Some thoughts on how we do internet interactions:
Archibald Alexander, first professor at Princeton Seminary: “Attribute to an antagonist no opinion he does not own, though it be a necessary consequence.” (quoted in David Calhoun, Princeton Seminary, vol I, p.92).
Archibald Alexander, first professor at Princeton Seminary: “Attribute to an antagonist no opinion he does not own, though it be a necessary consequence.” (quoted in David Calhoun, Princeton Seminary, vol I, p.92).
In other words, even if you believe that someone’s belief X could or will lead others who hold that position to belief Y, do not accuse them of holding to belief Y themselves if they disown it.
You may consider them inconsistent—and say so--but it is one thing to say that and another thing to tar them with belief Y by implying or insisting that they actually hold it when they do not.
A similar move happens when you imply or argue that, if someone quotes a particular author favorably at any point, then he or she must hold to all the views that that particular author holds at all other points. Through guilt-by-association you are misrepresenting your opponent.
2 Timothy 2:24-25: And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.
