There is a logical fallacy called, "ad hominem" ... "to the man." It's an attack on the person, not the logic. Not the argument. One kind attacks the person directly. Another bases the attack on hypocrisy or inconsistency. Or maybe it's based on a perceived bias. Very popular is the "poisoning the well" version where they convince you not to listen because of other perceived errors in advance. Or there's the "tu quoque" variety where, for instance, a person is caught in a lie and accuses the other of a lie to discredit them. "Oh, yeah? Well, you lied, too!" All in the same category of ad hominem. The problem is they're an attack on the speaker and don't address the argument. So, for instance, when some Christians hear that C.S. Lewis had some bad theology, they refuse to read anything he wrote. Was what he wrote wrong? They'll never know.
I've found it interesting to read some of that "bad stuff." A guy I worked for gave me a book titled, The Lost Books of the Bible. He assured me I'd see how our Bibles are unreliable. The introduction said they accumulated the book so you could read this apocryphal stuff and see for yourself that it's not Scripture. And it really did. I saw, when I read it, how it clearly wasn't inspired. The result? My faith was bolstered. I think we are shorting ourselves if we don't examine the claims of the opposition to see where they miss the mark. Obviously it has to be done carefully. Clearly a reliance on the Holy Spirit is necessary. But I've found that it can be encouraging to actually see the error, and I don't think we can address the error of other views if we don't know what they are.
It's not for everyone. It is work. But Paul said, "Examine all things; hold fast to what is good" (1 Thess 5:21). So some of us ought to do that. Avoid the obvious error. We don't need to be dwelling on it. I still think that we can gain from seeing the error and answering it. Consider the source. Sometimes God can use a donkey to tell the truth (Num 22:27-31). He can use even me.
7 comments:
I have appreciated learning about the ad hominem fallacy at this blog, and while I see the error in the blatant practice of it, I think there is another important consideration here, beyond a logical, intellectual exercise--and that is spiritual discernment and diligence. Especially for less mature, more impressionable believers, it is imperative to ingest teaching that is reliable and trustworthy--preferably from sources that do not entail vigilant vetting and tedious evaluation. The average Christian is not always able to discern right from almost right. Warnings about dangerous influencers abound in the New Testament, of course, and James 3:1 cautions that teachers (which I consider those who write about theology to be) will be judged more strictly.
You wrote, “So, for instance, when some Christians hear that C.S. Lewis had some bad theology, they refuse to read anything he wrote. Was what he wrote wrong? They'll never know.” My feeling is that if C.S. Lewis, for instance, had bad theology, his works will reflect that fact, even if in only subtle ways; therefore, if I know up front that his theology is flawed to a discernable degree, I would not deem him worthy of my time and attention, when there are better resources at my disposal.
Your “poisoning the well” reference, “where they convince you not to listen because of other perceived errors in advance,” makes me think of Jesus’ words that “a bad tree will produce bad fruit and a good tree will produce good fruit” (Matt. 7:18). Would you mind sharing how you would interpret this warning as it relates to questionable influencers--i.e. those who might mix truth with error? Are things not as black and white as Jesus makes it sound?
I think that your choice of Lewis as an example was interesting. While he was clearly not perfect, he was very good. I'd agree that even reading his mistakes could be very valuable. I always come back to the study the real thing so well that the counterfeits are obvious as a general rule, but can absolutely see the value in studying other things, as long as we're well grounded in the Truth.
I also appreciate those who engage in apologetics on our behalf so that we don't necessarily need to wade into everything.
For some reason this brings to mind something that happened the last time I was in SLC. We drove past a Mormon bookstore, and my youngest drops "I bet their religious fiction section is huge.".
The problem I run into is not understanding the opposing argument, and I simply don't take the time to try to find reading material to answer it and don't know anyone that believes it.
As an aside, this ad hominem needs another set of words, because there is bad ad hominem as you point out here where it is against the man, not the idea, but then there's good ad hominem that is taking an argument to it's logical conclusion.
I agree that our "need" for this type of information is proportional to how often we are confronted by it. If I was in an area where Mormons and JWs stopped by, I'd do a deep dive into the problems with both to be prepared. On the off chance I do get confronted, I've got a few questions for both that would get things started. At this point, in the US/Western Europe, I'd argue that knowledge of Islam and progressive christianity would be the most valuable as those are probably our two biggest "threats".
Yeah, the use of the one term to convey a broad range of meanings is a problem.
