John Scargy’s Logical Fallacy
Filed Under (Paul's posts) by Paul on 25-11-2009
Tagged Under : Covenant Creationists, John Scargy, Paul's Post
You just have to chuckle at some of the allegations and claims made by some of the hyperpreterists. John Scargy actually “believes” the claim by theistic evolutionist Norm Voss (and others) that Samuel Frost and Jason Bradfield have formed a (shall we call it a “secret’) “alliance” with me. Thereby, Frost and Bradfield must in reality be partial preterists and therefore outside of the hyperpreterist movement (talk about your conspiracy theories). Note carefully that this is a “straw-man” argument against Bradfield and Frost. Also consider the implications that unless you are a “theistic evolutionist” you cannot be considered in the hyperpreterist community. Scargy writes:
The futurist paul agrees with the partial preterist Jason and Co. Just earlier the futurist paul was giving kudos to Sam for his fight for the truth.
“Sam, once again, I applaud your efforts in opposing the theistic evolutionists in your camp. The intellectual dishonesty with which they proclaim their humanists agenda is astonishing.”
sourceNow note that word “intellectual dishonesty”…yes that’s the same one they were using about Sam for years.He has been called a lair on that site more times then he would like to admit.
I guess Sam has earned absolution.
Now just in case you (John) did not comprehend the proper use of the term “intellectual dishonesty,” here is a definition for your edification:
Intellectual dishonesty is an ethical blunder that stems from self-deception or a covert agenda, which is expresses through a misuse of various rhetorical devices. The unwary reader may be deceived as a result, but whether the intention to deceive the reader can be proved or not is immaterial.
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Intellectual_dishonesty/
John, for your information, when I claimed that Sam Frost was acting in an “intellectually dishonest” manner I wasn’t calling him a “liar”, I was pointing out that he was unfairly representing the positions of the men he was using to support his argument by minimizing their perspective on the importance of a future resurrection of the body. However, if you check out Sam’s 3rd paper on Dr. Clark you will note Sam makes mention of Dr. Clark’s full view on the matter of God’s plan of redemption. Frost wrote:
Man is the soul, the Person. “Body” does not define Man. Now, because of certain readers, I have to point out that Clark did affirm the resurrection of the body. Got that? Did that go over your head? can we move on? Okay.
http://thereignofchrist.com/gordon-h-clark-the-definition-of-man-part-iii/
John, after listening to Tami and Shannon interview Tim Martin it is clear most hyperpreterists who frequent these web-sites never take the time to investigate the claims of those who appear to be up on the various positions. If one inaccurately represents an author or a position of an individual they are employing “intellectual dishonesty” in their argument. I took Sam’s post as an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of my complaint. I did not say that he “intentionally” sought to mislead his readers (I do not know what went on in the past since my participation is recent), but that he was not giving a full discloser of their position. He corrected that and you will note that I did not respond to him after that disclosure in Part III because he was not minimizing their view on the resurrection. I think that you would agree that full disclosure on a view, whether one agrees with it or not, is important. Frost did just that and my issue, even though I disagree with his view, was resolved.
However, as I’ve pointed out here at “Preteristblog” both Tim Martin and JL Vaughn are employing the same “intellectual dishonesty” in proclaiming their view. As I have noted, the historic Christian view of the ability of “kinds” having the God given inherent ability to adapt (what some call “microevolution”) is nothing akin to Darwinian Evolution. JL Vaughn purports himself to be a “scientist” and therefore he should know this distinction. Tim Martin purports himself to be a pastor and if he is going to write on cosmology from a theistic evolutionistic view, he should know this distinction too. From what I have read in their posts (Norm Voss included), these individuals claim that the only difference between the accepted Christian view defined as microevolution and that of Darwinian Evolution aka “macroevolution” is “self-deception” of the highest order. The fact is the fundamental difference between the 2 views is that Christianity maintains, and has always maintained that Adam is the progenitor of the human race created by the Divine hand of God.
An illustration of the intellectual dishonesty of the theistic evolutionists embedded in the hyperpreterist movement is seen in what JL Vaughn posted at preteristdebate just this evening. Vaughn writes;
If you are going to permeate your work with favorable quotes from dispies, you will permeate your work with dispensationalism. YEC anti-dispy Gary North made this complaint back in 1987. Things have not changed since.
http://preterismdebate.ning.com/profiles/blogs/young-earth-creationism?id=4171784%3ABlogPost%3A5043&page=-1#comments
The quote above in context is employed by Vaughn to support his false premise, 6 day creationism is a phenomena of dispensationalism. Indeed in the same thread Vaughn offers the ignorant claim,
Every young-earth creationist book ever written seethes with dispensationalism. There is not a single exception. The two subjects are inseparable.
However, in 1988 Gary North published a book entitled “Is the World Running Down”, wherein he argues the current YEC argument is not as strong as it could be.
Gary North writes:
What I want to do in this book is strengthen the case for six-day creationism. I have become convinced that the Scientific Creationists have been much too soft and academically gracious in their dealings with God-hating Darwinian scientists. These defenders of the faith have not “gone for the jugular” of their opponents, for they have accepted too many of their opponents’ illegitimate ground rules in the debate. Scientific Creationists have offered their intellectual opponents far too much ammunition. Scientific Creationists have allowed the Darwinists to establish the methodological starting point in the debate over the origins of the universe and man: the autonomous
mind of man. The problem with this strategy is that if you acknowledge the legitimacy of your opponents’ presupposition about man’s autonomy, the best you can hope to achieve is to convince him that his starting point does not lead to the conclusions he has proclaimed. But you cannot rationally go from his erroneous presupposition to a correct conclusion; a person’s starting point determines his conclusions. You cannot show him what is correct; you can only show him that what he has concluded cannot be true. You can at best demonstrate to him (or the audience) that he doesn’t have a leg to stand on; but our goal should be to provide him with a pair of working legs, not simply to expose his artificial legs in public debate.
The problem is, the Darwinists are perfectly willing to continue to hobble along on their artificial legs, pretending that they are Olympic sprinters, rather than to go to the Bible for their source of scientific knowledge. Once you accept the premise of the autonomy of man’s mind to sit in judgment on the truths God has revealed: you are forever condemned to hobble on artificial legs – legs that are themselves the gift of God … Christians need a better alternative than historical despair, both for themselves and for their presentation of Christ’s gospel of redemption. We are at war with post-Darwinian evolutionism, and this war encompasses every area of life. Very few Christians recognize the comprehensive, literally life-and-death nature of this war, including members of the Scientific Creation movement. Marx understood it, Lenin understood it, but Christians don’t. … This indicates that the vast majority of Christians still do not believe that the doctrine of the six-day creation is relevant for Christian spiritual life. There is a reason for this: Scientific Creationists have written virtually nothing on how and why the doctrine of the six-day creation must reshape all of modern Christian theology and the entire Christian way of life. Christians have not been shown clearly and decisively that Darwinism is a total worldview, and that by accepting any aspect of this worldview, Christians compromise and weaken the presentation of the Christian worldview, as well as risk disobeying God. They have not been shown how evolutionism spreads like cancer from the geology or biology textbook to every area of personal ethics and public policy. Worse, they have not been shown why and how six-day creationism leads to a fundamentally unique worldview that encompasses things other than academic topics like historical geology and biology. To win the battle with Darwinism, which is above all a comprehensive worldview justifying comprehensive power, six-day creationists must believe that the stakes are far larger than mere laboratory experiments or one-evening debates. Creation scientists must demonstrate to Christians that six-day creationism really makes a difference in every area of life. Only a handful of Christians are ever willing to sacrifice their reputations and present associations for the sake of some rarified theological doctrine. The Scientific Creation movement has not yet persuaded Christians that its doctrinal position is anything more than a rarified theological opinion developed by ivory tower specialists in the natural sciences.
http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/gniw.pdf
Does Dr. North sound like an old earth theistic evolutionist to you? Vaughn needs to correctly reflect the issue Dr. North had with some 6 day creationists, especially if he is going to claim there is no material produced by 6 day creationists who are not also dispensationalists. I wonder if Vaughn has ever found a logical fallacy he didn’t like.
Scargy continues
Roderick must eating his heart out seeing pault brag about Jason and Sam…I think Rod knows them a little better then the futurist pault and wouldn’t be so quick to give out the kudos…
John, I don’t know about Roderick, but as long as Sam accurately represents the views of the men he chooses to employ in his arguments, I have no problem with Mr. Frost. Again, that doesn’t mean I agree with his position on other issues, it just means that I appreciate his ethical handling of this issue. Indeed his argument against your theistic evolution is spot on. Truth is non-negotiable and begins and ends with Almighty God and His Self-revelation.
It appears to me that your “brand” of preterism at DID is either ignorant of the issues or you are self-deceived about the fundamental divergence between the “theistic evolution” world-view and a historic biblically based world-view. Now the way to resolve this “intellectual dishonesty” is simply to have the “theistic evolutionists” to be honest about the essential nature of “empirical” philosophy which is humanistic to the core and is the basis for the development of the “higher-critical” view of Scripture, the eventual rejection of the supernaturalism of the texts in favor of “evidences” that will gut the doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible. The issue is that there is a denial of the nature and effects of your philosophical system on the Bible as the Word of God. Because, in the end, it always becomes less than God’s Word and more the words of natural men. This implies that only the interpretation is what is authoritative and not the Words of God as held in the verbal plenary teaching of Holy Scripture. You see, it loses its “holiness” by default. This is the employment of intellectual dishonest in advocating your position. All I’m asking for is that the positions be fairly staked out, with their full implications. This deception about not being “empirical” is insidious since “evolution” is based (including theistic evolution) on sensory perception. Get a dictionary of philosophy and read it for your self or a book on the nature of the evolution theory. You see, at the end of the day, I believe the truth will win out. However, something tells me that Martin and Vaughn understand if they are truly honest about their position then they realize no “Christian” one would listen to their delusional attempt at “new age” interpretation. Actually, I would classify it as being equal with the “Left Behind” series. Good fiction, no truth! Perhaps they are just so self-deceived they do not understand the intellectual dishonest arguments they are forming. However, it doesn’t matter, as long as they continue to employ intellectual dishonesty in advocating their heretical position, I will be there to point it out. In this case, on this very issue, I am very satisfied that Sam Frost decided to step up and point out the utter futility of your view being espoused. Now does that make Samuel Frost a Partial Preterist? I could only hope it would be that easy! Frost is a Full Preterist (hyper) and our differences are based solely on a different set of propositions. We disagree about the interpretation of these propositions and therefore their meaning, but not to the fact that they are the inerrant, infallible Word of God. You see John, that is the difference between you and Frost. He corrected his misrepresentation by proper disclosure, something we have yet to see from the “theistic evolutionists.” Now, the ball is in your court! BTW, that “straw-man” argument is a “dog” that just won’t hunt in this debate!
P.S. Will someone explain to me who is John Scargy and why does his picture look like he is dead? Oh, I get it, Death is Defeated! John’s picture represents death. You see, your new hermeneutics do work! WOW, you can make any word mean anything!
Paul, don’t you know that JS is still running around with his Super Secret Decoder Ring, seeking the conspiracy that any good Gnostic knows is currently going on right under our nose. You award him the highest honor by attributing the word “Theistic” to him, since certainly that means that he has a main line to the secrets of God and the Universe.
So please understand why JS is honored by your blog!
GK
GK,
I’m not sure if JS would consider it an honor as you outline, but at least I trust he now understands what the term “intellectual dishonesty” means.
I trust you and all the hyperpreterists who while claiming they pay us no attention nevertheless will likely read these remarks have a great holiday.
John Scargy writes,
John, thank you for the Lettermanesque apology, although one wonders why you suggest the reader should scroll anywhere you didn’t link to the source of the quote. However, I don’t think the lesson added much value to you because you continue to write,
The term I defined, the term I used was “intellectual dishonesty” that is defined as the definition I provided informed you is “self”-deception. The quotes you lifted of mine, which I should point out are linked, are “lifted” from a work wherein I document that Sam Frost had misrepresented the position of the author. Indeed those quotes were lifted out of context and used to support a position that would have contradicted the authors intended us of those quotes. Dr. Birks among others has noted the same type of tactic employed by Sam Frost. This is an illustration of intellectual dishonesty, “self” deception that Mr. Frost was foisting upon the reading public. You know like when JL Vaughn informs the public Dr. North wasn’t a 6 Day creationist when all the while he was. Evidently, John, you cannot discern the difference in “deception” versus “self” deception, but needless to say, this is fundamentally different than defining the word “is”. So not only have you falsely accused me, something you were required to offer a Lettermanesque apology for, you’ve demonstrated you apparently don’t understand the difference in a word when it is modified by the term “self”.
