Addressing a Boettner Quote About Limited Atonement

Here is an oft-quoted statement made by a respected reformed writer, Loraine Boettner, defending the reformed doctrine of Limited Atonement:

"Let there be no misunderstanding at this point. The Arminian limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist. The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons (although as has already been shown, he believes that it is efficacious for the salvation of the large proportion of the human race); while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody. The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively. For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge which goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge which goes only half-way across. As a matter of fact, the Arminian places more severe limitations on the work of Christ than does the Calvinist." (1)

I read an Arminian blog recently which addressed this quote. While I agree with that writer that "Boettner's representation of Arminianism is demonstrably false," I disagree with some of his supporting arguments. That is to say, I found most of his points compelling, but it did not seem to me that his writing actually answered all the concerns brought forward by Boettner. As a result, I have set out to write my own response to these issues.

Let me first, though, say that I do not call myself an Arminian. However, I do agree with the view of atonement that the Arminian supports: That Christ died for all, and yet that not all will go to heaven; That Christ's death was sufficient for the salvation of all, but efficient only for those who believe; That Christ's death provided salvation for everyone, but procured salvation for those who believe. I, not calling myself an Arminian, will not speak for Arminians, but rather will speak for Non-Calvinists Christians (NCCs) who disagree with the first four points of Calvinism.

Addressing the quote piece by piece:

"Let there be no misunderstanding at this point. The Arminian limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist."

Well, I would say that Calvinism certainly does attempt to limit the atonement. Boettner admits, in that statement, that Calvinists do limit the atonement of God. He puts forward the idea that NCCs also limit the atonement of God, but in a different way. How so?

We claim, as Kevin Jackson said, that Scripture teaches that God loves the world and that Jesus died for all (John 3:16, 1 Tim 2:5-6). Jesus' sacrifice was for everyone (Heb 2:9). His sacrifice is applied to those who accept it in faith (John 1:12-13). That certainly does not seem to be limited Christ's atonement, but rather giving it credit for being as extensive as it actually was. But Boetner will go on to explain why he thinks that NCC, with this broad view of the atonement, is actually limiting it.

"The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons (although as has already been shown, he believes that it is efficacious for the salvation of the large proportion of the human race);"

Again, he admits that Calvinism limits the atonement. However, to say that the Calvinist believed the atonement to be efficacious for the salvation of the large proportion of the human race seems controversial, at best. All the Calvinists that I have talked to on the subject, and I know many, would say rather that few will be saved.

"Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." Mt. 7:14

"while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody."

Does not actually save anybody? Do not Non-Calvinist Christians claim that they themselves are saved? NCCs would say that the atonement of Christ, in and of itself, actually does save people. Who does it save? The elect. Who are the elect? Those who believe on Christ as Lord and Savior. We claim that the atonement of Christ does actually save the elect. We also say that election is conditional.

Do not, I urge this point, confused conditional election with synergism. I wrote a blog on it here: Link. I believe in monergism. God saves people by His own power and strength, according to His own will. We do not assist in our own salvation. God saves us. We do not save ourselves. We do not help to save ourselves. We do not assist in regenerating ourselves. But God saves only those who meet His condition, which He Himself set, according to His own good pleasure and the counsel of His will: He saves only those who believe.

Again, NCCs do not limit the power of the atonement by saying in itself it does not actually save anybody. For we say that in itself it actually does save the elect, who are those who believe. Christ died for everyone, and that is called Universal Atonement. However, not all are saved, which would be Universalism. Let me re-emphasize this point: Non-Calvinist Christians do not believe, somehow, that Christ died for everyone in such a way as saved no one. Rather, Universal Atonement teaches that Christ's death provided salvation for all, and procured salvation only for those who believe.

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:14

To help this point to be understood, I will compare Jesus' atonement to the serpent that was lifted up in the wilderness, which is a biblical comparison. The serpent, being lifted up, provided a way of healing for all who were bitten. It was sufficient for the healing of all of them. However, not all of them received the benefit of that offer. Only those who looked upon the serpent were healed. The serpent was sufficient for the healing of all, but only efficacious for the healing of those who looking upon it. The serpent was lifted up for all those who were suffering, but only those who looked on it accepted the healing offered by the Lord.

"The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively."

The Calvinist does limit it quantitatively, but the Non-Calvinist Christian limits it neither qualitatively nor quantitatively. We believe that in quantity, it provides salvation for all. Yet in quality, it procures regeneration, justification, sanctification, and eventual glorification for those that believe. In quality, it is perfect and powerful. We, whose sins are covered in the blood of Christ, and who are clothes in the Righteousness of Christ, are secure in Christ forever. This is no cheapening of the atonement. In what way is this not quality?

