To NOT "name call" a False teacher is to SIN!
You already practice such are you inaccurate?
Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess if we were Christ, or his Apostles, then we would be able to
exercise "Accurate name-calling". But, since we are not, IMO we can not, and
therefore, we should not.
Perry
>From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>CC: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Virtue of Name Calling
>Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 19:59:01 -0500
>
>This is an interesting article - What say ye CPL??
>
>On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 15:41:19 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>The Virtue of Name-Calling
>John W. Robbins
>American Christians of the twentieth century are, for the most part, a
>pusillanimous bunch. About the only time they shed their timidity is in
>order to attack a fellow Christian who is valiant in defense of the
>truth. A Christian like that is perceived as a threat to the "unity of
>believers" and the "peace of the church." Confronted with such a manifest
>threat to unity and peace, some professed Christians can be quite
>vindictive and vicious, as J. Gresham Machen learned earlier in this
>century and as Harold Lindsell is learning now.
>Some time ago a reader wrote to the editors of Present Truth (now
>Verdict) magazine to protest the magazines attitude toward Karl Barth.
>In his letter, the reader referred to Barth as a "monstrous miscreant,"
>thereby violating the first commandment of polite society: Never call
>people names (unless, of course, those people are ignorant
>fundamentalists). The editor, in a stern and curt rebuke, reprimanded the
>reader, saying, "We suggest, sir, that you stick to judging Barths
>theology and not his person." That is, never call people names.
>Name-calling is not only non-Christian, it is worse: It is prima facie
>evidence of bad taste, and whatever Christians do, they must never, no
>never, give the impression that they are of low birth.
>Two of the most shocking things for a twentieth-century American
>Christian to read are the works of Martin Luther and John Calvin, for
>these menwho were valiant for the truthdid not hesitate to call people
>names. Are Luther and Calvin wrong and the editors of Present Truth
>right? The only way for a Christian to discover the answer is to examine
>the Scriptures.
>Unfortunately, most professed Christians today seem never to have gotten
>past Matthew 7. Thats too bad, for they should proceed to read Matthew
>23. In that chapter alone, Christ calls the scribes and Pharisees names
>16 times. The names are "hypocrites" (7 times), "son of Hell"
>(once),"blind guides" (twice), "fools and blind" (3 times), "whited
>sepulchres" (once), "serpents" (once), and "offspring of vipers" (once).
>Since Christ was without sin, we may deduce by good and necessary
>consequence that name-calling as such is not a sin. Since everything
>Christ did was righteous and virtuous, we may deduce by good and
>necessary consequence that accurate name-calling is a virtue.
>But Christ is not the only example. John, who some professed Christians
>love to quote because they misunderstand and misrepresent what he says
>about love, calls certain persons known to his readers "liars" and
>"antichrists." Those sensitive souls who flinch when they read chapter 25
>of the Westminster Confession identifying the pope as antichrist should
>read 1 John 2 and 2 John. John was not talking about someone far off in
>Rome; he was referring to persons known to his readers.
>Just AD HOMS?
>Then there is Paul, who in 1 Corinthians corrected those at Corinth who
>denied the resurrection. In chapter 15, verse 36, he refers to one
>objector as a fool. And can we not conclude from Psalms 14:1 and 53:1
>that Madalyn OHair, for example, is a fool? Further, in 1 Timothy 4:2
>Paul refers to "hypocritical liars" and in 5:13 he writes of "gossips and
>busybodies." Those who object to name-calling must object to the practice
>of Jesus, Paul, and John, among many others.
>The obvious question, which the perceptive reader has already asked, is,
>what shall we do with Matthew 5:22:"Whosoever shall say to his brother,
>Raca, shall be liable to the Sanhedrin; but whoever shall say, Fool,
>shall be liable to the fire of Hell." Does not this verse, just as
>Matthew 7:1does with judging and Matthew 5:34-37 do with swearing,
>prohibit all name-calling? The answer, equally obvious, is no. Such an
>interpretation would create irreconcilable contradictions in the Bible.
>Just as Matthew 7:1 does not prohibit accurate judging and Matthew
>5:34-37 do not prohibit legitimate swearing, neither does Matthew 5:22
>prohibit accurate name-calling. It is not name-calling per se that is
>proscribed, but inaccurate name-calling. Jesus, John, and Paul used names
>accurately and achieved a specific purpose: telling the truth.
