Is The New Birth a Metaphor?

As some readers of this blog know, I do not believe that God adopts children into his family, but rather believe that children are born into God's family. The Greek word "huiothesia" that is translated as "adoption" in the five instances where the apostle Paul uses the word does not denote the way God produces children. The chief argument for this conclusion is the fact that a child born does not need to be adopted by his own parents. Rather, huiothesia means "son placement" and alludes to an event yet future, in connection with the resurrection and glorification of believers (Rom. 8: 23), when the children or babes in Christ become full grown sons, perfected, so that they are completely made in the image and likeness of God and Christ. My view is a minority view, but that does not mean it cannot be correct as some fallaciously reason. 

In reading the argumentation of those who believe that God both gives birth to (begets) and adopts his own children I have seen it argued that both birth and adoption are "metaphors" of the way God produces children. Got Questions web page, a generally good and accurate commentary on many bible texts and subjects, says this however (See here):

"To adopt someone is to make that person a legal son or daughter. Adoption is one of the metaphors used in the Bible to explain how Christians are brought into the family of God. Jesus came “that we might receive adoption to sonship” (Galatians 4:5), and He was successful: “You received God’s Spirit when he adopted you as his own children” (Romans 8:15, NLT).

."

The Bible also uses the metaphor of being “born again” into God’s family (John 3:3), which seems to be at odds with the concept of adoption because, normally, either a person is born into a family or adopted, not both. We shouldn’t make too much of the difference, however, because both of these concepts are metaphors and should not be played against each other."

I vehemently deny that being born of God is a metaphor! Brothers and sisters, being born of God is literal. If it is not literal, then I am not a literal child, but a metaphorical child. That is absurd, reductio ad absurdum. 

Further, the "huiothesia," whether it be adoption in the normal sense, or in the sense of reaching manhood and full likeness to a father as I believe, it is literal and not a metaphor.

The above commentary does acknowledge the absurdity of claiming to be a child of a father by both birth and adoption when it says "normally, either a person is born into a family or adopted, not both." That fact should have led the commentators to come to my view.

End Time City of Babylon (ii)

In this chapter we will continue to cite from J. A. Seiss in his commentary upon Revelation chapter eighteen. In this commentary Seiss brings into view an ancient prophecy of Zechariah, which is that of the woman in the ephah (basket measure). We will cite from Seiss and make comments. Keep in mind that Seiss wrote these things in the latter part of the nineteenth century. First, however, we will examine old testament scriptures concerning the fall and destruction of Babylon to see if they have been completely fulfilled.

Old Testament Babylon Prophecies Fulfilled?

Seiss said:

"Fallen, Fallen, Babylon the Great." It is not simply the word of information as to what has been or what is to be, but the word which effects what it describes, — the word which brings Great Babylon down, and makes it "a habitation of demons, and a hold of every unclean spirit, and a hold of every unclean and hateful bird." The twice-repeated word describes two separate parts or stages of the fall, answering to the two aspects in which Babylon is contemplated, referring first to Babylon in mystery, as a system or spirit of false worship, and second to Babylon as a city in which this system or spirit is finally embodied. The thrice-repeated cry "woe, woe, woe," in chapter 8: 18, meant three distinct woes, as the subsequent account makes plain; and so here, the twice-repeated "fallen, fallen," means two distinct falls. The first fall, or the fall of Babylon in mystery, is accomplished through the agency of the Beast in confederation with the ten kings (chap. 17 : 16, 17), which occurs soon after the Antichrist is fully revealed; but after the denudation and burning which they inflict, she is represented as still existing as a city, who sits as a boastful queen, promising herself an immortality of worldly glory, and from which certain people are called out that they may not share her doom." (pgs. 165-166 of "The Apocalypse")

When it is said in Revelation 14: 8 that Babylon is fallen, fallen, it is not a commentary upon what took place when the Babylonian captivity of the Jews ended, or when the Babylonian empire ended by being conquered by the Medo-Persian empire, but is rather an announcement of the coming destruction of end time Babylon.

I also agree with Seiss that the repeated words "is fallen" denotes the fall of the two aspects of Babylon, the first being mystery Babylon, denoting the religion or belief system of Babylon, while the latter denotes the literal city. 

Seiss, in commentary upon old testament prophecies of the destruction of Babylon, cited the following prophecy of Isaiah and said:

"Thus would be fulfilled what Isaiah sung: "Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon; sit on the ground; there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans; for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate...Sit thou silent, and get thee into darkness, O daughter of the Chaldeans; for thou shalt no more be called, the lady of kingdoms. Thou saidst, "I shall be a lady forever, so that thou didst not lay these things to thy heart, neither didst remember the latter end of it...Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly...mischief shall fall upon thee; thou shalt not be able to put it off; and desolation shall come upon thee suddenly, which thou shalt not know. Stand now with thine enchantments, and with the multitude of thy sorceries, wherein thou hast labored from thy youth; if so be thou shalt be able to profit, if so be thou mayest prevail. Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels. Let now the astrologers, the star-gazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee. Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame." (Isa. 47: 1, 5, 8, 11, 15)" (Pgs. 170-171)

"First of all, it seems to be pretty clear that the ancient predictions concerning the utter destruction of Babylon have never yet been entirely fulfilled. Isaiah gives the sentence upon Babylon, in which he says that her destruction shall come suddenly from the hand of the Almighty, that her glory and beauty shall be "as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah," never more to be inhabited, nor dwelt in from generation to generation; and that the Arabian shall never again pitch tent there, nor shepherds make their fold there. (See Isaiah 13) So again it was said to Jeremiah, "Babylon shall become heaps, a dwelling-place for dragons, an astonishment, and an hissing, without an inhabitant." At the same time he directed Seraiah to take the manuscript of this prophecy, after reading it, bind a stone to it, cast it into the midst of Euphrates, and say, "Thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not rise from the evil that I will bring upon her." (Jer. 51.) That all this has been in large measure strikingly fulfilled must be admitted. It is part of the evidence of the "truth of God's word. And if it all belongs to the past, it is equally certain that Babylon never can be restored. Two facts, however, appear, which go very far to prove that these predictions do not belong exclusively to the past, but await further fulfilment. The one is, that Isaiah locates the destruction of which he speaks in "the day of the Lord" (Is. 13 : 6.). That day, in literal fulness, has not yet come. The world has witnessed many earnests and prelibations of it, but that day proper is still in the future, and only comes when Christ himself shall come again. And if the utter destruction thus suddenly to come upon Babylon belongs to "the day of the Lord," she must again revive in order to become the subject of it. The other fact is that Babylon, in all the deep calamities and desolations which have come upon her, never yet experienced all that has been thus prophesied. When did Babylon ever fall with so complete a fall, or meet with such an utter obliteration from the earth, "as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah?" Sodom and Gomorrah were completely blotted out. But this has never yet been the case with Babylon. Such was not its fate when the Medes and Persians seized it from the hands of the infamous Belshazzar, for they made it one of their royal cities. In the time of Alexander it still stood, and was the chosen capital of the Graeco-Macedoniau empire, the second city of Alexander's dominions, where he himself lived and died. It continued to he a populous place under the Syrian kings, who succeeded Alexander in the rule over it. In the time of the apostles it was still a populous place, for both Peter and Bartholomew preached the Gospel there, and there Peter wrote his first Epistle. As late as A.D. 250, there was a Christian church there, and an influential bishopric for many years thereafter. Five hundred years after Christ there were Jewish academies there, who issued the celebrated Babylonian Talmud. Here, then, was a lengthening out of the existence of Babylon as a populated city for more than a thousand years subsequent to the taking of it by Cyrus. And even to this present hour there is a city in the middle of the area occupied by old Babylon containing 10,000 people..." (pgs. 141-142) 