Boettner merely misunderstands the opposing position. He believes that we limit it qualitatively because he believes that we put forward the idea that the atonement of Christ "does not actually save anybody." He is wrong, for we do not put forward that idea, and therefore do not limit is qualitatively.

"For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge which goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge which goes only half-way across."

I would agree with Kevin Jackson's answer to this point that "No one believes in a bridge that goes halfway across. The narrow bridge analogy much better describes the Arminian view of atonement than it does the Calvinist view. In Arminianism, Jesus Christ is the bridge. He beckons all to cross. Those who believe in him are the ones who cross the bridge and benefit. For a bridge to be of benefit one must cross it. A bridge is provisionally useful. Not everyone crosses a bridge, but anyone can. This is the Arminian understanding of the atonement. In Calvinism the reprobate are dead and have no way to cross the bridge, and yet are still commanded to do so. The "elect" do not cross the bridge either. They are somehow irresistibly dragged across. The Calvinist view of the atonement is more akin to an invisible and random wormhole that teleports a few lucky ones to the other side."

A complete bridge provides all with the opportunity to get to the other side, and yet only those who cross the bridge will get to the other side. This is analogous to Christ provided all with the opportunity to be saved, and only those who believe on Him as Savior will be saved. The half-made bridge is analogous to Boettner's idea of an atonement that is offered to all, but provides salvation to no one; And as I pointed out previously, we do not believe that, though he thinks we do.

"As a matter of fact, the Arminian places more severe limitations on the work of Christ than does the Calvinist."

And yet, the only "limitation" we hypothetically place on it is one in which we do not believe or teach. If we did indeed teach that Christ's atonement does not, in itself, save anyone, we most certainly would be placing a severe limitation of the work of Christ. But we do not, and thus the accusation is unfounded. We believe that the atonement is universal in scope, and provisional in application. This is what the Bible says, and this is what we believe.



1 Limited Atonement by Loraine Boettner.

Thoughts on Theistic Darwinism

Recently, the topic came up that one could believe in God and Bible, and still believe evolution.

It was suggested that rejecting evolution because of Genesis is based in a historically recent and unnecessary reading of the Bible. Well, firstly, I would say that there are many true christians who do believe in evolution, and that a christian can possibly believe it. However, I believe that a literal reading of the Scripture denies evolution. Even the gap theory, which explains that the seven "days" were not literal days, but rather ages. This does not make sense to me, because the plants would have all died within those ages before the sun. Also, I think that macro-evolution denies that man was the created in the image of God, separate from the beasts, and that he sinned as described in Genesis. From another point of view, evolution is scientifically false. There seems no reason to believe in it at all.

In any case, it got me thinking about the topic, and I remembered this article I'd read. Randy Hay wrote this piece about why he rejected the idea of theistic Darwinism, and I found it very thought-provoking and compelling. So here it is:

DiagonalMan

As you’re probably aware it is not my wont to write about Controversial Issues. Recently, however, I’ve had a couple of requests for the account of my conversion from theistic Darwinism, so I decided to go ahead and take pen in hand.

I hope I don’t sound like I’m being frivolous or grotesque in what follows. In point of fact, I had to quit writing at one point because discussing things like “Adam’s father” is more than a little disturbing. But I really think these questions need to be asked, and this is the only way I could do it.

(By the way, I don’t use the term “conversion” carelessly. Evolution is presented as almost a sort of religious belief; it’s something you’re asked to “believe in”...and those who ask the question often have a touch of fervor in their voice.)

While scientific evidence—or the lack thereof—played a part of my rejection of evolution, it was the hokey Hollywood movie Clan of the Cave Bear that led me to my actual conversion, back in the mid 80's.

In case you never saw that one, it is about a group of “early men” and Daryl Hannah. I can’t remember if they were supposed to be CroMagnon Men, Neanderthal Men or what. While Nebraska Man was actually a peccary tooth (oops, Science must have goofed) the romantic name appeals to my Midwestern heritage so I’ll call them Nebraska Men...or, better yet, Nebraska Dudes.

Anyhow, the movie is about a group of these fellows. One evening they’re sitting around the old fire, and Nebraska Dude gets an idea in his head about Nebraska Chick Daryl. Since people aren’t human yet they don’t have Orthodox marriage...and the Dude has his way with her.
The thing is—the thing that wrenched me from my world view—was the fact that she didn’t want him to.

There was question here I couldn’t evade, and that shook me to the core of my being. It was this: Was it morally wrong for the Dude to force himself on her?

If the Chickette was an animal it couldn’t be wrong. God hadn’t breathed a soul into her yet, and soulless animals aren’t morally responsible beings; how can they be victims of immorality? God supposedly created survival-of-the-species, and the species needed to reproduce to survive. In this Darwinian paradigm the Dude notched a good work.

