Curtis

This is my site. I'm basically a Christian, Husband, Father, Neighbor and in that order. I'm a thinker, how well I do at it is for others to decide. I drive a truck delivering gas for a living and spend most of my time listening to downloaded audio on my favorite subjects. It is mostly these that spark my articles here.

Replacement Theology in Thomas Ice?

 Religion, Logic  2 Responses »
Apr 252010
 

3CardMonte-759799“We dispensationalists believe that the church has superseded Israel during the current church age, but God has a future time in which He will restore national Israel ‘as the institution for the administration of divine blessings to the world.’” Thomas Ice, “The Israel of God”

su·per·sede

1.to replace in power, authority, effectiveness, acceptance, use, etc., as by another person or thing.

2.to set aside or cause to be set aside as void, useless, or obsolete, usually in favor of something mentioned; make obsolete: They superseded the old statute with a new one.

—Synonyms
1. See replace. 2. void, overrule, annul, revoke, rescind.  (found at Dictionary.com)

I’ll reproduce some of the Ice article here just to show a point.

What is Replacement Theology?

Preterist and covenant theologian, Kenneth Gentry defines replacement theology- to which he holds- as follows: ” We believe that the international Church has superseded for all times national Israel as the institution for the administration of divine blessing to the world.” [1] Gentry uses supersession as a synonym for replacement. I could almost agree with his definition if he would remove the phrase ” all times.” We dispensationalists believe that the church has superseded Israel during the current church age, but God has a future time in which He will restore national Israel ” as the institution for the administration of divine blessing to the world.

Gentry adds to his initial statement the following embellishment:

That is, we believe that in the unfolding of the plan of God in history, the Christian Church is the very fruition of the redemptive purpose of God. As such, the multi-racial, international Church of Jesus Christ supersedes racial, national Israel as the focus of the kingdom of God. Indeed, we believe that the Church becomes ” the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), the ” seed of Abraham” (Gal. 3:29), ” the circumcision” (Phil. 3:3), the ” temple of God” (Eph. 2:19-22), and so forth. We believe that Jew and Gentile are eternally merged into a ” new man” in the Church of Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:12- 18). What God hath joined together let no man put asunder![2]

[1] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., ” Supersessional Orthodoxy; Zionistic Sadism,” Dispensationalism in Transition, Vol. VI, No. 2; Feb. 1993, p. 1.

[2] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., ” The Iceman Cometh! Moronism Reigneth!,” Dispensationalism in Transition, Vol. VI, No. 1; Jan. 1993, p. 1.

Ice is either ignorant or dishonest here within two paragraphs.  These quotes are given by Ice in the reverse order in which they were given by Gentry.  No big deal?  Notice after the first quote Ice says, “Gentry uses supersession as a synonym for replacement.”  Yet if you read the second quote (which is Gentry’s first statement) you will find out exactly what Gentry means by “superseded” in the first paragraph, containing Gentry’s second statement.

Confusing?  Okay lets look and Gentry’s two statements only, lets put them in order.

1.  “We believe that Jew and Gentile are eternally merged into a ” new man” in the Church of Jesus Christ.  What God hath joined together let no man put asunder!” Jan. 93′

2.  “We believe that the international Church has superseded for all times national Israel as the institution for the administration of divine blessing to the world.”  Feb. 93′

If you were asking what “supersede” means to Gentry in the second statement; why wouldn’t you go to the first?  From the writings of Gentry, in the first article titled “Supersessional Orthodoxy; Zionistic Sadism,” you should notice two things.  First, Gentry doesn’t, “define replacement theology- to which he holds- as follows:….,” as Ice says he does.  Gentry is defining what he calls “supersessionism.”  Second, he explains it right here in the quote used by Ice!  Gentry would not use “superseded” as a synonym for replace!  He in fact used it clearly, as a synonym for “merged into a ‘new man’.”  It doesn’t take much of an English expert to know that “merging” is not “replacing.”

