While browsing old articles published by This Rock from Catholic Answers, I came across the following by a then-staff member (now Sedevacantist), Gerry Matatics, "How to Spot Fuzzy Thinking." It is a good discussion of some of the many common logical fallacies, including those I myself have encountered in my interactions with Protestant apologists on Sola Scriptura. Matatics discussed 1 Cor 12:13 ("For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit") and how some Protestants abuse this passage to refute baptismal regeneration; I found this interesting as I blogged about this passage recently (Jerry L. Sumney on Baptismal Regeneration and Transformative Justification Paul and Pre-Pauline Christian Tradition).
False Antithesis
The fallacy of false antithesis (also known as faulty dilemma or false dichotomy) is almost the opposite of the argument of the beard, which we discussed last month. Whereas the latter argues that the extremes don't exist by virtue of all the in-betweens, the fallacy of the faulty dilemma assumes there are two opposing options, when that may not be the case. There may be in-betweens, or the only two options may not really be opposites but rather two.aspects of a single truth.
In a recent debate on salvation I pointed out that the New Testament teaches baptism is essential to salvation (Mark 16:16; John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21). My opponent's response was an example of a false antithesis. He read aloud 1 Corinthians 12:13, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body," which proved, he said, that the baptism essential to salvation was baptism by the Spirit, not by water.
This was a purely gratuitous assumption on his part and a self-serving one at that. Even if my opponent were correct in supposing there were two baptisms to be distinguished in Scripture--one (Spirit baptism) necessary for salvation and one (water baptism) not--1 Corinthians 12:13 hardly supports that distinction: It merely states there is a baptism by the Spirit into the body of Christ.
The problem here is the either-or mentality Protestants bring to such texts. A baptism, they feel, is either baptism by water or a baptism by the Spirit; it couldn't be one baptism (as Paul teaches in Ephesians 4:5) with two aspects, a material aspect and a spiritual.aspect, which is after all what Jesus says in John 3:5.
This foible arises from a philosophical perspective which Protestantism inherited from William of Occam. Occam saw a radical disjunction between nature and grace, a disjunction Protestant theology still largely operates with, as Louis Bouyer, himself a convert from Protestantism, so ably demonstrates in his book The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism .
As a result, Protestants assume that if the essential baptism is Spirit baptism, then it can't be water baptism. Likewise, if the Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ, then the pope can't be. On and on it goes. We're justified by faith (Rom. 5:1) and so not by good works--contrary to James 2:24. (When Paul says in Romans 3:28 and Galatians 2:15 that we're justified by faith and not by the works of the Law, he is speaking of Mosaic ceremonial observances such as circumcision, not good works in the proper sense).
Also, under the heading of "special pleading" we read the following:
When we present the facts in a matter and shape those facts (including statistics) to make our side look better, we are guilty of "special pleading." The classic example is the joke about the international car race that ended up having only two entrants: the United States and the Soviet Union. The U.S. won the race. The next day the item in the Soviet paper said, "In the international auto race yesterday, the Soviet car came in second, while the American finished next to last."
We engage in special pleading when we stack the deck in our favor by citing only the evidence favoring our position and ignoring or hiding any troublesome to it. Intellectual honesty obliges us to discuss all the relevant data--not only the favorable facts, but also those that seem contrary to our position--and indicate how they fit into the picture.
The person who uses prooftexts from the Bible is particularly susceptible to this danger. Naturally he is going to memorize and quote those verses which seem to support his position. Why do Fundamentalists, in their zeal to argue that the early Church taught one became a member of the Church by faith alone, cite Acts 16:31 but ignore, say, Acts 2:38?
I have addressed Acts 2:38 and how, exegetically, there is no doubt that Peter is teaching baptismal regeneration here (e.g., Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation). On Acts 16:31, see:
As I wrote on the Philippian jailer:
One may object, citing the example of the Philippian jailer who was baptised without much prior preparation. The pertinent text is Acts 16:31-34:
And [Paul and Silas] said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptised, he and all his, straightway. And then he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.
One has to realise that the circumstances surrounding the baptism of the jailer are extraordinary--an earthquake releases Paul and Sila from jail, resulting in the jailer about to commit suicide as he would be held responsible for their escape. Upon pleading with him to stop, the jailer listens to the message of Paul and Silas and accepts the gospel message. Notwithstanding, Paul and Silas are still fugitives and the jailer is still answerable to his superiors, resulting in a paucity of preparation time, but the jailers still receive some preparation, viz. an early morning lesson on the rudiments of the Christian faith which results in his household coming to faith, too, and following such, they are baptised, as Paul knows that, not only is there scant possibility of seeing this jailer again due to his fugitive status, but also the essential/salvific nature of water baptism, Paul administered this ordinance in the middle of the night, but notwithstanding these extraordinary circumstances, we can be sure that Paul (and Silas) expected the jailer to have at least some meaningful knowledge of, and love for, God, as well as a genuine confession of sin before baptism, something Acts 16:32 witnesses to: "And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house" (1995 NASB).