But, cheesy as this movie was, it didn’t allow that interpretation. Nebraska Chick was crying out in agony; she was being violated, trying to escape. You were rooting for her; there was no moral ambiguity. The Dude clearly wasn’t advancing the species; he was committing a crime.

The questions rattled around in my head...is this really what made me who I am? If these are supposed to be non-people, why is it so disturbing to see the Chick violated? If they’re actually people, how can they be “early man”?

Once you ask these questions, you can’t get away from next: when the dudes bludgeon other dudes to death is it heinous murder or Darwinian morality?

This leads to the deeper question of why would God create us through violence and death, and then suddenly reverse all the rules when we became homo sapiens? Our forebears were supposed to kill, loot and pillage for thousands of generations to make us who we are; and now we’re expected to be appalled and shocked when people do that today? Cain is a bad fellow for doing what everybody had been doing for millions of years?? One moment the earth is a nightmare of bludgeonings, starvation, rape and dismemberment, and then suddenly God makes it Paradise?

This divine flip-flopping smacks of Islam and their heaven, where it’s OK to do sins that are forbidden on earth.

You can have theories about the Dudes (or any “early men”) not being real people; but as soon as it is made a little more non-theoretical for you—as in even a B movie—that all goes down the drain. The morality and anthropology just don’t add up.

*

Once you start asking these questions you can’t stop.

If evolution is true, if man comes from monkey, Adam’s parents were animals. This begs the question: When Adam’s father died, did Adam mourn for the death of a human or an animal?

If Adam’s father was an animal then there was certainly no cause for grief. I was pretty sad when my rat Alfred keeled over when I was six, I must admit....but that is quite different from grieving for the loss of a human. No, you can’t have real grief over an animal the way you have grief over a person. The Fathers tell us we’re not supposed to; it’s sinful.

But try to picture it. Try to picture Adam grieving for his father the way you would mourn a rat, or even a hamster or a budgie. He heaves a sigh, grabs Dad’s foot and drags his corpse over to a hole, rolls him in and packs the dirt down, hopping up and down on it, hoping there won’t be any dogs or coons coming along to dig it up.

Is this what it means to be created in the image of God? To be begotten of a the union of animals, and to see your father pass without grief? To have no hope he will be resurrected? Wasn’t Adam a saint and type of Christ? Is it fitting for a saint and type of Christ to hop up and down on his father’s grave? Isn’t this what we’d actually expect from a Mafia guy rather than a saint?

Or perhaps I was being over-fanciful; perhaps there was no pit. Perhaps Adam simply dragged Pops off away from the camp and left him to the carrion-eaters.

The problem with that is, what happens if God turns the nightmare-world into Paradise before Adam Senior decays? Doesn’t a paternal corpse spoil the whole aesthetic of Eden? This question is even more pressing if Adam wasn’t a real person as we know it; if he was just a symbol of newly-emerging homo sapiens. If this is the case, if “Adam” is really a whole race of Dudes, then there are going to be a whole lot of corpses in Paradise; millions of guys who didn’t quite make it in time (and of course plain old non-human animals as well). Isn’t “Adam’s” first job going to be to clean up the corpses before he tends the garden? Where do you stash corpses in Eden? There can’t be any carrion-eaters after God suddenly turns the hellhole into Paradise, because death is temporarily suspended.

There had to have been corpses in the Paradise of theistic evolution; but if there were corpses then it wasn’t Paradise. And God can’t have suddenly cleaned them all up for us, because then there wouldn’t have been any fossils, which are what supposedly reveal this wonderful edifying picture of our divine origin.

Or maybe all the stuff about Paradise was symbolic; if Adam was symbolic, why couldn’t the garden be symbolic, and the angel and the sword too? Maybe it wasn’t an actual place as we think of it. But then...if it wasn’t a real Paradise then there wasn’t a real Fall; and if there wasn’t a real Fall there wasn’t a real Redemption; and if there wasn’t a real Redemption we really don’t have much to look forward to after the next beer.

*

Perhaps this is all the wrong paradigm. Perhaps God created our souls piecemeal, bit by bit. Perhaps the elder Mr. Adam was half man and half animal and had half a soul.

How can you have half a soul? Isn’t the body inextricably tied to the soul? Death is when body and soul are separated, and resurrection is when they’re re-united. If you have half a soul, it seems to me you can’t have more than half a body. Which half would it be, the horizontal half or the vertical half? Or would you be diagonal? I’m sure you could get a pretty impressive-sounding scientific name out of that one. (However, I’ve scrutinized Orthodox iconography and have yet to come across the figure of DiagonalMan.)

