James White on Revelation 5

Introduction

In a recent blog on his website, James White posted some comments about Revelation 5:9. A friend of mine (on Calvin and Calvinism, an excellent Yahoo email discussion group for those who wish to have a slightly lower rung of the Calvinist ladder to stand on) posted a criticism of White’s initial essay and challenged the group to examine the essay for logical fallacies. I undertook the challenge for the sake of the exercise. When I posted the results of my effort to the discussion group, it prompted a response from Dr. White. I intend to address the matter in several blog entries over the coming weeks. For the sake of reference, I am posting (with minor revisions) the substance of my original criticism of Dr. White’s brief essay on Revelation 5:9-10. (In reviewing my original criticism for this blog entry, I am not so happy with the section on formal fallacies and would delete it altogether [though I stand by the wishful thinking fallacy]. But fair’s fair ... I won’t dress up my faults. Just skip that part if your eyes glaze over.)

Though I am critical of Dr. White’s reasoning in this essay (and in several to follow), I mean no disrespect to Dr. White or those who share his views. My goal is to be critical of faulty reasoning and exegesis, while maintaining the standard of Colossians 4:6.

White's original post

In Dr. White's defense, his blog essay on Revelation 5:9 was not posted as an exercise in exegesis or logic, but as a devotional thought to encourage the troops. He was preaching to the choir about the truths of reformed theology as compared to the errors of seat-of-the-pants Arminianism. But ask yourselves whether this is a justification for a fallacious presentation. Even a brief devotional thought should consist of a careful presentation of a proper reading of the scripture. So I present this list of fallacies not in the manner of piling on, or to be critical of a servant of God (which James White certainly is -- I honor him for it) but for the exercise and as an admonition to careful thinking and writing. Dr. White’s comment is about this verse:

Revelation 5:9-10 KJV And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; (10) And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

My criticism

I present White's original post with my assessment of the fallacies (as they occur) in [brackets]. (If you want to check up on me or learn more about the particular fallacies involved, I recommend fallacyfiles.org, where you can find a wealth of information about reasoned argumentation.)

One of the glorious truths [argumentum ad superbium] of Scripture is that Jesus is not a hypothetical Savior [straw man], a mere wanna-be who fails with regularity [argumentum ad odium]. No, we proclaim a powerful Savior who perfectly does the will of the Father [black-or-white fallacy (in addition to other previously-mentioned fallacies)]. His death did not make the purchase of men from every tribe, tongue, people and nation possible, it actually accomplished that which the Triune Majesty intended. Why so many long for an "atonement" that atones not [straw man] I will never understand, but when they make reference to the extent of the atonement, point them to this text that defines what it means to speak of the "world" in a New Testament context [formal fallacies].

The Informal Fallacies

I counted four informal fallacies. Each of the informal fallacies occurred more than once, but I didn't indicate every such occurrence. I put the [formal fallacies] at the end to indicate the possible existence of one or more formal fallacies. The informal fallacies already noted can be reduced to three: appeal to emotion (either positive or negative); straw man argument; black-or-white fallacy. The appeal to emotion is understandable when dealing with issues that lie so close to our hearts. When speaking of God and the salvation wrought by Christ, it is quite natural to speak in emotive terms. The impropriety lies in using the emotion as an argument to convince the reader of the truth of some proposition. We love God and ought to love God. But the love of God ought not to be used as an argument for some particular reading of scripture. Our love for God is seen not in adopting some particular view, but in adopting the true view. Emotion ought to be used for adoration of true propositions, not to persuade of the truthfulness of a particular proposition. The black-or-white fallacy (a/k/a false dilemma) is easy to fall into and ought to be studiously avoided. The straw man arguments are more problematic, as they involve a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of an opponent's position. One might be of the opinion that Arminianism logically entails a non-atoning atonement, but this would be strongly denied by the Arminians and it is problematic whether the words "atonement that atones not" are meaningful at all.

The search for formal fallacies

In considering the formal fallacies, we have to distill the language to arrive at brief logical statements. Here's the first argument as I see it:

Christ's satisfaction is extolled in Revelation 5:9; Only a satisfaction that saves all for whom Christ died is worthy of praise; Therefore all for whom Christ died will be saved.

This is a valid argument (or could be made valid with minor adjustment in language and form). The difficulty is that the minor premise is not known to be true. In fact, the minor premise is really the question in dispute with the Arminian and is thus question-begging. Begging the question is (or should be) formally valid but informally invalid. So in examining the first argument for a formal fallacy, we found a fourth informal fallacy. The second argument, as I see it, is this:

Christ has redeemed some of all men to God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation; some of all men redeemed from every tribe and tongue and people and nation can be referred to as "the world"; Therefore the New Testament word "world" should be seen as some of all men, not all men without exception.

For simplicity's sake, we can specify that the argument boils down to this:

"Some men" are from every tribe; every tribe is "the world"; therefore "the world" means "some men."

This is interesting. Because "some men" can be called "the world," what does that mean about the meaning of "the world" in some other context? First, we have to note that John does not use kosmos here, so this example doesn't help determine the proper meaning of "kosmos" in, for example, John 3:16. This is wishful thinking on White's part -- a fifth informal fallacy. This last argument is probably formally invalid as well, though it depends very much on how one words it. So I'll stop at this point. My count is five informal fallcies (not counting repetitions of the same fallacy), plus a possible formal fallacy.

References

You may be interested in the following links: first, James White’s original blog entry on Revelation 5:9-10; second, my original (unedited) post to the Calvin and Calvinism list in response can be found here; third, White’s subsequent response to my criticism can be found here. If you want to join the Calvin and Calvinism discussion group, cick here to join.