|
 The
dilemma is one of the oldest known rhetorical forms. As a
method of refutation, it consists in reducing an issue to an
alternative, then showing that both members (or, "horns of
the dilemma") are untenable. Essential to such an argument,
the "horns" presented must include all
possibilities in the case. A different form of the dilemma, the
"either-or" argument, likewise has this requirement:
when we offer an "either-or" choice, there must be no
third choice available.
But
false dilemmas are often offered to pressure one into accepting
an obviously false position, or the one advocated by the
argument maker. "You must either use our product or the
inferior "Brand X." No, there are brands Y., Z., etc.,
to consider. And even when the choice is apparently
all-inclusive, the fallacy may lie in the definition given the
attractive place. Warfield's "Plan of Salvation"
offers us either the Naturalistic or the Super-naturalistic
view. Before you grab the latter, note that his definitions
erase free will with that one stroke. While you thought you were
saying God must save man, he set you on the track for particular
election through unconditional and direct operation of the Holy
Spirit.
Grace
and Works are offered as an either-or proposition, based on
passages like Rom. 11:6. "If by grace... no more of
works" and the reverse for emphasis. With each term given
its contextual definition this is a genuine
"either-or" proposition; but if we define
"works" as "doing something" or
"obedience," we create a fallacy. "Works" in
context refers to meriting the pronounce
| |
-ment "free of guilt"
or "justified," on the basis of our doing-- and that
means perfect doing. The passage is really saying,
"grace (mercy, forgiveness) and works (that merit
justification) are mutually exclusive." There is nothing
here that negates works of faith, or excludes the extension of
mercy at the point of some manifestation of faith.
Many
brethren have been forced (?) to accept unscriptural practices
by use of false dilemmas. We either must "cooperate"
(defined a s collective action of churches) or we are
"anti-cooperation" (against all types of working
together). Of course these are by no means the only alternatives
available. This is a false dilemma! One either rejects all Bible
classes or he believes in "church adjuncts" in the
form of "S.S. organizations." Not true! There are
other alternatives. The "either-or" proposition is so
grossly misused one would do well to check for other choices any
time he is offered such limitations.
Even
the clear-cut "either-or" offered by the Lord (Matt.
12:30) has been twisted to serve sectarianism. "He that is
not for (the way we teach the Lord) is against the
Lord." The grand statements o f the Lord are dragged
through church fusses like slogans at a political rally.
We
are not suggesting that every one must study logic or rules of
argumentation. It will be enough if we can encourage more
independent thinking; with scripture searching as our
background, and genuine desire to serve the Lord as our motive.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