If Adam Sr. had half a soul, then his forebears must have had less: a third of a soul, a quarter, 9% or 2% or whatever. As a coffee drinker I can’t help thinking in those terms: a tall soul, grande soul, a venti soul .... or, to paraphrase Steve Martin, a half-caff double cap soul, with a twist of lemon. What about being created in the image of God? Are these percentages applicable to how much our forebears bore the image of God? What’s the ratio of soul to image? When can you say you are created in the image of the Dude, and when in the image of God?

And at what point were they human? What percentage of a soul do you need to be human? What percentage of a soul do you need to have moral responsibility? To be a victim? Did the Dude commit half a rape? If the Dude and Chick were each half-human, it must have added up to a quarter of a rape; .5 x .5 = .25. You can’t deny the math. Still, if he committed any amount of rape, didn’t he sin? How can there be sin before the Fall? Isn’t sin what the Fall is?
Getting down to brass tacks, why would God breathe 2% soul into Nebraska Dude? Why not just be done with it and create Adam?

Indeed, why create a nightmare world of death and pain in which the Dudes lope around furtively, hoping they haven’t lost their matches? Don’t we all really sense that death comes from our sin rather than a fiat of God? If you saw Clan you’ll understand what nasty things happen if you’re a dude without fire. Assuming you don’t die a horrible death by disease, ambush, saber-tooth tiger, bushwhacking or raptor, the cold will get you every time. Trust me, you wouldn’t want to live in that world. You’d be better off living in a pagan myth than the ghastly slaughterhouse of evolution. And if God did create the world a nightmare, why didn’t He just tell us about it? Why paint such an idealized picture of the world before the Fall? Why not tell us the truth about ourselves? If Scripture misleads us here, how do we know it doesn’t mislead us about other stuff?

— Not to belabor the point, I found the propositions inherent in theistic evolution so absurd I turned the movie off before it was over and became a creationist.

Adam was...well, Adam.

Blogging

The Three Dimensions of Causality

When I was younger, I used to think that causality was pretty simple. Either something caused something else, or it didn't. Now, I still think it's pretty simple, but I have a more complete mental model of what I think it is. Just recently, I had chinese food with my older brother, and we discussed all sorts of intriguing concepts, including the concept of causality. The topic came up when we were discussing if God was the first cause of everything, and what that means practically. Pretty soon, we realized that I was using a much more narrow definition of "cause" than he was, but after much discussion, I came to accept a broader definition of the word. In the discussion, though, we both came to realize that there just like there are three dimensions of space, there are three dimensions of causality.

The Three Dimensions

Now, before I go on to describe what I think that causality IS, let me explain what I think it isn't. I think that there is a difference because influence and cause. A cause is something that is necessary to the chain of events - without that cause, the event would not happen. Influence is merely something that inclined things in a certain direction. For example, if I flick the light switch, I am causing the light to turn on. On the other hand, if I tell my sister that I'm going to watch House, that may influence her to stop working on homework. You can see the difference. My sister would probably stop working on her homework even without my influence; my influence was not part of the necessary chain of a events and therefore was not a cause. Secondly, I do not think that causality is passive. If something is passive, it will simply allow things to keep on doing what they are already doing. You can actively push your younger brother, and you can actively block your older brother from pushing your younger brother. Those are active. If you are a pacifist, and do not block when someone tries to hit you, you have not caused them to hit you. You were passive. So, to recap those thoughts, causality is active rather than passive, and is more than just influence: It's a necessary part of the chain of events leading up to the event in question.

So, what are the three dimensions of causality? Before I explain them, I will draw a diagram to show the three dimensions. [It'll be more awesome that way]

So, one dimention is that a cause can be either direct or indirect. If my little sister takes a toy out of my little brother's hand, she directly caused him to lose possession of that toy. Mob bosses, on the other hand, don't prefer to do their own dirty work, and make things happen indirectly. If I turn on the light, even, I am the indirect cause. I cause one plastic thing to switch positions, which causes another something to switch, and the electricity flow causes the light to turn on. On the other hand, if I punch the wall, I can directly cause it to break.

Another dimention is that some things are intentional, and somethings are not intentional. I could directly cause a car accident by going into an intersection, while the light is green, while an ambulance is running a red light, but the accidently would be caused unintentionally: I simply wouldn't have known that the ambulance was going to run that red light. On the other hand, if I'm riding bumper cars, and I go out of my way to hit your car, that would be intentional.

Finally, there are many things necessary in a chain of causation. To light a candle, the candle has to be caused to exist, and I have to be caused to exist, and I must have access to a lighter of some sort, and there must be oxygen in the room, and I must be physically capable of making the lighter work, etc, etc, etc. There are many many indirect causes to anything. The guy who made the engine of the car was (indirectly) part of the chain of causation which made the two year die after being by a drunk guy driving a speeding car. That guy was only only an unintentional and indirect cause, but was also a non-determining cause. It was not his actions that set off the chain of events or determined that the girl would die. The person who choose to drive drunk was unintentionally and directly the determining cause. A mob boss, on the other hand, intentionally and indirectly, causes people's death in a way that pretty much determines that it happens. When I turn on the light switch, the electricity is a cause (for without it, the light wouldn't turn on) but I am the determining cause.