>Name-calling, accurately done, is not only not a sin, it is a virtue. It
>is identifying a person for what he is, and this cannot be done except by
>doing it. Anyone who studies the examples quoted here or any of the many
>other examples in the Bible will find that the name is used in
>conjunction with stated reasons for using it. The reasons constitute an
>argument, and the name is a conclusion. Those who deny that Jesus came in
>the flesh are antichrists and liars. Those who deny the resurrection are
>fools, and so on. The reluctance to call names is a type of reluctance to
>draw valid conclusions from the evidence; it is an attempt to "curb
>logic," to use the neo-orthodox phrase. As such, it is but another
>example of the anti rationalism of our age.
>To return to our original example, the editors of Present Truth suggested
>that a separation be made between Karl Barths theology and his person,
>indicating that it is permissible to judge his theology, but not his
>person. Such a separation is foreign to the Scriptures. The reason one is
>not to call a brother Raca or Fool is that his theology is basically
>correct: He is a brother and has been regenerated by God. His theology is
>his person; as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. Not only are we not
>to make a separation between a persons theology and his person, we are
>commanded to judge another person by his theology. John, in 2 John, does
>not say that the theology of certain people is antichristian (though it
>is) nor does he say they speak lies (though they do). He calls the people
>antichrists and liars. He judges their persons by their theologies, and
>he commands the elect lady and her children to do the same. Worse still,
>from the point of view of the twentieth centurythe bloodiest and most
>polite century in historyJohn commands the elect lady and her children
>not to show any hospitality to such liars and antichrists. It is not
>without significance that John first gives his reasons, then calls names,
>and then gives the command. Accurate identification is necessary to
>appropriate action. Unless that identification is made, the appropriate
>action will not follow. Witness the reluctance of denominations and
>institutions in twentieth-century America to dismiss employees and
>officers who deny the faith.
>What, then, shall we say of Barth? Is he really a "monstrous miscreant"?
>Well, the Oxford English Dictionary says that "monstrous" means
>"outrageously wrong or absurd," and "miscreant" means "a misbeliever,
>heretic; an unbeliever, infidel." Is this phrase an accurate
>description of Barth? What does Barth say?
>The prophets and apostles as such, even in their office, were real
>historical men as we are, and Actually guilty of error in their spoken
>and written word (Church Dogmatics, I, 2, 528-529).
>Like all ancient literature the Old and New Testaments know nothing of
>the distinction of fact and value between history on the one hand and
>saga and legend on the other (I, 2, 509).
>The vulnerability of the Bible, i.e., its capacity for error, also
>extends to its religious or theological content (I, 1,509).
>In common with the creation story the history of the resurrection has to
>be regarded . as "saga" or "legend." The death of Jesus Christ can
>certainly be thought of as history in the modern sense, but not the
>resurrection (IV, 1, 336).
>The "legend" of the finding of the empty tomb is not of itself and as
>such the attestation of Jesus Christ as he showed himself alive after his
>death. It is ancillary to this attestation. The one can be as little
>verified "historically" as the other. Certainly the empty tomb cannot
>serve as an "historical" proof (IV, 1, 341).
>These quotations, and there are many more, are sufficient to justify
>calling Barth a monstrous miscreantor, in Biblical terms, a fool and a
>liar. To refuse to draw this conclusion about a man with the stature of
>Barth would be a sin, for only such an identification serves to warn the
>faithful. False teachers must be named, and the pusillanimous habits of
>Christians broken. Good etiquette, like peace and unity, must yield to
>the primacy of truth. Accurate name-calling is a virtue, not a sin. Just
>as Adam was given the task of naming the animals as an exercise of his
>rational faculties, so Christians are called upon to identify correctly
>the false teachers who prey upon the innocent and unlearned.
>
>
>Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>What do I think? Well, I still think both the "barf" reference and the
>"Jezebel" reference are ad hominem references.
>
>One aspect of the meaning on "jezebel" may include a characteristic that
>you
>feel applies to Judy, but since there are many dimensions to the word,
>other
>uses of the word will undoubtedly come to mind. This is no different than
>
>Lance's saying that Judy would make a good Muslim. While he may feel that
>
>one of the characteristics of muslims applies to Judy, to say that she
>would
>make a good muslim brings to mind many other undesirable characteristics.
