have posted his reply here (http://tanboonhian.blogspot.com/2007/01/worship-wcf-and-baptism.html) and here (http://tanboonhian.blogspot.com/2007/01/genesis-177-and-infant-baptism.html)after all. Oh well... nothing new, except perhaps for the fact that he is now behaving a trite bit like Ruckman.
Hello Jenson,
I think you should ask Wenxian more than me. To put a long story short, he decided to analyze the topic of infant baptism; he took the credobaptist position and I (obviously) took the paedobaptist position. I asked him to research the issue carefully, then he decided to post on the topic, I replied countering his post, and he blew up and posted the comments you see.
As for seperation, he is the one who seperated from Vincent and me. I didn't do such a thing and in fact, if he repents of his judgmentalism, I will forgive him. I hold nothing against him personally and still will treat him as my friend. Perhaps you can enlighten him and help him see why we paedobaptists are not heretics.
Hello Jenson,
I think we could discuss this privately. Anyway, the crux of the matter is that the only way I could 'recouncile' with him is that I become a credobaptist myself. Don't support him just because he takes the credobaptist position; analyze the way he handles himself and the arguments that are put forth and ask yourself who is trying to be charitable to who.
Oh, and by the way, I would really like to ask you whether you agree with Wenxian that us paedobaptists are heretics.
Jenson,
the reason why I asked that question is because that is what Wenxian believes in; and that's why he has seperated from Vincent and me. So, unless you can disavow him of such a notion (and I can't since I am already 'lost' in his opinion, there is nothing I can do to 'make matters right'). I have already exercised restraint and am not persuing the matter, although you can see the accusations he make against me and all paedobaptists.
Post a Comment