If faith is a gift from God...

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Not really. If you could prove that his Dispensationalism had no bearing on his interpretation, then you'd have an argument. But I'm not sure how you'd do that. So it's fair to reject him on those grounds.

Now, I really don't care about his view, his interpretation, or if 1 John was written to Jews or Gentiles because I don't think it matters. But I wanted to point out that calling his argument a genetic fallacy is wrong.
And I want to point out that you are wrong in your understanding of genetic fallacy. I provided the definition that showed the poster's refusal to accept Dan Wallace's explanation of the audience for 1 John was invalid because of his support of dispensationalism. You have not provided me with a definition of a genetic fallacy to prove I was wrong in my assessment.

The example given by the poster to refuse Dan Wallace's view on 1 John is a perfect example of a genetic fallacy.

I accept that you are wrong in not being able to see this application.

While I initially said that we agree to disagree, that was not a good way of putting it. I agree that your understanding of genetic fallacy is wrong, so you can't see a genetic fallacy happening over the Dan Wallace, 1 John-dispensationalism matter.

If I understood that you supported amillennial eschatology and said that I do not accept your teaching in support of the divinity of Christ because of your amillennialism, I would be committing a genetic fallacy. And that's exactly the kind of thinking this poster engaged in, with regard to Dan Wallace.

I suggest that you do more homework to understand the nature of logical fallacies and how people commit logical fallacies (genetic fallacy being but one example) on CF so that you can recognise them more often when they happen. It happens all too frequently on CF.

Oz

P.S. I do not support dispensationalism, but Dan Wallace is an excellent Greek scholar (having written a book on Greek grammar) whose views on many other subjects I respect greatly. I don't support his cessationism either. But that doesn't handicap my viewing his NT scholarship as being substantive in many areas. The Lord gave me a mind to think and he enables me to put it into practice with a critical realist epistemology.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Actually, that's not a genetic fallacy. It would be a genetic fallacy to reject Wallace because he wears size 11 shoes. But his Dispensationalism could affect how he interprets scripture.
Even if the issue is his audience?? How could that be? Wallace was being put down because he is a dispensationalist. That is a genetic fallacy, according to its definition.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Not really. If you could prove that his Dispensationalism had no bearing on his interpretation, then you'd have an argument. But I'm not sure how you'd do that. So it's fair to reject him on those grounds.
Actually, to be fair, you would have to show that his dispensationalism has bearing on who he was writing to. And it should be obvious that it's not possible to do that.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Since John did not specify with regards to his addressees, then it would be natural to infer that such was not critical to an understanding of his letter. If limited atonement was an established fact in John's mind, why would he then proceed to write such a misleading statement as 1 John 2:2?
Amen!:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Because he was writing to a small audience. So to say "not just us, but people all over the world" is not unusual language.
What evidence is there for a "small audience", since evidence has been given that indicates his first epistle was for believers all over Asia.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Even if the issue is his audience?? How could that be? Wallace was being put down because he is a dispensationalist. That is a genetic fallacy, according to its definition.
I've been trying to demonstrate that to Hammster but he won't accept that definition and its application by a poster who didn't want to accept what Dan Wallace wrote about the audience of 1 John. Why? Because Dan is a dispensationalist. That's clearly committing a genetic logical fallacy.

That's like saying that I won't believe in John Calvin's view on Matthew 15:1 because he believed in unconditional election. If I said that, I would be committing a genetic logical fallacy.

But Hammster is refusing to accept such a comparison as how the genetic fallacy is applied.

I'm not talking behind Hammster's back as I've discussed the same issue with him but he is closed as to the accepted definition of a genetic fallacy and the application of it in relation to the comment about Dan Wallace, 1 John and dispensationalism.

Here are a few other definitions of the genetic logical fallacy.

1. Genetic Fallacy Description: Basing the truth claim of an argument on the origin of its claims or premises.
Logical Form:
The origin of the claim is presented.
Therefore, the claim is true/false.

2. Genetic fallacy -- A fallacy that occurs when someone attacks the cause or origin of a belief rather than its substance. Why a person believes something is not relevant to the belief's legitimacy/soundness/validity.

3. Genetic fallacy A critic uses the genetic fallacy if the critic attempts to discredit or support a claim or an argument because of its origin (genesis) when such an appeal to origins is irrelevant.

Oz
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,179
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,562.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
And I want to point out that you are wrong in your understanding of genetic fallacy. I provided the definition that showed the poster's refusal to accept Dan Wallace's explanation of the audience for 1 John was invalid because of his support of dispensationalism. You have not provided me with a definition of a genetic fallacy to prove I was wrong in my assessment.

The example given by the poster to refuse Dan Wallace's view on 1 John is a perfect example of a genetic fallacy.

I accept that you are wrong in not being able to see this application.

While I initially said that we agree to disagree, that was not a good way of putting it. I agree that your understanding of genetic fallacy is wrong, so you can't see a genetic fallacy happening over the Dan Wallace, 1 John-dispensationalism matter.

If I understood that you supported amillennial eschatology and said that I do not accept your teaching in support of the divinity of Christ because of your amillennialism, I would be committing a genetic fallacy. And that's exactly the kind of thinking this poster engaged in, with regard to Dan Wallace.

I suggest that you do more homework to understand the nature of logical fallacies and how people commit logical fallacies (genetic fallacy being but one example) on CF so that you can recognise them more often when they happen. It happens all too frequently on CF.