>
>Did you like it when Jim Elsman called you "butterball"? There may of
>been
>some nuance of that which Elsman felt was true, but I did not feel like
>it
>gave him a right to call you that.
>
>I think it all amounts to name-calling, which is ad-hominem in nature.
>
>Perry
>
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom
>(Barf
> >for Karl Barth)
> >Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:54:27 -0500
> >
> >Comments concerning Webster are correct, I am sure. But I included the
> >only definition Webster entertains in the referenced work. One simply
> >cannot say that the writing "is just plain stupid" without casting doubt
>on
> >the intellectual abilities of the author. "Barf" is not the man's name
> >and Judy speaks these words as would a well trained parrot. She has so
> >committed herself to the disgracing of Barth as to render her comments
> >bigoted and biased -- words and judgments written without personal
> >knowing. I regard these words as both ignorant and stupid -- and the
> >glory of it all is that I get to say such things without crossing the
>line
> >of "ad hom" because I have limited my attack to her words and not to her
>
> >person. Asinine. Such a line solves no problems and allows the kind of
> >negative immaturity that typifies TT discussions .
> >
> >"Barf" is vomit, Perry. It no more is beyond "ad hom" than calling Judy
> >Jezebel. She is not a whore and Barth is not a pile of vomit. If you
> >disagree, then I will argue that Jezebel decribes the whoring words of
>one
> >who has prostituted the truth for a lie.................and it will
>become
> >a part of my presentations here on TT. I will use it to describe Judy in
>
> >the same sense that The Revelations uses the word.
> >
> >What do you think?
> >
> >jd
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Charles Perry Locke
> >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> >Sent: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:36:14 -0800
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom
>(Barf
> >for Karl Barth)
> >
> >
> >John, there are many dimensions to the ad-hominem argument on which
> >Webster's does not elaborate. In fact, the way the ad hominem attack is
> >most often used on TT is to demean the opponent for 1) hoping to
>discredit
> >them to the point that their arguments seem untrustworthy, 2) to throw a
>
> >red herring into the argument to avoid answering the opponent's
>argument,
> >and 3) is almost alays a sign of defeat in the argument.
> >
> >...and "Jezebel" is one such ad-hominem.
> >
> >While "Barf" for "Barth" is indeed an ad hominem, it is meant to
>discredit
> >a third party to which the opponent has referred as an authority.
>However,
> >it is not intended to demean the opponent him/herself. Terry did the
>same
> >by saying Calvin would make a good Muslim. I do not consider these
>critical
> >ad-hominems since they are not intended to hurt or demean other TT
>members,
> >although they are still a poor technique in argumentation.
> >
> >Side bar...in my recent survey of the ad-hominem reference I was
>surprised
> >to find that it is, in some types of arguments, regarded as an effective
>
> >argument...and that was exclusively in political debate.
> >
> >Perry
> >
> > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom
>(Barf
> > >for Karl Barth)
> > >Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:12:22 -0500
> > >
> > >Total chunky style barnyard. By the same logic, I can call you Jezebel
>
> > >Taylor and Kevin "Dunce Deegan" and and so on. And "ad hom" has no
>such
> > >limitations except here on TT. Ad hom is an attack on the person or
>words
> > >of an individual "rather than an appeal to pure reason" (Webster's
> > >Encyclopedic Dictionary.)
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Judy Taylor
> > >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > >Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > >Sent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 07:53:12 -0500
> > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom
>(Barf
> > >for Karl Barth)
> > >
> > >
> > >Oh Lance, I forgot to mention that I can not take credit for your
> > >descriptive subject line
> > >It is an original Kevinism (if I remember correctly) but after
>perusing
> > >some of the subject's
> > >theological ideas I found it appropriate.
> > >
> > >Remember ad hom is against the person. I don't know the man; my
>comment
> > >reflects my
> > >response to his theology which has been made very public..
> > >
> >
> >----------
> >"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
> >know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
> >http://www.InnGlory.org
> >
> >If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
> >friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>
>
>----------
>"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
>know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
>http://www.InnGlory.org
>
>If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
>friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less
>
>
> judyt
>
>He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
> is a liar (1 John 2:4)
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Yahoo! Personals
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
Lots of someones, actually. Yahoo! Personals