So, every cause is a cause, and yet there are different kinds of causes. I think that all causes that can truly be called "causes" can be found somewhere on this three dimensional chart. Why does this all matter? Well, it helps one sort out in one's mind just who is responsible for what. Was it little Jonny's fault that Aunt Helen got all upset because he didn't like her baking? When he promised not to turn the lights off, and then used a stick to flip the light switch, is that a legitimate excuse? It's all food for thought.

Alternate Lyrics to "It's a Small World"

A couple weeks ago, I found myself at Disneyland, standing in line for It's a Small World. Now I, personally, think that the ride is harmless, and rather enjoyable. Many people, especially little kids, love the ride! But a vast majority of others dislike the ride intensely because the tune can get rather... irritating. The ride lasts maybe 15 minutes, and the Small World Chorus repeats every perhaps 30 seconds - add the time you spend waiting in line and hearing the tune, and you can see how it gets old. So anyway, while I was standing in line, I realized that it would be fun to make a parody of "It's A Small World," and by the time I got off the ride, I had finished composing a song. I'd like to dedicate this song to my friend Larry who usually indicated that he would rather die than go on that ride. Here is it, Enjoy!

Original Lyrics:

It's a world of laughter, a world of tears
It's a world of hope, and a world of fears
There's so much that we share
That it's time we're aware: It's a small world after all!

It's a small world after all-
It's a small world after all-
It's a small world after all!
It's a small, small world.

(And then it repeats...)
It's a world of laughter, a world of tears
It's a world of hope, and a world of fears
There's so much that we share
That it's time we're aware: It's a small world after all!

It's a small world after all -
It's a small world after all -
It's a small world after all!
It's a small, small world.

La la la La la la

Parody Lyrics:

It's a world of water, a world of song
It's a world of dolls, and it takes way too long
It repeats, and repeats
So I think we all know: It's annoying after all!

I will never ride again -
I will never ride again -
Cus that ride drove me crazy
A long time ago!

It's a world of water, a world of song
It's a world of cheap dolls, and it takes way too long
It repeats, and repeats
So I think we all know: It's annoying after all!

I will never ride again -
I will never ride again -
If I ever ride again,
I think that I just might die!

Mostly, it's to the same It's a Small World After All tune, except for the end, in which I steal the tune from the end of the verse (The tune to "That it's time we're aware: It's a small world after all!") and put it at the end of the chorus (The tune for "It's a small world after all, it's a small small world"). Maybe that was confusing. Lemme explain a different way. My lyrics "If I ever ride again, I think that I just might die" which is at the end of my song goes with the tune from "It's a small world after all" because that has more syllables.

Nine Newly-Discovered Logical Fallacies

As I grew up, I learned what was logical and what wasn't, but I didn't really know any of the particular names of the fallacies themselves. This trend changed a couple years ago, when my Mom got a book called "The Fallacy Detective" to teach my siblings the different types of formal logical fallacies, and I got a change to read it just for fun. It's a very good book, by the way, complete with little comic strip illustrations. I was very happy to know the fallacies because, up to that point, when someone would try to prove something that didn't make sense, I was limited to saying "that's not logical." Now I can say a bit more illuminating, like "that's a red herring!" It's helpful to the conversation because if you simply reply to someone that they are not being logical, they will disagree. On the other hand, if you point out exactly what logical fallacy you claim they are using, you both can figure out objectively whether the accusation stands or falls, and the conversation actually gets somewhere.

First, I wanted to outline about 29 of the most well-known logical fallacies, but I realized that that would be a bit long for a note, and so instead I am including a link to this site:
Logical Fallacies
That site lists most of the usual fallacies people use, and if you click of the name of the fallacy, it gives you an explanation of what exactly it is. If you are unfamiliar with logical fallacies, I would recommend perusing that site. However, I was disappointed that the site did not include a description of the "special pleading" fallacy, and so here is another link which will explain that one in particular: Fallacy Files

This all brings me to the point of this particular blog. Now, over the years, I've also come across types of logical fallacies that people use now and then to prove a point that are not officially recognized. There are, of course, thousands of ways to be illogical, and it would be foolish to try to come up with a name for every single type of logical fallacy, but the more prevalent a fallacy is, the more helpful it is to have a name and explanation for it. While talking with my brothers, debating with them, and discussing other debated with them, I came up with a list of nine more tactics which are commonly used and that we think should really be named, have definitions, and be well-known as fallacious arguments. If nothing else, they are pretty interesting, and fun to spot in real life.

