![]() Roger Olson has addressed many of the misrepresentations (straw men) against Arminianism by others (especially by Calvinists) in Arminian theology: Myths and realities (2006). Pelagianism ‘denies original sin and elevates natural and moral human ability to live spiritually fulfilled lives’ while semi-Pelagianism ‘embraces a modified version of original sin but believes that humans have the ability, even in their natural or fallen state, to initiate salvation by exercising a good will toward God’ (Olson 2006:17-18). I, a Reformed Arminian, often see this in Calvinists accusing me of being Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian. ![]() I often see this kind of fallacy in Arminian versus Calvinistic discussions where one side does not understand some aspects of the other. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person ( Fallacy: Straw man). This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).Ĥ. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:Ģ. The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. But what is a straw man fallacy? The Nizkor Project gives this explanation: See an arguing back and forth about the use of a ‘straw man’ or otherwise HERE.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |