It’s been a long time since I saw that many fallacies in such a small space.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
It’s been a long time since I saw that many fallacies in such a small space.
That’s typical of Bailes’ writing. Here are a couple of his other gems.
If we are created in the image of God, if we are tiny reflections or tiny windows through which we see the divine face, wouldn’t God be gay at some level?
… the Kingdom of God is not a place, but a reality that we must make present here. That Kingdom includes Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Christians, and every person that has been decreed loved by God. To put it simply: humanity.
And he’s an ordained Baptist minister in his third year of the Wake Forest M.Div. program.
What ought to be happening in any MDiv program is training students to identify and refute the fallacies in the kind of stuff Bailes writes, if they haven’t acquired that skill already.
The fallacy in the headline quote is probably the biggest, though the entire piece relies on taking terms Mohler (and orthodox Christianity in general) use one way, redefining them, then refuting the redefinition. There’s a shorthand for this ruse but I can’t remember the name just now. [Edit: it’s just the old straw man fallacy.]
Anyway, the Christian faith does not teach that Adam & Even sinned with the conscious intent of doing it for anyone else. It does teach they, in fact, did sin for the entire race. Rom.5:12
Close on the heels of that one, Bailes misrepresents a closely related tenet of the Christian faith: that what happened as the result of Adam’s sin is what makes Christ’s death on the cross necessary and meaningful (Rom.5:17 for example). Bailes turns this into “We also didn’t sin in order to make relevant the work of someone born thousands of years after us.” But nobody teaches that A & E looked at the forbidden fruit and thought “Let’s sin so we can make the death of Christ meaningful.”
On and on it goes. The writer is either profoundly ignorant of what he’s answering, or incapable of clear thinking, or knows he is being deceitful. Not for me to decide which, but I’d rather be an idiot than a liar.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion
NewHorde of strawmen
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewQuote: It's been a long time
NewThis is why most MDiv students
SamH
NewSeminary
The fallacy in the headline quote is probably the biggest, though the entire piece relies on taking terms Mohler (and orthodox Christianity in general) use one way, redefining them, then refuting the redefinition.
There’s a shorthand for this ruse but I can’t remember the name just now. [Edit: it’s just the old straw man fallacy.]
Anyway, the Christian faith does not teach that Adam & Even sinned with the conscious intent of doing it for anyone else. It does teach they, in fact, did sin for the entire race. Rom.5:12
Close on the heels of that one, Bailes misrepresents a closely related tenet of the Christian faith: that what happened as the result of Adam’s sin is what makes Christ’s death on the cross necessary and meaningful (Rom.5:17 for example). Bailes turns this into “We also didn’t sin in order to make relevant the work of someone born thousands of years after us.” But nobody teaches that A & E looked at the forbidden fruit and thought “Let’s sin so we can make the death of Christ meaningful.”
On and on it goes. The writer is either profoundly ignorant of what he’s answering, or incapable of clear thinking, or knows he is being deceitful. Not for me to decide which, but I’d rather be an idiot than a liar.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.