What's wrong with this picture?

________________________________________________
The "If Only" Fallacy:
1 - Y happened, and X happened
2 - Y wouldn't have happened if X had not happened
3 - Therefore, Y caused X

This fallacy is often used in real life to assign responsibility or blame, but it's clearly not logical. Y did not necessarily cause X, even though it was the trigger or determinant of the situation. For example:
1 - You said that I was wrong, and I hit you
2 - If you hadn't said I was wrong, I wouldn't have hit you
3 - Therefore, you made me hit you

I actually wrote a whole blog about this fallacy: here's a link if you wish to read it:
If Only

________________________________________________
Chip/Milk Equivocation:
You may have heard of the normal equivocation fallacy, which is to switch the meaning of the word in the middle of an argument. "That's cool!" "No, it's warm, it just came out of the oven." The person has proven that it's not cold "cool" but has not proven that it's not awesome "cool." That type of equivocation relies on having a word that can mean more than one thing. On the other hand, "chip/milk" equivocation is equivocating two different words that still do not mean the same thing.
1 - (Underlying assumption that Chips are the same as Milk)
2 - You have chips.
3 - Therefore, you have milk.

How is this used in real life? It happens all the time, in a multitude of situations where a person thinks that two things are the same, when really they are not.
Example:
1 - (Goth is the same as Emo)
2 - You are Goth
3 - Therefore, you are Emo

Or, something I come across more often:
1 - (True total sovereignty is the same as decreeing every last detail)
2 - You believe that God does not decree sin
3 - Therefore, you are trying to deny that God is sovereign!

________________________________________________
Perspective Fallacy:
1 - Subjectively, X is true.
2 - Therefore, objectively, X is true.

This topic came up when Mom said that my brother was being too loud, and he said that she was wrong. Generally, "too loud," "too soft," "too hot," "too cold," and the like are all pretty subjective. Mom was correct that my brother was being too loud, because although the level of noise he was making was moderate, she was on the phone and had already asked him to be quiet for a few minutes. In refusing to be quiet and maintaining a level of noise that made it hard for her to hear the other person, he was being, in her subjective opinion, "too loud."

Here's the fallacy my brother followed:
1 - In his subjective experience, the level of noise he was creating was pretty normal, and not usually considered by most to be overly loud. To him, it was not too loud.
2 - Therefore, objectively, it was not too loud, and Mom was wrong in labeling it "too loud."

How can this be used in serious discussions? For one thing, I see it often used when people try to understand God based on their subjective view of what perfection is.
Given - God is good
1 - From my point of view, God would not be good if He sent people to hell
2 - Therefore, God, being good, does not send people to hell

You can see that it would make sense that if good objectively could not include sending people to hell, and if God is good, then we could conclude that God does not send people to hell. The mistake is made when the person mistakes what they subjectively perceive as good for objective good.

________________________________________________
Strongman Fallacy:
1 - If A and B are true, then C is true
2 - A is true, and B is true
3 - Therefore, C is true

As you can probably tell, that is actually logical. What is the problem with this train of thought? There isn't a problem with it. You commit the "Strongman fallacy" by being too logical. That is, by being more logical than your opponent would like you to be. But since, until now, there has been a name for this fallacy, no one will say to you "You just used the Strongman Fallacy!" Rather, they will say something like "you're being overly logical," or "you are relying too much on human logic."

It's not actually a fallacy, but people treat it like it is. So I gave it a name.
Example of Strongman Fallacy:
Person A: God cannot be self-contradictory. He cannot be sinless and sinful at the same time.
Person B: Yes He could. His ways are mysterious to us. We cannot ever hope to understand them with our puny human logic.

________________________________________________
The Fluff Fallacy:
1 - I am arguing that 2 X + 4 - ab = 2Y + 4 - ab
2 - I am not arguing that X = Y

As you can see, those two statements contradict each other. The reason for using such a fallacy is to avoid being proven wrong.

Example: (Given that X=4, and Y=9)
Tom: X plus 4 is the same as Y plus 4.
Tim: So you're telling me that 4 is 9
Tom: No of course not! That would be stupid!
Tim: But you said that X is Y!
Tom: No I didn't. I said that X plus 4 is the same as Y plus 4!
Tim: Dude. That's the same thing as saying that X is equal to Y!
Tom: You are strawmanning my position! I never claimed that X equals Y.

The Fluff Fallacy is when a person dresses up a simple argument in so much verbal "fluff" that the argument cannot be proven or disproven, and refuses to simplify his argument to the point where it would be possible to test it's accuracy. This is very possible and easy to do if you know a lot of long words that others don't know - using the fluff argument, a person can sound super-intelligent and make claims that no one else can disprove, even without putting forward any truth.