Oz

P.S. I do not support dispensationalism, but Dan Wallace is an excellent Greek scholar (having written a book on Greek grammar) whose views on many other subjects I respect greatly. I don't support his cessationism either. But that doesn't handicap my viewing his NT scholarship as being substantive in many areas. The Lord gave me a mind to think and he enables me to put it into practice with a critical realist epistemology.

One, I agree to disagree.

Two, everyone but you has no problems having normal conversations without having to pick apart every little thing.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,179
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,562.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Even if the issue is his audience?? How could that be? Wallace was being put down because he is a dispensationalist. That is a genetic fallacy, according to its definition.

I disagree.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,179
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,562.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Actually, to be fair, you would have to show that his dispensationalism has bearing on who he was writing to. And it should be obvious that it's not possible to do that.

I think I made that point, but in reverse.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,179
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,562.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
What evidence is there for a "small audience", since evidence has been given that indicates his first epistle was for believers all over Asia.

Compared to the total number of people in Asia, I'm sure it was a small audience.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,179
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,562.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I've been trying to demonstrate that to Hammster but he won't accept that definition and its application by a poster who didn't want to accept what Dan Wallace wrote about the audience of 1 John. Why? Because Dan is a dispensationalist. That's clearly committing a genetic logical fallacy.

That's like saying that I won't believe in John Calvin's view on Matthew 15:1 because he believed in unconditional election. If I said that, I would be committing a genetic logical fallacy.

But Hammster is refusing to accept such a comparison as how the genetic fallacy is applied.

I'm not talking behind Hammster's back as I've discussed the same issue with him but he is closed as to the accepted definition of a genetic fallacy and the application of it in relation to the comment about Dan Wallace, 1 John and dispensationalism.

Here are a few other definitions of the genetic logical fallacy.

1. Genetic Fallacy Description: Basing the truth claim of an argument on the origin of its claims or premises.
Logical Form:
The origin of the claim is presented.
Therefore, the claim is true/false.

2. Genetic fallacy -- A fallacy that occurs when someone attacks the cause or origin of a belief rather than its substance. Why a person believes something is not relevant to the belief's legitimacy/soundness/validity.

3. Genetic fallacy A critic uses the genetic fallacy if the critic attempts to discredit or support a claim or an argument because of its origin (genesis) when such an appeal to origins is irrelevant.

Oz

Really, you should let this go. It's a typical distraction that you seem to engage in frequently
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Compared to the total number of people in Asia, I'm sure it was a small audience.
I'm going to agree to disagree. No one has provided any evidence that John was speaking about only believers in the phrase "sins of the whole world".

If John viewed the atonement from a limited view, what he wrote was very misleading. He could have done a much better job of clarifying.

Just as the writer of Hebrews was very misleading in Heb 2:9 if Jesus hadn't died for everyone. But I digress..... :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
One, I agree to disagree.

Two, everyone but you has no problems having normal conversations without having to pick apart every little thing.
This is your hyperbole in action with 'everyone but you' and 'every little thing'. Do you think that I'm going to believe you when you get into this 'everyone' and 'everything' mode with regard to my interacting with you. I'm sensing some big time resistance from you when you are challenged.

Can't you tolerate being told that you are wrong in your understanding of the genetic logical fallacy?

I'm trying to have a normal conversation with you, but when you refuse to accept the standard definitions of a genetic logical fallacy, your saying that we have to 'agree to disagree' is not an adequate final decision.

When you are clearly wrong, I'll tell you. You don't seem to like that, do you?
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I'm going to agree to disagree. No one has provided any evidence that John was speaking about only believers in the phrase "sins of the whole world".

If John viewed the atonement from a limited view, what he wrote was very misleading. He could have done a much better job of clarifying.

Just as the writer of Hebrews was very misleading in Heb 2:9 if Jesus hadn't died for everyone. But I digress..... :)
:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,179
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,562.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I'm going to agree to disagree. No one has provided any evidence that John was speaking about only believers in the phrase "sins of the whole world".

If John viewed the atonement from a limited view, what he wrote was very misleading. He could have done a much better job of clarifying.

Just as the writer of Hebrews was very misleading in Heb 2:9 if Jesus hadn't died for everyone. But I digress..... :)

It wasn't misleading. It would only be misleading if people had some silly notion that there were people in hell for something other than sin. But since that view wouldn't have been held, then John's hyperbolic usage would have been understood.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Really, you should let this go. It's a typical distraction that you seem to engage in frequently
So providing definitions to reinforce the definition of a genetic logical fallacy is 'a typical distraction' in which I 'engage in frequently'. That's a red herring fallacy by which you are diverting attention from my providing additional definitions of the genetic logical fallacy.

Bye, Oz
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,179
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,562.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
This is your hyperbole in action with 'everyone but you' and 'every little thing'. Do you think that I'm going to believe you when you get into this 'everyone' and 'everything' mode with regard to my interacting with you. I'm sensing some big time resistance from you when you are challenged.

Can't you tolerate being told that you are wrong in your understanding of the genetic logical fallacy?

I'm trying to have a normal conversation with you, but when you refuse to accept the standard definitions of a genetic logical fallacy, your saying that we have to 'agree to disagree' is not an adequate final decision.

When you are clearly wrong, I'll tell you. You don't seem to like that, do you?

Are you finished?
 
Upvote 0