I will clarify that, unlike David and Craig, I did not understand this post as addressing heretical teachers such as cultists and other obvious promoters of unorthodox Christianity, whose false teachings should definitely be refuted and corrected, as part of contending for the true faith. I believe it is important for all Christians to pursue such apologetics/polemics work within the Church--not just those serving in discernment ministries.
However, in my comment above, I was instead, in line with your example of C.S. Lewis, considering those who claim a biblical faith (and associate themselves with an orthodox Christian denomination) but hold flawed theology, even while enjoying a favorable evaluation by orthodox Christians. While some errors by such people are relatively insignificant and/or easily detected, others are more insidious and warrant “calling out” (as per Jesus, Paul, Peter, Jude, and John).
I personally am quite stringent in my judgment of book authors, having been responsible for over a decade for vetting edifying materials for placement in my church’s library. While some authors stood solidly at either extreme of the good teacher/bad teacher spectrum, making my choices for inclusion or rejection straightforward, the ones that fell in-between were more problematic, of course. I had to consider the effect a questionable author’s defective views might make upon impressionable readers, who would reasonably presume that a book from their church library--as well as any authors we featured--can be trusted to impart solid teaching for them to embrace. (There was the option of including a disclaimer in a book, of course, but I felt that our limited library shelf space was better filled with less controversial works.)
I am hoping that it can be seen from my various comments that ad hominem is not necessarily at play when painting an author such as C.S. Lewis (or others like him) with broad strokes of withholdings. When one realizes the likelihood of flawed theology presenting itself in the pages of a book--sometimes in very subtle but dangerous ways--I don’t see it as a logical fallacy on my part to exercise caution as much as a good judgment call.
"Would you mind sharing how you would interpret this warning as it relates to questionable influencers--i.e. those who might mix truth with error? Are things not as black and white as Jesus makes it sound?"
Interesting question. If it is black and white, it seems ... pretty gray. I mean ... which one of us is entirely good? Logically we would all be bad and therefore incapable of good fruit. Obvious hyperbole, but you can see the problem, right? Jesus's point was not a black and white sense here. He says, "Thus you will recognize them by their fruits" (Mat 7:20). The point is not that bad people cannot produce good fruit, but that bad people generally produce bad things and good people generally produce good things. It's a proverb. God can produce good out of a bad person.
Or, look at it another way. C.S. Lewis had bad theology. He wasn't quite so "anti-Catholic" as some would like. He thought about the possibility of Annihilationism. He denied Eternal Security. He had some problems. Do these amount to ... heresy? Or, to ask a different question, in order to be a "good tree," how perfect does your theology need to be?
I appreciate your reply. Since the context of Matt. 7:15-20 is false teachers, I believe that Jesus is referencing judging core character/nature (which can be good or bad) and its fruits, rather than personal righteousness (where none is good) and its works. Good teachers (and book authors) will be spreading truth and not confusion and error, in accordance to their natures. And they need to be diligent about this, in light of James 3:1: “My brethren, let not many of you become teachers [or masters], knowing that you shall receive a stricter judgment.”) Indeed, I feel that a standard of “Is their flawed theology at the point of actual heresy?” is too lax. (Regarding judging such things, I personally consider compromising a much greater error than committing the ad hominem logical fallacy. I am certain that I am hyper-vigilant about this due to my past association with a dangerously beguiling “bad tree.”)
As I understand New Testament teaching, holding perfect and biblical theology is the right standard for “contenders of the faith,” and false teachers should not be tolerated under the notion that “no one’s perfect” or “God can use anyone.” For a good post on this topic, I would recommend the following source: https://michellelesley.com/2016/06/17/answering-the-opposition-responses-to-the-most-frequently-raised-discernment-objections/
(By the way, this is the blog where I learned [at her 11/4/25 post] about Horatio Spafford’s departure from orthodox Christianity, which we recently discussed. I did later post a comment there with the same thoughts you offered me in our comment exchange about the hymn, “It Is Well with My Soul.”)
P.S. All this mention of C.S. Lewis reminds of something: In addition to handling the church library tasks, I ran a book club there (for women). As it was getting established, one woman said to me, “I’d like to join, but I’m afraid you will have us reading books by people like C.S. Lewis.” I am kinda laughing about that flashback right now. FYI: Some of the authors we did read together were John MacArthur, John Piper, Jerry Bridges, Charles Stanley, Max Lucado, David Jeremiah, Edwin Lutzer, Tim Challies, and James MacDonald (who was a “good tree” at that time) (plus some female authors for even more lighter fare). Mostly all “good trees” offering “good fruit,” I’m happy to say.
Post a Comment