________________________________________________
The Little-Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf Fallacy
1 - I disagree with you
2 - Therefore, you've committed a logical fallacy

Basically, this fallacy is just when a person keeps claiming that other people are using fallacies that the other people are not really using.
Example:
Tom: X plus 4 is Y plus 4
Tim: So you're saying that X is Y.
Tom: No! That is a strawman fallacy! You are misrepresenting my position!

Tom: I think that all girls only like guys with blond hair
Suzy: That can't be true, because I like guys with brown hair.
Tom: That's a red herring! Completely irrelevant!

Tom: You beat up Paul earlier. I know because he told me so.
Tim: But you know that Paul is notorious for lying!
Tom: That's an Ad Hominem attack! Just because he isn't perfect does not mean that his theory is incorrect!

After reading that, you can probably start to tell why I named this fallacy after the little boy who cried wolf...

________________________________________________
Argument by Lack of Argument:
1 - (I do not bring up a point, or else my point is successfully debunked)
2 - I claim that I've already proven that point

This fallacy is surprisingly common in internet debates. Every so often, when you question a point, they will claim that they're "already proven" something which they never actually addresses previously. And without a lot of searching, it's hard to prove them wrong. The best you can usually do is to call their bluff and say something like "Oh really? Where did you prove that? Link please?"

Example:
UserName1220 - Choices are hard, but I am glad that we have free choice
Some1Else - You're just going in circles. I've already proven that free choice doesn't exist

________________________________________________
A Double Standard of Evidence:
1 - For your point to stand, you must prove it true, and also prove my point of view false.
2 - For my point to stand, I do not need to offer any proof for it, or even prove your point of view false. I only need to show that any evidence against my argument might possibly be inconclusive

Example:
Guy: The government watches our every move. Even now. They are tape recording this conversation.
Girl: There's no reason to believe that
Guy: No, there is reason. I've read about them online!
Girl: The web doesn't give only true information, you know
Guy: You haven't proven that it's false information
Girl: I know this house like the back of my hand, and I've never found any hidden cameras or bugging devices
Guy: Well of course if they bug your house, they won't want to you find out about it!
Girl: You have no proof that they are watching us like that!
Guy: See, you're just proving me right because you've come up with every argument against it, and none disproves it! You're just ignoring the obvious conclusion because that's not what you want to believe.

________________________________________________
The Bluff Argument:
Premise - If A and B are true, then C is true
Version A:
1 - A is true
2 - B is true
3 - Therefore, Y is true!

Version B:
1 - A is shown false
2 - B is shown false
3 - Therefore, C is true!

As you can see, in both cases, 3 does not logically follow 1 and 2.

Simple examples:
1 - Brownies taste good
2 - You have to bake brownies
3 - Therefore, cake is not as good as brownies

Person: Eating a lot of chocolate every day will make it less likely for you to get sick
Person2: That's not what medical studies have shown...
Person: Also also, baking things gets rid of anything in them that could effect you negatively, similar to sterilizing needles
Person3: Actually, a lot of things that may not be good for you, like sugar, survive heat just fine
Person: And therefore, as you can all clearly see, we should all be eating more brownies!

You may think these arguments so ridiculous that they could never be taken seriously in real life, but you might be surprised! I've seen version B uses in debates between presidential candidates, or even used to win points and votes in the board game of "argue." One real life example that comes to mind is this one time when a particular fellow was trying to persuade people to reject the idea of free will/free choice.

He put forward that:
1 - According to Scripture, you and I do not have free will, and do not determine or make our own choices and decisions
2 - Those who teach that we do really make choices are teaching lies (that they know people want to believe)
3 - Therefore, "it is up to you, and it is up to me to choose to follow the truth" instead of following the lie of free will!

As you can see, the Bluff argument can go so far as to contradict itself. (IE We cannot make choices, and we must choose to believe that) The intriguing thing about the situation was that, among the perhaps 25 people listening to that lecture, I was the only one who noticed the inconsistency: the conclusion did not follow, and in fact contradicted the previous points established. Most everyone else bought into it. It's a powerful logical fallacy, apparently.

Excerpt from "Mere Christianity" on Free Will

I was reading "Mere Christianity" today, which is written by one of my favorite authors, C.S. Lewis. There is a reason that this book is considered classic - Lewis is very wise and writes in a way that is easy to understand. In the section "What Christians Believe," I found this one part about free will. Perhaps now this section should be defined as "What Some Christians Believe" because it seems to go against much of what Calvinism and reformed theology teaches. Now, free will is defined many different ways, and I will let the reader decide for him or herself which kind of free will C.S. Lewis is talking about. I agree with what most of what Lewis says here. You might notice that he makes no mention of the "secret decrees of God" when explaining human sin. The question is also brought up: If God knew that man was going to sin, why would He allow it, or give them free will at all? Also, How could God truly be in charge, if His creatures break His laws?

