OzSpen
Regular Member
- Oct 15, 2005
- 11,541
- 707
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Private
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.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.
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