Now, if you are looking for a definition for a term an opponent is using, you should ask.  If you’re reading an opponent and a definition is given then you don’t need to ask.  If you then define a term differently than your opponent has already defined it, you are Equivocating!  I don’t think Ice is ignorant by the way, I think he knew exactly what he was doing.  Notice that, even though Ice places the quotes backward, he says, “Gentry adds to his initial statement the following embellishment:”  Now that’s strange.  Ice knows which statement Gentry made first.  He cited them in the footnotes, dates included.  Ice essentially says that Gentry’s first quote was an “embellishment” on something he hadn’t even written yet!  Note also, that Ice calls what is actually the second statement “his initial statement.”  Is Ice this stupid?  I think not.

Should Gentry have used a different word than “superseded?”  Probably, because he did not intend its normal usage as you can see from his original statement.  But for Ice to force Ice’s chosen (and accurate) definition of “superseded” on Gentry’s statements where he (Gentry) clearly defines what he means is just plain political dishonesty.

Also, Kenneth Gentry would not call himself a Preterist or a Replacement Theologian.  Only Ice would, in an attempt to Poison the Well with Weasel Words.

And finally, although Gentry would not use “supersede” as a synonym for “replace.”  Thomas Ice certainly did just that, clearly and strait-forwardly in the quote from the beginning of this article.  Check it out in full context if you like.  So I ask:  Who is the Replacement Theologian of these two?

Ambiguity and Equivocation

 Logic  2 Responses »
Apr 082010
 

This is article number 5 in the fallacy series.

Article 1:  Logical Fallacies (a brief intro)

Article 2:  The Red Herring

Article 3:  Appeal to Ignorance

Article 4:  Weasel Words

An ambiguous word or statement is one that can have more than one meaning in a given context.  This in itself is not a fallacy.  It becomes a fallacy when one of the terms in a premise is used differently than it is used in the conclusion.  Remember a logical form of argument is a syllogism.  A syllogism is made up of two (or more) premises and a conclusion that necessarily follows from them.  Formally the conclusion must contain terms from each of the premises to be valid, and the terms in the conclusion must be used in the same way they were in the premises.   If they are not then the syllogism becomes invalid.  That would be a formal fallacy.  I am concerned here with informal fallacies.

Ambiguity becomes an informal fallacy when the speaker knows and uses the ambiguity to prove a point, because it is a fallacy of language and not form.  Once the error in language is uncovered and the speaker still maintains the argument then the argument becomes formally invalid.  In a brief example I’ll say the following.

1.  Someone who is hot needs a drink.

2.  Bill is hot!

3.  Conclusion:  Bill needs a drink because he is hot.

This is a valid and simple syllogism as far as it goes, until we find out that Bill is mad and not overheated.  In one case the argument is ambiguous and proves nothing as hot is never defined.  In the other, it is formally invalid as the true meaning of hot in one of the premises doesn’t match the meaning in the conclusion.  It’s hard to believe people would do this on purpose.  Just think back though to President Clinton and “it depends on what the meaning of is…is.”

Before we move on I would like to point out that many of the informal types of Ambiguity are also linked to formal fallacies.  I suspect this is because determining which it is depends on the honesty of the person making the argument.  Either way there is either a formal or informal fallacy involved and a conclusion can’t be properly reached.

There are a few different forms of Ambiguity.  I’m only going to cover Equivocation.  The other forms are very similar in one way or another and Equivocation is the most common in everyday discourse.

Equivocation

Almost all words in themselves are equivocal, having or allowing more than one meaning (voice.)  Do not mistake this for “equivalent,” (being equal.)  Many phrases are also equivocal.  When discussing things in search of the truth, we should seek to find words and phrases that are univocal, (one voice) having only one possible meaning.  This is practically impossible as most words are equivocal.

We should always know what we mean when we speak and thus we speak univocally.  The problem comes when we assume we understand the authors words the same as they meant them, but do not.  If I innocently pour different meanings into the words you speak, I am not committing a fallacy, I just misunderstand you and need clarification.  Neither party is wrong for a misunderstanding.  It’s when I attempt to force you to accept my meaning for your words that I am equivocating.

“You said you were on fire during the speech.  That’s why I threw the water on you.  I don’t know why you are mad.  You’re the one who said you were on fire.  In fact you even said you were smokin.”  Get the picture?  Even though it’s after the speech and the man was clearly not in flames, I continue to force my understanding of his words to defend my actions.

Conversely if we know our words will be taken to mean something different than our intentions, and use it anyway, we are guilty of equivocation.  Or, if we start an argument with one definition of a term and switch midstream or in conclusion we are guilty of the sub-fallacy of Redefinition.  Redefinition is a form of equivocation.

How do we avoid this?  Well,…it’s hard.  People like to use the terms they like to use and they like them defined the way they like them defined.  This can be a problem when our preferred terms and definitions don’t match.  The only thing we can do is negotiate terms and be careful to use them in ways we agree upon for sake of clarity.  Often when I try to do this I’m told I being to picky.  Later in the conversation the equivocal term comes up and it’s all down hill from there.  We have to backtrack to find out where the equivocation began.  Then we negotiate terms and try to get back on track without loosing our train of thought.  Sometimes we must start all over and sometimes it’s too frustrating for one or both so we part ways not having learned a thing.

Bottom line….Never fail to NEGOTIATE TERMS.  Stop when ambiguous language is used and clarify.  It saves so much time, confusion and aggravation.  Be patient when someone asks you to clarify what you mean by a term.

So far I’ve covered the following informal fallacies in the order given below.

  1. Informal Fallacies (a brief intro)
  2. Red Herring
  3. Appeal to Ignorance
  4. Weasel Words (a form of Red Herring)
  5. Ambiguity (this article)

Weasel Words an Informal Fallacy

 Logic  No Responses »
Apr 072010
 

Article 4 in this series.

Article 1:  Logical Fallacies (a brief intro)

Article 2:  The Red Herring

Article 3:  Appeal to Ignorance

I just read an article that made me think of this form of fallacy.  The author labeled a form of theology with a tag that is only used by it’s opponents.  The label is, “Replacement Theology.”  I personally know of no one who would label themselves as a “replacement” theologian.  Many who are labeled as such would be okay with the theological title, as titles are only a way to identify a type or system of theology.  However that being true they would never choose to label themselves that way. Why?  Because they don’t think their theology replaces any group with another and thus the label is inaccurate.  More on that later.

An example of accepting a label that you, yourself don’t find accurate would be the following.  Someone says, “You believe doctrine X, and believing doctrine X makes you a heretic.”  You might respond, “okay I’m a heretic, now tell me what is wrong with the doctrine.”  In one on one debates such labels mean nothing, at least to me.  Some are offended by them even in a private context.

Now in public discourse, such as the article I read, such labels are a type of Weasel Words.  They would fall under the informal fallacy of Poisoning the Well, which is a form of Red Herring (same link for both.)  Using this type of language can achieve two outcomes, either of which can be intentional or unintentional, while neither of which lead to truth.

Often Weasel Words are used that automatically place a proposition in a bad light.  An example, “those dirty communists think X is the right thing to do.”  The word “dirty” here poisons the well because we all know any thing a “dirty” person thinks cannot be right.  Today we often see this in political discourse when a conservative is labeled a “neo-con” or a liberal is called a “socialist.”  We automatically tend to discount any argument they make because, you guessed it, the well has been poisoned by using weasel words.  Just a note:  sometimes Weasel Word labels become adopted as acceptable by both parties, pro and con.  The terms Christian, Protestant and Baptist were all at one time derogatory names for groups or ideas.  In which case it is proper to use the terms in discourse.  In the case of “Replacement Theology” the term is neither accurate nor accepted by those whom are accused of believing it.

The proper and non-inflammatory terms for “Replacement Theology” are many, as many groups do not hold to a view that the Church is separate from Israel.  Covenant Theology and Covenant Eschatology are but two of the labels used and accepted by these groups.  Most all of these groups would tell you they don’t think the Church replaced Israel, and therefore the label is inaccurate.  Using an inaccurate label poisons the well against their view.  Note:  I do not believe the author of the article I read used the term to intentionally inflame opponents or to poison the well.  It was just a logical mistake that has become common in eschatological discussions, but a mistake nonetheless.

The second outcome goes more toward the Red Herring aspect of using Weasel Words.  If an opponent does not accept the label placed upon their position, the argument becomes sidetracked to discuss the appropriateness of the term.  The two parties must then chase down that rabbit trail before they can get back to discussing the merits of the propositions.

=========================================================================

Now to “Replacement Theology,” just for my opinion.  Covenant Theology/Eschatology as understood by the majority of those who teach it, does not replace Israel with the Church.  Nor do many other forms of theology that are labeled “replacement.”  I think anyone who argues this way doesn’t understand Covenant Theology very well.  Perhaps this is why the author did not quote (in context or out) any recognized teacher of the opposing view.  Further I have heard the case rationally made that it is Dispensationalism that replaces Israel with the Church.  However even this critic didn’t refer to dispensationalist as replacement theologians.  They merely did a fine job of reversing the charges.  For instance, this is the “Church Age” a dispie might say, meaning this is the age in which God is dealing with the Church.  Well….who was He dealing with before He began dealing with the Church?  Dispie answer, …Israel.  Conclusion:  The Church replaced Israel in this dispensation and later Israel will replace the Church after the “rapture.”  That’s oversimplified and the speaker made a much fuller and convincing argument than this, using Dispensationalism’s own writers and teachers.  Some of the popular Dispensational writers he quoted actually said the Church replaced Israel directly.

This argument against Dispensational “replacement theology” however, is also an informal fallacy.  I covered it in the Red Herring article under the Genetic fallacy of Tu quoque, You too, You also.  Simply saying your guilty of what you accuse me of doesn’t make either proposition correct.  In this case it does make the point that the dispie believes something he says is wrong and is therefore inconsistent within his own view.  Meanwhile the Covenant Theologian claims their is no replacement and is consistent throughout his view in that point.  The point may be wrong but at least he is consistent with himself while making it.

Further, even those who believe that God is finished with “old covenant Israel according only to the flesh” don’t believe he replaced them with the Church.  They believe the Church is, “the new covenant Israel of God according to faith.”  Other ways it can be said are:  The Church is Israel according to faith.  Gentiles of faith were combined “adopted” along with the faithful remnant of Israel into this new entity called the Church.  It’s not either or, it’s both who are included in the new covenant Church.  One was not removed and another put in it’s place.  Rather, a new body/man was created that incorporated all humans of faith which came to be called the Church.  Again, NO REPLACEMENT!!  Israel was never removed, and thus, cannot be replaced.

One can disagree with that idea but, one cannot read into it a replacement of any peoples with another without redefining the term “replace,” which is called Equivocation (another informal fallacy under Ambiguity.)  On that note, here are the synonyms for replace found at Dictionary.com:

—Synonyms
1. succeed. Replace, supersede, supplant refer to putting one thing or person in place of another. To replace is to take the place of, to succeed: Ms. Jones will replace Mr. Smith as president. Supersede implies that that which is replacing another is an improvement: The typewriter has superseded the pen. Supplant implies that that which takes the other’s place has ousted the former holder and usurped the position or function, esp. by art or fraud: to supplant a former favorite. 3. refund, repay.

In all of the above situations one thing must be removed in order for the other to “replace” it.

I do not wish to argue the theology involved in this article.  I only mentioned it because it was the impetus for my thinking of the logical fallacy of Weasel Words.  And finally, I didn’t use the term “dispie” to be derogatory.  Typing dispensationalist over and over gets old.

Article 5:  Ambiguity and Equivocation

Page 5 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8