One of the reasons I'm posting this is that recently, in a rebuttal to on my blogs, Michael Brusuelas wrote here, in response to my statement that "God gave man free will, and seems to prefer interacting and relating to people who can choose to respond to Him," that there were:

"Two major problems with this. For one, notice how “free will” is presupposed. Free will is mentioned so often in discussions of God’s providence yet it is hardly argued for."

[As a side note, this was in the context of the debate about irresistible grace, and to me, it seems that free will must be presupposed in order to debate whether grace is irresistible, because if there is no free will then everything is irresistible and grace would be no exception.]

Later in the same blog, when responding to my thoughts that God has let man choose from the beginning, he says

"Notice the assumption being made here? Let us even assume that Adam had complete free will, which is not an assumption many would be so generous as to grant it. How would it follow that this says anything about the condition of man this day? Sure, it is said that this situation is God’s ideal, but does not the entirety of human history exist in the fallout of Original Sin? Every descendent of Adam has a will that is enslaved to sin that they were born with and did not ask for. To assert that “it’s always been this way” is to assume what is in question."

I am not concerned in this particular blog to argue that free will (The idea that we are free agents: we determines our own choices, and they are not externally determined) is true. However, I do think that if one reads the Bible to see the straight-forward obvious meaning of things, free will is apparent. I think that most people who become christians start with the presupposition of free will, and that's why this section that I'm going to quote somehow wound up in a section called "What Christians Believe" as part of a book called "Mere Christianity," which is a book that is respected by many many christians. One might say that, in that case, I am not actually supporting the presupposition of free will, but merely showing that a lot of people presuppose it! That is quite true. I do think there are many good reasons to assume free will, but I'm not getting into that now. See, I have said previously that free will is obvious, and if something is obvious, one would expect it to be obvious to many people, even respected ones. If something were obvious, one might expect it to wind up in a book called something like "mere christianity." I am here supporting my claim that it is quite common for free will to be presupposed, because it is palpably obvious.

________________________________________________________

Excerpt from "Mere Christianity", Book II "What Christians Believe", Section 3 "The Shocking Alternative":

Christians, then, believe that an evil power has made himself for the present the Prince of this World. And, of course, that raises problems. Is this state of affairs in accordance with God's will or not? If it is, He is a strange God, you will say: and if it is not, how can anything happen contrary to the will of a being with absolute power?

But anyone who has been in authority knows how a thing can be in accordance with your will in one way and not in another. It may be quite sensible for a mother to say to the children, "I'm not going to go and make you tidy the schoolroom every night. You've got to learn to keep it tidy on your own." Then she goes up one night and finds the Teddy bear and the ink and the French Grammar all lying in the grate. That is against her will. She would prefer the children to be tidy. But on the other hand, it is her will which has left the children free to be untidy. The same thing arises in any regiment, or trade union, or school. You make a thing voluntary and then half the people do not do it. That is not what you willed, but your will has made it possible.

It is probably the same in the universe. God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata-of creatures that worked like machines-would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free.

Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently He thought it worth the risk. Perhaps we feel inclined to disagree with Him. But there is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes: you could not be right and He wrong any more than a stream can rise higher than its own source. When you are arguing against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on. If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will-that is, for making a live world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings-then we may take it it is worth paying.

When we have understood about free will, we shall see how silly it is to ask, as somebody once asked me: "Why did God make a creature of such rotten stuff that it went wrong?" The better stuff a creature is made of-the cleverer and stronger and freer it is-then the better it will be if it goes right, but also the worse it will be if it goes wrong. A cow cannot be very good or very bad; a dog can be both better and worse; a child better and worse still; an ordinary man, still more so; a man of genius, still more so; a superhuman spirit best-or worst-of all.

How did the Dark Power go wrong? Here, no doubt, we ask a question to which human beings cannot give an answer with any certainty. A reasonable (and traditional) guess, based on our own experiences of going wrong, can, however, be offered. The moment you have a self at all, there is a possibility of putting Yourself first-wanting to be the centre-wanting to be God, in fact. That was the sin of Satan: and that was the sin he taught the human race. Some people think the fall of man had something to do with sex, but that is a mistake. (The story in the Book of Genesis rather suggests that some corruption in our sexual nature followed the fall and was its result, not its cause.) What Satan put into the heads of our remote ancestors was the idea that they could "be like gods"-could set up on their own as if they had created themselves-be their own masters-invent some sort of happiness for themselves outside God, apart from God. And out of that hopeless attempt has come nearly all that we call human history-money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery-the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy.