Quote:
Originally Posted by biblicalthought  Quote: |
So if I was educated by Morey, and I dedicated my book to him, and got a job at WTS would you say that "The credo baptists finally have someone on the faculty of WTS." ? Seems ridiculous, huh?
| Are you equating the man Morey with the servants of the Pope that historically were formed, and to this day continue, to undo the Protestant Reformation via the intellectual takeover at the university level? Have you reduced the entire scope and mission of the Jesuits to an exegetical theological understanding of Christian baptism? How does that compare? |
I'm comparing the *logic* of the critique.
As Moreyites should know, if a critique is valid, you can plug in *whatever* premises you want, and the conclusion still should follow. If the premises are true, then the conclusion will be.
If you're saying that the *form* of Morey's argument doesn't always preserve the truth of the conclusion, then you've just admitted that Morey offered an invalid argument.
*That* is what I was driving at.
Morey's argument:
[1] If S is trained by and in the tradition of T, and S dedicated a book to T, and S gets on staff at sholarly institution I, then T "finally has someone on the faculty" of I.
[2] DVD was trained by Jesuits, and dedicated a book to Jesuits, and got on staff at WTS.
[3] Therefore, the Jesuits "finally have someone on the faculty of WTS.
That was Morey's argument. A simple modus ponens.
Now, lets recast it:
(Assume for reductio that I was trained by Morey, dedicated a book to him, and got picked up by WTS)
[1] If S is trained by and in the tradition of T, and S dedicated a book to T, and S gets on staff at sholarly institution I, then T "finally has someone on the faculty" of I.
[2*] PM was trained by Morey the credo baptist, and dedicated a book to Morey, and got on staff at WTS.
[3*] Therefore, the credo baptists "finally have someone on the faculty of WTS."
So, if you're premises are *true,* then you conclusion follows.
We know that [2] is true, so if [1] is then [3] follows.
Now, we assumed that [2*] was true. So, if [1] was true, then [3*] would follow.
But, [3*] is absurd, as even you intimate.
Therefore, one of the premises must be false.
That premise is [1].
Thus, you must admit that Morey is a hack here.