Look John, I understand, it must be embarrassing to be caught making fallacious charge. But you really shouldn’t compound the issue by offering such an ill fated attempt at covering your tracks and blaming me for your mistake. However, I do think it apporpiate we clear something up. You claim,
However, you certainly seem to be promoting “covenant” creationism, a position advocated by JL Vaughn who as documented confessed that the position entails the idea Adam had a mommy and daddy. By promoting a position I take it you agree with that position and therefore accept that positions tenets which would therefore mean you as well believe Adam had a mommy and daddy. This then means Adam’s mommy and daddy had to come from somewhere. So, John, if you aren’t advocating “theistic evolution” please let me know that you avow as historic Christianity has that Adam is the progenitor of humanity. However, if you don’t avow this position, but instead uphold the view of “covenant” creationism that Adam had a mommy and daddy, then please let us all in on how Adam’s mommy and daddy came to be. Unless you want to ague that Adam’s Daddy was really the 1st Adam from which all humanity sprung forth, you are left with a theistic evolutionary model whereby Adam was the progeny of a sub-human creature. The evidence would suggest you never thought the issues through but if you have, please set the record straight by identifying how, in your world-view humanity came to be. I wouldn’t want to continue to misrepresent your position.
(Sharing this recently seen web bit! - - Martha)
ROOTS OF (WARLIKE) CHRISTIAN ZIONISM
(or, It’s the Rapture, Stupid !)
by Dave MacPherson
First, let’s get something straight. Many conservative
evangelicals in America are not longing for the “world’s end” or
“judgment day” or a “millennium” or an “antichrist” or even the
“second coming.”
Although these phrases are in their theology books, the same
books emphasize what they are waiting (and would almost die) for:
the “any-moment pretribulation rapture” which is expected several
years ahead of the second coming and most assuredly BEFORE a future
“great tribulation”!
Hal Lindsey, the big rapture guru of the late 20th century,
ended his bestselling book “The Late Great Planet Earth” with the
word “MARANATHA” which pretribulation rapturists know is a code
word for their rapture. And the same literal removal from earth at
any moment lurks in Lindsey’s other writings.
Tim LaHaye, the current rapture tycoon whose “Left Behind”
bonanza has left even Lindsey behind, knows how to milk the
rapturized masses. After his 1992 pro-rapture book “No Fear of the
Storm” was published, it was revealed that he had sloppily omitted
48 words when airing a brief 19th century document - hardly good
publicity! After sales slowed down, it was re-issued as “Rapture
Under Attack” (with the same 48 missing words) and appeared to the
public to be a new book. But not even the title change seemed to
help things, and merchandiser LaHaye knew it was time to come up
with some other titles that could further his rapture obsession.
And Jerry Falwell never seems to miss an opportunity, when
preaching, to remind his audience that he most certainly believes
in the “pretribulational rapture” view.
I can almost believe that the middle name of many Christian
Right leaders is “Rapture”!
When checking pre-19th century prophetic development, one
finds that “dispensational” thinking as well as Christian Zionistic
roots had been in existence long before the emergence of
pretribulation rapturism. Even the prophetic word “rapture” had
been in print well before the 19th century - but always in
reference to only an after-the-tribulation coming and never to a
pretribulation coming.
Many are still unaware that the pretrib rapture idea was first
publicly aired in the fall of 1830 in “The Morning Watch”
(hereafter: TMW), a little-known quarterly journal published by the
Irvingites (followers of famed London preacher Edward Irving) from
1829 to 1833 in Britain. Not only was this innovative publication
years ahead of John Darby and his Plymouth Brethren colleagues,
rapturally speaking, but in it we find shocking militancy that can
be observed today in Christian Zionist preachers like John Hagee
and Jerry Falwell.
As early as the September 1830 issue of TMW (pp. 510-514) a
writer declared that only worthy Christians (which he labeled
“Philadelphia”) would be raptured before “the great tribulation”
and less worthy ones (labeled “Laodicea”) would be left on earth.
The September 1832 issue of the same journal (pp. 6-7) saw
“Jews” as well as the less worthy Christians left behind.
But the March 1833 issue (p. 147) said that only “the Jews”
would be excluded from the rapture.
So within a short period of time the Irvingites, while
following the same Scriptures, revealed their innate
anti-Jewishness by switching from a “church/church” dichotomy to a
“church/Israel” dichotomy after convincing themselves that only
“the Jews” would deserve a future tribulation!
After their adoption of an escapist view that no organized
church had ever taught before 1830, the same early pretrib
rapturists, feeling superior, began exhibiting some vices that
often come to powerless persons who suddenly obtain power - vices
like pride, hatred and persecution of others, playing God, and so
on.
Sounding like Hagee and other warlike warmongers, TMW
expressed even more delusional, rapture-inspired fantasies:
The September 1830 issue (p. 514), looking ahead to the hoped
for “great escape,” declared that the raptured believers would then
collectively become “the victorious ministerer of the great
tribulation” upon those left behind!
In March of 1832 the same Irvingite journal (p. 3) taught that
the “vials” of wrath in the book of Revelation “shall be poured out
by the risen [raptured] saints”!
And TMW in September 1832 (p. 27) went even further and
announced that the collective group of raptured ones will “wield
the thunders of its power against the dragon [Satan] and his
angels, and cast them down from heaven”!
Note that these fanatics were more than willing to be the
“chosen ones” to pour out tribulation and wrath on those not worthy
to be “chosen”: the Jews.
(I’m glad to report that Southeastern Baptist Theological
Seminary in North Carolina is now the only North American
institution that contains a complete set of every issue of “The
Morning Watch.” I recently gave SEBTS my 35-year collection of rare
material including those issues and Robert Norton’s valuable 1861
book.)
We’ve just had a glimpse of vengeful and power-crazy
fanaticism within the very earliest pretrib rapture group. But
where in the Bible did those deluded Britishers find support for
such “rapture rage”? And where are the followers of Christ
commanded to pick up a sword and conquer or convert non-believers
with it - or even support such sword-bearers? Why have so many
Christian Zionists, who seemingly give more attention to
governments than to their Gospel, turned the Great Commission into
the Great Commotion?
Many of the above historical details are in my 300-page book
“The Rapture Plot,” the most complete and documented history of the
176-year-old pretribulation rapture merchandised today by Hagee,
LaHaye, Falwell, Lindsey, Swaggart, Van Impe etc. for their pet
agendas - an escapist view never taught by any church for 1800
years! If you don’t have time for my book, I invite you to read my
internet items including “Pretrib Rapture Diehards,” “Deceiving and
Being Deceived,” “Famous Rapture Watchers,” “Thomas Ice
(Bloopers),” “Appendix F: Thou Shalt Not Steal,” “The Rapture Index
(Mad Theology),” “Pretrib Hypocrisy,” and “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty.”
BTW, my book “The Rapture Plot” is available at online bookstores.
Do Hagee and his fellow preachers really love Jewish persons
as much as they say they do? Then why do they pervert Scripture to
try to get themselves raptured off earth before their future and
final “tribulation” instead of wanting to remain on earth during
that period to minister love to ALL of earth’s citizens?
Hagee stated on July 19, 2006 that “The United States must
join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to
fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West….” Which Bible
verse inspired him to utter this - the one that says “Love ye your
enemies” or the one saying “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith
the Lord”?
It would appear that Hagee, Falwell and other pretrib rapture
merchandisers and Christian Zionists are trying to identify with
the predicted group whose love will “wax cold” (a la Matthew 24:12)
during what Hagee etc. see in the future as earth’s darkest days!
(The now famous “rapture” view promoted by politics-loving American
evangelicals is related to various topics. If you would like to
publish the above non-copyrighted paper, feel free to even change
the title to “Armageddonism and Politics” or “The History of Dispensationalism”
or anything else.)
Sam,
We documented you were misrepresenting the views various authors here,
http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=3638
http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=3554
http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=3313
http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=3231
http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=3223
http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=3149
http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=3123
http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=3261#more-3261
You really have to wonder about the ethics of JL Vaughn who writes the below quote in the face of being presented Dr. Gary North’s book on strengthening the case of 6 Day Creation.
Vaughn if your research on the issues didn’t reveal or uncover Dr. North is a believer in the following,
Mr. Vaughn if your research was so shoddy to not conclude Dr. North wasn’t a staunch advocate that the Bible clearly spells out the creation account unfolded in 6 24 hour days, why are we to believe anything in your 2 chapters on history is accurate.
PaulT,
I just wanted to tell you that this post was helpful. It had not been clear to me whether the BCS view was in fact pushing theistic evolution or not, though I suspected it. And since I have no intention of buying the book to find out, I was trying to discover it from the authors themselves. Which only made it more vague - and the DID site wasn’t helping either. Now if they would just address that issue, instead of trying to make us think that what they are presenting is somehow different. Though it is possible that they think they have - perhaps it is this point that needs to be made clear to them.
Thanks,
Robin
MG2,
I’m glad you found the post beneficial.
Paul you are doing a great job of documenting the abuse of sources. It is of great help to those who don’t have the time or resources to do so. It is an abuse of trust to readers when source material is misrepresented. At a minimum, no matter whether we agree or like any author, there is a sacred trust between reader and writer that that the writer is representing the views of others accurately.