We must realize that some old testament prophecies have a "dual fulfillment," or are an instance where much of the prophecy is fulfilled at one time and the remainder at another time. Over the years I have shown this to be true regarding old testament prophecies of the coming and work of the Messiah. Some of those prophecies were fulfilled in Christ' first coming, and some await fulfillment in his second coming. In one chapter in my series on Bible Hermeneutics I cited from Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost and his book "Things To Come" where he said (See here):

"The law of double reference. Few laws are more important to observe in the interpretation of prophetic Scriptures than the law of double reference. Two events, widely separated as to the time of their fulfillment, may be brought together into the scope of one prophecy. This was done because the prophet had a message for his own day as well as for a future time. By bringing two widely separated events into the scope of the prophecy both purposes could be fulfilled."

In other postings I have shown how the prophecy of the coming of Elijah has a dual fulfillment. (See here) In that posting I also showed how prophecies of the new heavens and earth have one fulfillment in the millennial kingdom and another in the ages following the millennial reign of Christ. So it is with the old testament prophecies of the rise and fall of Babylon. In another posting titled "Law of Double Reference" (See here) I again cited Pentecost who also wrote:

"The law of double reference. Few laws are more important to observe in the interpretation of prophetic Scriptures than the law of double reference. Two events, widely separated as to the time of their fulfillment, may be brought together into the scope of one prophecy. This was done because the prophet had a message for his own day as well as for a future time. By bringing two widely separated events into the scope of the prophecy both purposes could be fulfilled. Horne says:

The same prophecies frequently have a double meaning, and refer to different events, the one near, the other remote; the one temporal, the other spiritual or perhaps eternal. The prophets thus having several events in view, their expressions may be partly applicable to one, and partly to another, and it is not always easy to make the transitions. What has not been fulfilled in the first, we must apply to the second; and what has already been fulfilled, may often be considered as typical of what remains to be accomplished."

Seiss, in his commentary on Rev. chapter eighteen, continues:

"Some think only an ideal city is meant, but nearly all interpreters, however diverse their ways of looking at these visions, agree that we must here understand a real city. Most of them say it is the city of Rome; some say it is Jerusalem; and a few say it is the island of England, which they take as the great center of an unclean system of union between Church and State. My own impressions are that a literal city is contemplated in the vision, but that we must look for it in a different region of the world. However much Rome, Jerusalem, or states having national churches may be involved, they do not, and it is hard to see how they possibly can, fill out the picture of this final Babylon. The realization is yet in the future, and we cannot speak with confidence as to how matters will eventuate; but there seems to be reason for the belief that the literal Babylon will be restored, and that we are to look to the coming up again of that primal city for the fulfillment of what is here foreshown. The mention of such a thing may seem like a wild dream, and appear to clash with some of the prophecies touching the irrecoverable destruction of ancient Babylon. But let us look a little at the subject, and endeavor to construe the Scriptures as they are, and not according to the loose impressions which have found currency as if they were settled truths."

I think it is quite plain that a literal city is described in Revelation chapter eighteen. As stated in the last introductory chapter, if it is non literal, then no one can be sure of what it symbolizes nor how to interpret each item in the description of the city. Thus, a foundational premise affirms that the city of that chapter is a real literal city and that it is likely to be a revived or rebuilt Babylon in the old city or in Iraq. Secondly, the city described did not exist in the time of John. John also is not describing a city that once existed but no longer. Thus, it is a literal city that will be realized in the future and will be destroyed by the second coming of Christ and day of judgment.

Seiss continues:

"First of all, it seems to be pretty clear that the ancient predictions concerning the utter destruction of Babylon have never yet been entirely fulfilled.

In the next place, there are Scripture prophecies which I am at a loss to understand except upon the theory that Babylon will be restored, become a great commercial center, and be the last of this world’s great centers to go down under the terrific visitations of the day of the Lord."

That is also what I firmly believe.

"5 Then the angel that talked with me went forth, and said unto me, Lift up now thine eyes, and see what is this that goeth forth. 6 And I said, What is it? And he said, This is an ephah (basket measure - SG) that goeth forth. He said moreover, This is their resemblance through all the earth. 7 And, behold, there was lifted up a talent of lead: and this is a woman that sitteth in the midst of the ephah. 8 And he said, This is wickedness. And he cast it into the midst of the ephah; and he cast the weight of lead upon the mouth thereof. 9 Then lifted I up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings; for they had wings like the wings of a stork: and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven. 10 Then said I to the angel that talked with me, Whither do these bear the ephah? 11 And he said unto me, To build it an house in the land of Shinar: and it shall be established, and set there upon her own base." (Zech. 5: 5-11 kjv)

By "the land of Shinar" is the land of Babylon. 

Seiss in commentary on this prophetic vision said:

"What is the world’s common symbol for commerce, the accepted picture to represent it? I have asked this question, and looked to verify the answer. In general I have found it to be an ornamented coin, weight, measure, or bowl of the scales, bearing a representation of the power that authorizes it, and a figure of a woman on each side, — one surrounded with the implements of navigation looking to the sea, and the other surrounded with the implements of trade, husbandry, and transportation looking toward the land, — the two mutually supporting what is between them, whilst above are the wings of some vigorous bird, to indicate the far-reaching flights of what is thus pictured to the eye and imagination. Nor would it be easy to improve on this. It has been evolved in the course of ages, and the whole modern world, so far as I know, has set the seal of its approval upon it as the accepted emblem of commerce. But it is the same that was shown to the prophet Zechariah 500 years before the commencement of the Christian era. Just at the time when he sees the great flying roll of the curse of God going forth over the face of the whole earth to cut off transgressors, he beholds an ephah, the common bushel measure, and a talent of lead, the flat rounded weight used in the calculation of tonnage, put upon the mouth or top of the bushel measure, whilst on each side of it was a woman, having wings “like the wings of a stork,” with the winds in their wings; and they two lifted up the ephah between earth and heaven to bear it away."

Seiss continues:

"Besides, in the midst of the united measure and weight was another woman called Wickedness, the Lawless Woman, answering to the Great Harlot of these chapters. The prophet wondered what it all meant, and asked the angel in converse with him what these intended to do with the measure and weight inclosing the Woman of Wickedness. The angel said: “To build it an house in the land of Shinar; and it shall be established and set there upon her own base.” (Zechariah 5:1-11.)

Now this joined measure and weight, with the two winged women bearing them, and the winds in their wings, is unquestionably a symbol of commerce; not so much as it was then, but as it was to become in the period verging on the end, and as it has become in our day. The building of a house for it, and the establishment and settling of it upon its own base, can mean nothing less than the creation for it of a great independent center, with its own ruler, king, or government. The place of this house is specifically stated to be “the land of Shinar.” What that land is we can have no difficulty in ascertaining. When the people in Nimrod’s time journeyed from the East they found a plain in the land of Shinar and dwelt there, and there built the city called Babel, or Babylon. (Genesis 11:2- 9.) When Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, invaded Palestine, it is said that he took Jehoiakim, and part of the vessels of the house of God, and carried them “into the land of Shinar,” that is, Babylon. (Daniel 1:1, 2.) “The land of Shinar,” then, is Babylon; and in this Shinar the angel said this commerce, borne by the favoring winds on mighty wings, was to be established and settled on its own base."

I am sure that end time Babylon is what is under consideration in the prophecy of Zechariah. To commerce will be built "an house" in the land of Shinar of Babylon. What kind of "house"? It is an international "trading house."

Seiss continues his commentary on the prophecy of Zechariah:

"This prophecy was delivered subsequent to the Babylonish captivity, and at least half a lifetime after Babylon had been conquered by the Medes and Persians. It certainly has never yet been fulfilled according to its terms. By the connection in which it is given, its fulfillment belongs to the time when the great curse of God upon the wicked goes forth over all the face of the earth; that is, in the great judgment period. By the indications thus given as to time, and by the whole contents of the foreshowing, its accomplishment belongs to the future, and necessarily includes the revival of old Babylon as a great commercial center, standing independent of all other powers, and exercising its own peculiar dominion over the governments of the earth. And this is all the more confirmed in that it exhibits the Woman of Wickedness, the Great Harlot, ensconced in it, as the great spirit which pervades the whole."

Again, that seems to me to be the clear truth of the prophecy of Zechariah and the apostle John.

Seiss continues:

"Furthermore, it seems to me impossible to do justice to the description which John here gives of the features and fall of the Great City which he was called to contemplate, except on the supposition of such a revival of the old Chaldean metropolis."

Seiss lived in the 19th century, and if he were alive on earth today and could see how important world trade between nations is, he would see how we are at the time when this prophecy will begin to be fulfilled. World trade is such an important issue today and President Trump is very much involved in what is called "the trade wars." On this coming trade war I have written several times over the years. (See here, here, here) The middle east has become an important area where nations have focused their attention and discussion has been on how to bring peace and prosperity to the region. We could write much about this but it would be adding too much to this chapter. Needless to say, to build an international trading center which has power over nations to regulate global trade between nations will bring prosperity to the region.

Seiss continues:

"The name itself is a tower of strength to the idea. There is no great city, Babylon, now; nor has there been for many ages. Nor is there any other great city on the face of the earth that answers to the picture, or that is at all likely ever to answer to it on any possibilities that can be imagined. And yet the name of this great city is Babylon — Babylon riving and ruling over the kings and nations of the earth when the day of judgment reaches its consummation. It is not Babylon in mystery, but simply the great city Babylon, the mighty city; and there is no intimation whatever that this city of Babylon does not mean the city of Babylon. By what right then are we to think of any other city than that which has been known by this name ever since Nimrod rived?"

Saddam began rebuilding the old city of Babylon but that was not the same degree of reconstruction that will occur when all the nations of the earth unite in building a completely new city, one that will be admired by all the world, for it will not only become the center of trade and commerce, but will be a truly modern city, with places to indulge in pleasures.

Those who believe in a future city of Babylon as such are divided over when it will be built. Dispensational Premillennialists think it will occur after the rapture, after the first stage of Christ's second coming, or during the time of "the great tribulation." Other Premillennialists, like I am, being non Dispensational, believe that the building of Babylon occurs prior to the second coming of Christ. Christ comes in Revelation chapter nineteen, but Babylon rises in chapter eighteen. Further, the rapture, occurring at the second coming, follows the building and destruction of Babylon. 

End Time City of Babylon

This will be the beginning of a series of chapters on End Time Babylon. I have written a little on this in the past (See here) and have wanted to write on it for a long time. That short posting was written over five years ago. 

Coming to a right understanding of Revelation chapters seventeen and eighteen, dealing with end time Babylon, is very important. Many Christians today, and in the past, have concluded that the ancient city of Babylon and the empire of Babylon have already been destroyed and that all prophecy relating to that city has already been fulfilled, being fulfilled when the Medo-Persians conquered the city and brought an end to that empire. However, as we will see, that was not the complete fulfillment of the prophecy. The final fulfillment yet awaits us. 

The first thing to understand about end time Babylon is to see how "Mystery Babylon" of Revelation chapter seventeen is not exactly the same as Babylon of chapter eighteen.

Two Cities

In the book of Revelation we see a "tale of two cities," to borrow a title from one of the books by Charles Dickens. To elucidate this further, I will cite from that famous work by nineteenth century Lutheran pastor and author of many good books, J.A. Seiss. I have already done this in my post titled "The Two Great Women Of The Apocalypse" (See here). In that posting I cited the following from Seiss and his famous book "The Apocalypse" and his commentary on Revelation chapter twelve concerning the sun-clad woman.

"The first thing which strikes me in the study of this subject, is one which I have nowhere seen duly noticed, namely: the evident correlation and contrast between the Woman here pictured and another Woman described in the twelfth chapter. There, “a great sign was seen in the heaven, a Woman;" here, it is remarked, “he bore me away in spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a Woman.” Both these Women are mothers; the first “brought forth a son, a male [neuter, embracing either sex], who is to rule all the nations; the second “is the mother of harlots and of the abominations of the earth.” Both are splendidly dressed; the first is “clothed with the sun.” Her raiment is light from heaven. The second is “clothed in purple, and scarlet, decked with gold, and precious stone, and pearls.” All her ornaments are from below, made up of things out of the earth and the sea. Both are very influential in their position; the first has “the moon,” the empress of night, the powers of darkness, “under her feet;” the second “hath rule, or kingdom, upon the kings of the earth.” Both are sufferers; against the first is the Dragon, who stands watching to devour her child, and persecutes and pursues her, and drives her into the wilderness, and sends out a river to overwhelm her, and is at war with all her seed that he can find; against the second are the ten kings, who ultimately hate her, and make her desolate and naked, and eat her flesh, and burn her with fire, whilst God in His strength judgeth her, and visits her with plague, death, and utter destruction. Both are very conspicuous, and fill a large space in the history of the world, and in all the administrations of divine providence and judgment. That they are counterparts of each other there can hardly be a reasonable doubt. The one is a pure woman, the other is a harlot. The first is hated by the powers on earth, the second is loved, flattered, and caressed by them. Where the one has sway, things are heavenly; where the other lives, it is “wilderness.” The one produces masculine nobility, which is ultimately caught away to God and to His throne; the other produces effeminate impurity, which calls down the fierceness of the divine wrath. The one is sustained and helped by celestial wings; the other is supported and carried by the Dragon power, — the Beast with the seven heads and ten horns. The one has a crown of twelve stars, wearing the patriarchs and apostles as her royal diadem; the other has upon her forehead the name of the greatest destroyer and oppressor of the holy people, and is drunken with “the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that have been slain upon the earth.” The one finally comes out in a heavenly city, the New Jerusalem, made up of imperishable jewels, and arrayed in all the glory of God and the Lamb; the other finally comes out in a city of this world’s superlative admiration, which suddenly goes down forever under the intense wrath of Heaven, and becomes the habitation of demons, and a hold of every unclean spirit." 

These two Women, thus related, and set over one against the other as opposites and rivals, must necessarily be interpreted in the same way. As Antichrist corresponds to Christ as a rival and antagonist of Christ, so Great Babylon corresponds to the Woman that bears the Man-child, as her rival and antagonist. 

By recalling, therefore, who and what is meant by the first Woman, we will be in position to understand who and what is meant by the second. Beyond question, the sun-clad Woman is God’s great symbol of the visible Church, — the Lamb’s Wife, — the bone of His bone, and flesh of His flesh, fashioned out of His rifted side as the Second Adam, who fell into the deep sleep of death for that purpose. As Methodius taught, “The woman seen in heaven, clothed with the sun, and adorned with a crown of twelve stars, is, in the highest and strictest sense, our Mother. The prophets, considering what is spoken of her, call her Jerusalem, at other times The Bride, the Mount Sion, the Temple and Tabernacle of God.” She is not the church of any one period or dispensation, but the entire Universal Church of all time, as Victorinus, the earliest commentator on this Book, held and affirmed, saying: “The Woman clothed with the sun, having the moon under her feet, is the Church of the Patriarchs, and of the Prophets, and of the holy Apostles” that is, the Church from the days of Adam and Eve on to the last victory over the worship, name, and mark, of the final Antichrist. What then can this rival Woman be but the organized Antichurch, the pseudochurch, the Bride made out of Satan, the universal body and congregation of false-believers and false-worshippers? As Christ has had a visible Church in all time, embodying the wisdom and spirit of heaven, and maintaining the confession of His truth and worship, so has the Devil had a corresponding following in all time, embodying the sensual and devilish wisdom and spirit, and maintaining the profession and teaching of Satan’s lies. And as the first Woman denotes the one, so the second Woman denotes the other. The proofs of this will appear as we consider the particulars of the case."

The mystery form of Babylon of Revelation chapter seventeen describes the people of the world who are "of the world," and who are in league with Satan and the worldly system over which he reigns. (John 17:14, John 15:18-19, 1 John 2:15-16) It describes their false religion. On the other hand, Babylon of Revelation chapter eighteen is a literal city, one yet to be built, and which will be destroyed by the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ the second time. Let me now cite from Seiss and the chapter where he begins his commentary on chapter eighteen, from "The Apocalypse" (here). Seiss said (emphasis mine).

"But Great Babylon in final revelation is also a local city. As a system, its essential principle is alienation of soul from God, and so whatever is developed from the carnal wisdom, either against or in the place of the true worship. But as the sun-clad Woman develops into a heavenly city, the new Jerusalem embodying all the ultimate glories pertaining to the spiritual wisdom and the true devotion, so the Great Harlot also develops into an earthly city, embodying all the completed temporal results of the sensual wisdom and the ultimate bloom of human apostasy. Hence her final overthrow sums up in the fall and destruction of a great, rich, and powerful city. Hence, also, the angel says: “The Woman whom thou sawest is the great city which hath rule upon the kings of the earth.” It is the same Woman which, as a system of false worship, rode all the governments and powers of earth, but which makes its final presentation in the form of a literal city."

There is no way that one can read chapter eighteen of Revelation and say it is all symbolic and not literal. If that is so, then no one can know for sure what it symbolizes in the details. To show this, let us cite from that chapter and see how this great city is described.

"9 "The kings of the earth who committed fornication and lived luxuriously with her will weep and lament for her, when they see the smoke of her burning, 10 standing at a distance for fear of her torment, saying, 'Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! For in one hour your judgment has come.' 11 And the merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her, for no one buys their merchandise anymore: 12 merchandise of gold and silver, precious stones and pearls, fine linen and purple, silk and scarlet, every kind of citron wood, every kind of object of ivory, every kind of object of most precious wood, bronze, iron, and marble; 13 and cinnamon and incense, fragrant oil and frankincense, wine and oil, fine flour and wheat, cattle and sheep, horses and chariots, and bodies and souls of men. 14 The fruit that your soul longed for has gone from you, and all the things which are rich and splendid have gone from you, and you shall find them no more at all. 15 The merchants of these things, who became rich by her, will stand at a distance for fear of her torment, weeping and wailing, 16 and saying, 'Alas, alas, that great city that was clothed in fine linen, purple, and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls! 17 For in one hour such great riches came to nothing.' Every shipmaster, all who travel by ship, sailors, and as many as trade on the sea, stood at a distance 18 and cried out when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, 'What is like this great city?' 19 They threw dust on their heads and cried out, weeping and wailing, and saying, 'Alas, alas, that great city, in which all who had ships on the sea became rich by her wealth! For in one hour she is made desolate.' 20 Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you holy apostles and prophets, for God has avenged you on her!" 21 Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, "Thus with violence the great city Babylon shall be thrown down, and shall not be found anymore. 22 The sound of harpists, musicians, flutists, and trumpeters shall not be heard in you anymore. No craftsman of any craft shall be found in you anymore, and the sound of a millstone shall not be heard in you anymore. 23 The light of a lamp shall not shine in you anymore, and the voice of bridegroom and bride shall not be heard in you anymore. For your merchants were the great men of the earth, for by your sorcery all the nations were deceived." (9-23 nkjv)

If this is a non literal description, then let those who believe so tell us what is the signification of the symbols. Are the merchants literal or figurative? Are the goods and merchandise that are sold literal or figurative? Are the musicians, craftsmen, or manufacturers literal or figurative? Is the city literal or figurative? The list of items bought and sold, if they are not literal, what man can tell us what each of the pieces of merchandise represent?

Clearly this end time great city (Greek 'megalopolis') is literal, and becomes the "world trade center" of the end time one world government over which Antichrist will rule.

At this time in history the "world trade center" is in New York city and is a single building in that city. For this and other reasons some bible students think that New York city is the end time Babylon of Revelation chapter eighteen.

When I do a search in Google with the words "future world trade center middle east" I get this AI Overview:

"When discussing the "future world trade center in the Middle East," the primary reference is the Dubai World Trade Centre (DWTC), which is actively expanding and solidifying its position as a leading global hub for business events, exhibitions, and conferences, further establishing Dubai as a major center for international trade in the region; currently undergoing a significant expansion project to enhance its capacity for large-scale events." 

Though there are many world trade centers, there is a desire to have only one. Prophecy, as we will see, also affirms that there will be indeed a one world center of trade and commerce.

"World Trade Centers Association" (See here) says this:

"NEW YORK, NY ( November 12, 2024) — World Trade Centers Association® (WTCA®), an international trade organization connecting more than 300 World Trade Center® (WTC®) locations in nearly 100 countries, held its 2024 WTCA Member Forum from October 27-29 in New York City."

When I search Google with the words "need for a single international trade center" Google AI says:

"A single international trade center is needed to facilitate smoother global trade by providing a centralized platform for businesses to access information, connect with potential partners, negotiate deals, and resolve disputes, ultimately streamlining processes, reducing costs, and promoting greater efficiency across international markets; it can also foster collaboration between countries and promote fair trade practices by creating a neutral ground for interactions." 

Of course, when you have a very large international city built for purpose of commerce, and where the world's great and rich men gather, they will also want a place where they can also enjoy entertainment while they are there on business. The greatest commercial cities of the past have also been a place for "the pleasures of sin." But, more on that as we proceed in our study.

The bible prophesies that there will be a final world empire composed of ten kings (a confederacy) who will give their sovereignties to the Antichrist. When this "new world order," this one world government, is finally realized, then we will see several capitals. There will be a political center, the place where the Antichrist will rule politically. There will also be a religious center, the place where the Antichrist will receive worship. Finally there will be a world trading center, the place where Antichrist will govern world trade, even down to the individual, so that no single person in the world will be able "to buy or sell" without receiving his mark in their hand or forehead. (Rev. 13: 17)

When I did a Google search with the words "middle east as center of trade routes" I get this from AI:

"The Middle East has historically served as a central hub for global trade routes, acting as a geographical crossroads connecting Europe, Asia, and Africa, with its coastal access to the Mediterranean, Red Sea, and Persian Gulf facilitating the movement of goods between these continents, making it a vital center for commerce throughout history; prominent examples include the Silk Road and the Spice Routes which traversed through the region." 

Saddam Hussein when he was in power in Iraq, the ancient land of Babylon, began to rebuild the ruins of the old city of Babylon. But, he never finished it, and it never became a world trading center. But, all the signs point to this area becoming the center of world trade. Yes, we do have, as part of the United Nations, what is called the "World Trade Organization" and their web page (See here) says this:

"About WTO: The World Trade Organization (WTO) deals with the global rules of trade between nations. Its main function is to ensure that trade flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as possible."

But, the WTO has little power to enforce its rules. But, that will not always be the case. 

Whoever controls world trade and the coming world currency will have all the power. Commerce is the head and politics is the tail. 

My thesis for this series or essay is that the Babylon city of Revelation chapter 18 will yet be built by the combined efforts of the united nations of the world and it will be a truly literal mega city. One of my interests lies in keeping up with the world's mega building projects. Big cities are being built all around the world and end time Babylon will be the most wonderful city the world has ever known.

Blog News

It has been 17 years since I began writing in blogs. I began writing in the Baptist Gadfly blog in 2008 and in the Old Baptist Test blog in 2011. I have written perhaps over 2-3 thousand articles in all my blogs. The only one I have been writing in the past few years, other than the Theology of Job blog (see links on this page) has been this blog, which is dedicated to witnessing to those in the Hardshell Baptist cult, although the past few years it has expanded to cover many subjects. I am thankful for brothers Kevin Fralick and Ken Mann for becoming a part of this blog. 

Sometimes I have become discouraged when I failed to get many readers in a given month. For many years the average monthly number of page views for this blog has hovered around 5000. So far this month it is close to 18000. Over the past year we had one month where we had over 35000 page views and next month over 25000. I am thankful for all who have visited and pray God will bless what they have read and have been either corrected, instructed, or saved by what they have read. Also, the other blogs get a lot of visits each month, although this blog is now the chief since it is the only one I write for regularly. We have 2244 posts between the three editors of this blog. I also have several hundred partial drafts for future articles.

We don't get as many comments any more, especially from Hardshell Baptists. One brother recently asked why we don't have long debates in the comment section of blog posts. I don't know why exactly and can only speculate. I can say that the Hardshells no longer comment, I firmly believe, because they know they cannot get away with promoting their views and cannot win the debate on the issues that makes them unique or a pariah. 

I also think that we have a lot of secret followers of this blog, mostly from the Hardshell Baptists and those among them who do not want any to know that they are a "follower" of this blog. How many visits we get in a month is far more telling than how many public followers we have in this blog. Further, lots of these Hardshells write me an e-mail which shows they are reading but choose not to become a public follower.

I am now 69 years old and declining in health. My pulmonary fibrosis is stable again, though it worsened a year ago when I got a bad case of Covid. I also have a heart stent and several other places that may need stents in the future. I tire easily and cannot read for long periods without becoming sleepy. But, I plan to keep reading, studying, and teaching by writing as long as I can.

I am getting ready to begin a series on the mega city Babylon of Revelation chapter eighteen, showing that there will be a rebuilding of Babylon prior to the coming of Christ and it will become the international trade center and a place of debauchery. 

In closing let me say that I find it quite interesting that the posting "Spilsbury, Knollys, Keach on Ordo Salutis" that I have had as the featured blog post over the past week has gotten no reads. That is so strange. The Hardshells who claim allegiance to the 1689 London Confession are not interested in what the signors of that confession believed?

Common Logical Fallacies (viii)

In this chapter we will begin by addressing another common informal logical fallacy called 

Circular Reasoning or Begging the Question

Says AI Overview from a Google search:

"Begging the question is a type of circular reasoning that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of its conclusion. In other words, the conclusion is used as a premise to support itself. 

 

Explanation - Begging the question is a logical fallacy that can be persuasive to people who don't recognize it or who already agree with the conclusion. 

 

It can be difficult to identify because the premise and conclusion may use synonyms. 

 

Begging the question is also known as petitio principii, which is Latin for "assuming the original point"." 

Circular reasoning fallacy occurs when the evidence used to support a claim is just a repetition of the claim itself. Such circular reasoning or begging the question fallacy is like a tautology. 

We see this fallacy objected to in many court trials where a prosecutor or defense attorney objects to a question by saying "objection, the question assumes a fact not yet proven as a fact." It is objected to because it is circular reasoning or a begging of the question. An example is when a Prosecutor speaks to a defendant and says: "So how did you feel when you killed your wife?" The conclusion is the same as the premise. It is what we might call a "loaded question." That is defined by Google AI as follows:

"A loaded question is a complex question that contains a controversial assumption or falsehood. The question's purpose is to limit the respondent's answer to one that serves the questioner's agenda. Loaded questions are a type of logical fallacy that can be used to derail rational debates." 

Another example is in these words: "This book is the best because it is the most popular, and it's the most popular because it is the best." 

It is easy to see the circular reasoning in this statement. Another example is in this sentence: "Women shouldn’t fight bulls because women shouldn’t fight bulls."

In the bible we find several instances where such an logical fallacy is seen in the argumentation of those who rejected Jesus as the Messiah. 

"Jesus is not from God because he healed on the Sabbath." (John 9: 16)

This argument assumes that their strict interpretation of Sabbath rules is the definitive standard for God's will, without providing external evidence to support that claim, and is therefore begging the question. 

In the same dialogue in John chapter nine the Pharisees ask a rhetorical question: “How can a man who is a sinner do such miracles?” and "Give God the glory; we know that this man is a sinner." (John 9: 16, 24 nkjv)

Begging the question is clearly seen in this argumentation. The Pharisees did not prove that Jesus was a sinner, but assumed that as both a premise and a conclusion. 

False Dilemma or Dichotomy

"A "False Dilemma" or "Dichotomy" fallacy is a logical fallacy where an argument presents only two extreme options as if they are the only possible choices, ignoring the existence of a wider range of possibilities, often using "either/or" language to force a decision between these two extremes; essentially, it is a misleading simplification of a complex issue by presenting a false choice between two options when more exist." (AI) 

"The false dilemma fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents an issue by offering only two options (when more exist) or by presenting the options as mutually exclusive (when they are not)." (Ibid)

I have often seen this fallacy. I have heard people say "you only have two choices, either A or B" and I have often retorted and said "or both." Of course, there are times when there are only two options. But, often, this is said when there are actually more than two choices. We see lots of these in the bible. 

"Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit." (Matt. 12: 43 kjv)

He also said in the same chapter - "He that is not with me is against me." (vs. 30)

One example of where people use this fallacy is when they ask "if Jesus God or man?" Here the question fails to see another option which is that Jesus is both God and man.

This will end this series on common logical fallacies. There are more such fallacies that we could talk about but these are the most common. I would encourage all to look at those other fallacies at some of the web sites I have referred to in this series. Knowing these fallacies will help you from being led astray by such invalid reasoning.

Common Logical Fallacies (vii)

An appeal to popularity is also known as an appeal to the majority. But, is also a well known fact that the majority is not always right. Therefore it is not sound logic to say "the majority of scholars say your argument or position is wrong and therefore you are wrong." Yet, I have had this argument made to me many times in my life on bible interpretations of mine which are a minority view. The Appeal to the Majority fallacy is also known as the Bandwagon Fallacy.

Let us look at a bible text where this logical fallacy was used.

46 “No one ever spoke the way this man does,” the guards replied. 47 “You mean he has deceived you also?” the Pharisees retorted. 48 “Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? 49 No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them.” (John 7: 46-48)

Here the Pharisees used several argumentative fallacies. First, they appealed to popular opinion among the Pharisees. Since Jesus was rejected by the large majority of Pharisees, ergo, he must not be the Messiah. That is the argument. It is in this syllogistic form:

1. The Messiah will be received as such by the majority of Pharisees.

2. Jesus was not received by the majority of Pharisees.

3. Therefore, Jesus is not the Messiah.

The argument also makes use of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. The Pharisees were of the rulers in Israel, the authorities, and since they do not, with few exceptions, accept the claims of Jesus, therefore the claims of Jesus are false. 

Another fallacy in the above text is seen when the Pharisees say that the "mob" who do believe in Jesus cannot be correct because they "know nothing of the law" and because "there is a curse on them." That is an ad hominem fallacy. We also see how they were guilty of the fallacy of "begging the question," which we will discuss later. But, there were people who did know the law as experts and yet who did believe in Jesus such as Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, and Saul of Tarsus (who became Paul and who was known as a Pharisee of Pharisees). Further, many Gentiles who did not know the law of Moses believed in Jesus. And, the accusation that the believing mob were cursed and therefore could not recognize the Messiah when he came is fallacious because 1) there was no proof offered that the believing crowd were in fact cursed, and 2) there was no proof that anyone who was cursed was unable to recognize the Messiah. 

It is interesting that Paul actually argued that the many were wrong about Jesus, so that if you were in the majority you were wrong. (I Cor. 1: 26) Jesus also said that the majority, or many, walk the broad way that leads to death while few walk the strait and narrow way that leads to life. Therefore if you choose which way to walk based on where the majority are walking, then you will be on the wrong path. (Matt. 7: 13-14)

Oftentimes this appeal to the majority is seen when someone justifies an action by saying "everyone else is doing it." Kids often say this to parents who are trying to change the minds of their parents who have forbidden a certain activity. 

Wrote the Apostle Paul:

"At my first defense no one stood with me, but all forsook me. May it not be charged against them. But the Lord stood with me and strengthened me..." (II Tim. 4: 16-17 nkjv)

Here the majority were in the wrong. In fact it was a super majority. Yet, the fact that Christ stood with Paul showed that the majority was wrong on this occasion.

Another example where the majority of bible translators were wrong in a particular translation is this verse:

"Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." (Matt. 11: 11 kjv)

Most translations give the word "least" for the Greek term. "Least" is a superlative. But, it is not so in the Greek, but is rather a comparative word, and a few translations therefore use the word "less" rather than "least." In a posting on this point (See here) I cited Dr. J. R. Graves who wrote:

"The term, mikros, is here translated as an adjective in the superlative degree, though it has not this form in the Greek, but the comparative, and, if used as an adjective here, should be translated "less;" but this does not, in the least, remove the difficulty. To render it "least" the translators are compelled to translate the comparative degree as a superlative, and nothing is thereby gained. If it can be claimed that one degree of comparison is used for another in this place, why not as well, and far better, claim that mikros is used adverbially, qualifying "is," and not any person or class of persons, and the more so, when the sense positively demands this construction? Admit its adjective form, but give it an adverbial signification, and it will then read: "Notwithstanding he that is later in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." 

 

"The Herald preceded the king. Christ was manifest to Israel later in point of time than John; therefore, I understand him to say, that while John was greater than any man who had preceded him, nevertheless, he himself was greater than John."

If this corrected translation is not right, then we are forced to say that John the Baptist was greater than even Jesus, who was also born of a woman. But, it is right, and the corrected translation makes it clear that by "he who is lesser or later" Christ intends himself. Thus, the majority of translators are wrong.

Appeal to common belief is another way of arguing by appealing to the majority. It is not the same thing as arguing from what is called "common sense" or from what is universally recognized as true. The fact is, many "common beliefs" are errors. Many are the result of what is called "group think." 

Group Think is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of people makes decisions that are not rational or in their best interest. The bandwagon effect, on the other hand, is the tendency for individuals to conform to the group's opinions or behaviors from peer pressure or from fear of being an oddball. 

We see this kind of fallacious reasoning in cults. I saw in the Hardshell Baptist cult especially, but have seen it in other groups, both in theology and in politics. Many Hardshells took views on certain texts or bible subjects because this was the majority opinion of the cult. To keep in good with the cult one had to not "rock the boat" by taking a different view. In the Hardshell cult I was pressured to accept the common view of most Hardshells and 1) deny that the story of the rich man and Lazarus described what happens to the saved and lost when they die, and 2) deny that Satan or other angels fell from the third heaven, etc. 

AI Overview on defining "appeal to authority fallacy" says:

"An "appeal to authority fallacy" occurs when someone uses the opinion of a supposed authority figure as the primary evidence to support a claim, without providing sufficient reasoning or evidence, essentially arguing that something must be true simply because someone considered an expert said so, even if that expert is not qualified in the specific area being discussed." 

Of course, just because a so-called expert states a supposed fact does not make it true, for the simple reason that not all experts are right. We need to be careful when in debate our opponent says "the experts say" or "the scholars say," etc. Whether an expert is true or not must be determined by the logical proofs or factual evidence given in support of the argument, idea, or proposition. A good rebuttal would be to quote from other experts who disagree with the expert being cited and given as proof. This would then bring the debate back to what were the arguments on each side, to the logos, for deciding which, if any, expert was correct. 

We cannot be lazy in finding out the truth on a given question in debate. Some Christians believe things simply because they trust their priest, bishop, or pastor, or some other person. They reason in their minds this way:

1) My bishop knows what is right or wrong on bible subjects

2) My bishop says A is the correct view on bible subject B

3) Therefore A is the correct view.

Some in the Roman Catholic church think the Pope cannot err in doctrine and so they just say "I believe whatever the pope says is right." But, this is unreasonable. Even Peter, their supposed first pope, was not right on everything. His conduct was hypocritical in regards to affiliation with Gentiles, even in regards to believing Gentiles, and so the apostle Paul had to rebuke him. (See Gal. 2: 11) Peter also, during the arrest and trial of Jesus, said "I know not the man." (Matt. 26: 74)

Again, AI gives us this overview on what is meant by "appeal to tradition":

"An "appeal to tradition fallacy" occurs when someone argues that a belief or practice is correct simply because it has been done for a long time, essentially saying "we've always done it this way" and using that as the sole justification without considering if it's still relevant or beneficial in the current context; it's a logical fallacy that relies on the age of a tradition rather than its merit." 

"Appeal to tradition (also known as argumentum ad antiquitatem, appeal to antiquity, or appeal to common practice) is a common fallacy. In this fallacy, an idea is claimed to be right because it is the way it was often done in the past. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way"."

We certainly do see this kind of fallacious reasoning in the bible and coming from the Sadducees and Pharisees. I also saw it when I was a Hardshell Baptist. I also recently saw it in our new vice president. I like J.D. Vance. He is from my hometown of Butler county Ohio. He lived in Middletown where my father lived nearly all his life. I also lived there when I got out of high school and went to work as a real estate broker in Middletown before moving to North Carolina in 1976. I have also read his book "Hillbilly Elegy." In many ways his ancestry is like mine, his family being immigrants from Kentucky as mine were. Many people in Ohio moved there from Kentucky during both world wars to find jobs. His family were not Catholics in their religion but Protestant evangelicals. 

But, recently, I read where he became Roman Catholic and his reason was that "the Catholic church is the oldest." Well, that is not a good reason to become Catholic. That is an example of appeal to tradition, and perhaps also an appeal to the majority, or an appeal to authority. Also, error is as old as the truth, even older in some places and contexts. 

Next let us see how this was true about the former example among the Jewish leadership in the days of Christ.

Jesus frequently criticized the Pharisees for upholding certain traditions like excessive hand-washing before meals, even when it meant neglecting more important aspects of the law like caring for the poor. 

"Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6 And he said to them,“Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ 8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” 9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and,‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)— 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.” (Mark 7: 1-13)

Clearly Jesus saw the fallacious reasoning of the Jewish leaders in their appeals to tradition. Something is not necessarily right because it is an old practice or belief nor is it right because it is practiced or believed by lots of people.

I also see this same type of reasoning by some Hardshell Baptists and Landmark Baptists. These believe, after the manner of the Catholics, that a church is not a legitimate church unless it has a proper genealogy or ancestry ecclesiastically speaking. Unless your church was constituted by a previous mother church, one that was orthodox, your church is not valid. You must be a link in the chain of valid churches and that chain must go back to the days of the apostles. That is an example of the fallacy of appeal to tradition.

I also saw it in their minor or tertiary beliefs and practices. If you did not follow these traditions, you were espied and judged to be suspect and kept at arm's reach. With these folks any kind of innovation or change from prior tradition is rejected simply for being not in keeping with tradition. We also see this fallacy at work in groups like the Amish.

 

Of course, there is a valid and biblically authorized tradition. Many call this "apostolic tradition." Of this Paul wrote:

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." (II Thess. 2: 15 nkjv)

This shows that all traditions are not bad. Some are good. But, they are traditions that are kept not because they are old or popular, but because the tradition is grounded in the oracles of God. The Sabbath was a tradition among the Jews but it was not valid as a practice because it was a tradition, but vise versa, it was a tradition because it began to be practiced because it was commanded by God in the holy scriptures. Keeping the Lord's Supper is an old tradition, but we don't defend keeping it for that reason but rather because it was ordained to be done by the Messiah himself.

Common Logical Fallacies (vi)

In this chapter we will address two other common informal fallacies, namely the "slippery slope" and the fallacious arguments made in the "if, then" format. 

Slippery Slope

Logically fallacious web page (See here) says this about the slippery slope fallacy (emphasis mine):

"Slippery Slope - (also known as absurd extrapolation, thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose, domino fallacy)."

"Description: When a relatively insignificant first event is suggested to lead to a more significant event, which in turn leads to a more significant event, and so on, until some ultimate, significant event is reached, where the connection of each event is not only unwarranted but with each step it becomes more and more improbable. Many events are usually present in this fallacy, but only two are actually required -- usually connected by “the next thing you know...”

Logical Form: If A, then B, then C, ... then ultimately Z!"

It involves foretelling the perceived consequences of an action.

"Your Logical Fallacy" web page (See here) says the following (emphasis mine):

"You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen." 

"The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture."

That is not to say that there are not real slippery slopes, cases where A does bring Z. But, to prove that such consequences or effects will come to pass if A occurs there must be evidence to prove that it will happen. A slippery slope fallacy often exaggerates the potential consequences of an action, making them seem much worse than they likely would be, whereas a real slippery slope acknowledges the potential for negative consequences while still maintaining a realistic assessment.

In other words, slippery slope arguments are not fallacious if you can demonstrate that the initial action has the likelihood that the adverse effects will come about. The fallacy occurs when you claim there's a slippery slope but then have no good reasons for such a forecasting of consequences.

Fallacious claims about X causing Y are prevalent everywhere in our world, including daily conversations with others, and certainly in political debates. 

The format of slippery slope arguments uses the "if, then" conditional sentence. Sometimes they state a truth, but other times they state an untruth. Oftentimes they involve mere speculation. Often people who argue with the "if, then" format should perhaps be careful and say "if A, then B might occur." The slippery slope argument appeals to the emotion of fear, as stated already. In the last election we heard people say that if Trump is elected, then a chain reaction will occur that will bring numerous serious ills. 

The best way to deal with unfounded and evidence lacking slippery slope arguments is 1) demand the evidence that proves that A will undoubtedly bring about B, or 2) show evidence or cases where A did not bring about B. 

Well said another source (See here - emphasis mine) under the heading "Impact and Consequences of the Slippery Slope Fallacy":

 

"The slippery slope argument is not always flawed, but when it is, it can be insidious. It is often used to promote fear and anxiety and to shut down more subtle arguments. As Etienne explains, “The fallacy is often used in fear-mongering attempts, as it often shuts down nuanced discussion by encouraging an all-or-nothing view of the phenomenon in question. It can, unfortunately, be used to justify restrictive policies and procedures.”

"If, Then..." Reasoning

"If-then arguments, also known as conditional arguments or hypothetical syllogisms, are a type of deductive argument that use an if-then statement as a premise. The if-then statement is a conditional statement that has the form "if P, then Q". The "if" part is called the antecedent, and the "then" part is called the consequent." (AI Overview)

The "if, then" statement of a proposition is called "conditional logics." Sometimes such argumentation is true, but often it is not. There are things that do happen and become a slippery slope. However, in many cases it is a case of slippery slope fallacy. So, when is it valid and when invalid?

"How they work" is like this:

"If-then arguments are a key part of deductive logic 

 

They are often used in everyday communication

The truth value of an if-then statement can be determined by considering the truth values of the hypothesis and conclusion

An if-then statement is false only when the hypothesis is true and the conclusion is false."  (Ibid)

Under "Related concepts" we have these categories of the "if, then" argument:

Converse: If (q), then (p)

Inverse: If not (p), then not (q)

Contrapositive: If not (q), then not (p)

Necessary: If, and only if, (p), then (q). (Ibid)

Through the years I have had people argue against my views and used this fallacy. I also hear if often in political and theological debates. 

One additional thing we need to know about conditional sentences, in sentences where we see the "if, then" format. There are four kinds of conditionals in the Greek new testament. Here is what I wrote about this years ago (See here).

"...conditional statements, with a protasis and apodosis (if, then), are in either one of four categories.  From the web page ntgreek.org, these are delineated as follows (See here):

First Class Condition - Is considered the 'Simple Condition' and assumes that the premise (protasis) is true for the sake of argument. The protasis is formed with the helping word ei ('if') with the main verb in the indicative mood, in any tense; with any mood and tense in the apodosis.

Second Class Condition - Is known as the 'Contrary-to-Fact Condition' and assumes the premise as false for the sake of argument. The protasis is again formed with the helping word ei ('if') and the main verb in the indicative mood. The tense of the verb (in the protasis) must also be in a past-time tense (aorist or imperfect). The apodosis will usually have the particle an as a marking word, showing some contingency.

Third Class Condition - Traditionally known as the 'More Probable Future Condition', the third class condition should actually be split into two different categories, the 'Future More Probable Condition' (indicating either a probable future action or a hypothetical situation) and the 'Present General Condition' (indicating a generic situation or universal truth at the present time). It is formed in the protasis using the word ean (ei plus an = 'if') and a verb in the subjunctive mood. The main verb of the protasis can be in any tense, but if the condition is a 'Present General', the verb must be in the present tense.

Fourth Class Condition - Is usually called the 'Less Probable Future Condition' and does not have a complete example in the New Testament. The fulfillment of this condition was considered even more remote than the Third Class Condition. It was formed with the helping word ei and the optative mood in the protasis. The apodosis had the helping word an and its verb was also in the optative mood.

Ignorance of these facts has probably helped to cause today's Hardshells not to understand what Bunyan, Keach, and Hassell understood about the various connotations and denotations attached to the word "conditional."  A condition, most often in scripture, simply denotes a connection between one thing and another, and says nothing about the nature and causes of the condition.  Thus, to say that faith is a condition for salvation simply says that faith precedes salvation by way of connection.  In itself it does not affirm that the condition existed because of the free will and effort of those who have faith.  The condition for salvation is faith, but faith itself is conditioned upon the sovereign and efficacious work of God.  So, though salvation depends upon faith, faith depends upon the will and working of God." 

Martyn McGeown of "Reformed Publishing" writes an article titled "Our Rejection of Conditions (5): Conditional Grammar in the Bible" (See here) and says the following (emphasis mine:

"In an earlier blog post I wrote that at its most basic a condition reflects a relationship of necessity between two or more things. In English we often express such a relationship of necessity with words such as “only if,” “provided that,” “except that,” “without,” “only after,” “always before,” and the like. In this blog post I want to look at conditional grammar in God’s Word. Although the Bible never uses the word “condition” or “prerequisite,” it contains conditional sentences, that is, grammatical constructions with words such as “if,” “unless,” “except,” etc. Every seminarian remembers learning about different kinds of conditional sentences in Greek grammar class: first, second, third, and fourth class conditions."

"Some conditional sentences use “if clauses” (the technical term is protasis) to state a fact. “If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above” (Col. 3:1) could be rendered “Since you are risen with Christ” because the “if clause” expresses what is true. Other first class conditions affirm something to be true, but only for the sake of argument: “If the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised” (1 Cor. 15:16). If, for the sake of granting the premise of the adversary with whom the apostle is arguing, the dead do not rise (and they do), then, it logically follows, if the argument is correct (and it is not), that Christ also did not rise from the dead (but he did)."

What some bible students do not understand is that "if" statements in regard to conditions for salvation do not exclude the fact that the "if" (protasis) can itself have been a "then." For example, in the sentence "if you believe, then you will be saved" does not exclude prior conditions for one becoming a believer. This being so we may read a longer version of the same and say: "if God give you faith, then you will believe, and if you believe you will be saved." Or, if we say "if domino number three is pushed over, then domino number four will be pushed over," we cannot conclude that there was no prior condition before the "if," which is that domino number two pushed domino number three. 

There is nothing wrong with making "if, then" arguments. The bible is full of them. It is only when there is no proof or evidence that the presumed consequences or effects of an "if" condition will come to pass that it becomes a slippery slope fallacy. 

Common Logical Fallacies (v)

Having addressed how logos should reign supreme over ethos and pathos in logical argument, and how there are both formal and informal fallacies, we began to give some information about the most common logical fallacies, particularly the ad hominem, poisoning of the well, and red herring kinds. That leads us to consider a similar kind of informal fallacy called "the straw man fallacy."

Straw Men Fallacy

"A straw man fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone misrepresents an opponent's argument in order to make their own argument seem stronger. The term comes from the idea that a scarecrow, or straw man, is easy to defeat because it's weak." (AI Overview)

The "straw man" is a misrepresentation of the actual belief or idea of an opponent in debate. We see this once again quite often in political debates. It often is the result of "charging consequences" upon an opponent for his belief. It says "my opponent believes X because it is a consequence of his belief." This is often said even when the opponent denies believing those presumed consequences. It is like we have seen politicians say of senator X that he is against old people because he votes for some change in social security. We see it in many Christian debates over bible doctrine, such as when Arminians say such things against Calvinists as 1) "their God is the Devil" or 2) "God enjoys sending some people to Hell," etc. Calvinists also build straw men when they say such things against Arminians such as 1) "Arminians believe they are saved by their works and do not believe in salvation by grace," or 2) "Arminians don't believe in the sovereignty of God," etc. It is better to say in debate "my opponent's belief (or argument) has these consequences, although he denies believing them."

A straw man fallacy involves the deliberate distortion of another person's argument or beliefs. By oversimplifying or exaggerating it, the other party creates an easy to refute argument and then attacks it rather than the actual argument. It is another means of distracting attention away from the actual argument.

When people commit the straw man fallacy they don’t necessarily do it on purpose. It might be due to a genuine misunderstanding of the other person’s argument. It may be due to people reading more into the argument or idea being promoted than the argument actually entails.

In one Internet article on the subject (See here) we have these good words (emphasis mine):

"What are different types of straw man fallacy? Straw man fallacy can take different forms and may involve:

Taking an opponent’s words out of context (i.e., choosing words that misrepresent their intention)

Exaggerating or oversimplifying an opponent’s argument and then attacking this distorted version

Fabricating claims that the opponent never actually made

Changing small but important details in the opponent’s original argument."

The same source says:

"Regardless of their form, straw man fallacies share this general structure:

Person A states position X.

Person B describes position Y, a distorted version of position X.

Person B argues against Y instead of X, claiming that original position X has been refuted."

We also see this fallacy used by advertisers when they distort the products of their competitors saying "Brand X" is something that it is not.

Jumping to Conclusions

(or Hasty Generalization)

"Jumping to conclusions is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone makes a decision or forms an opinion without enough evidence. It's also known as the hasty generalization fallacy or the jumping conclusion bias." (AI)

The above chart shows how and why people jump to conclusions. 

Another good source says that jumping to conclusions is also known as "hasty conclusion, hasty decision, leaping to conclusions, specificity." (See here) It is also what is called an "inferential leap." It is also clearly a case of misinterpretation. It is a case of drawing conclusions without taking the time to evaluate the evidence or reason through the argument.

Said another source (See here - emphasis mine):

"Jumping to conclusions is a phenomenon where people reach a conclusion prematurely, on the basis of insufficient information. For example, a person jumping to conclusions might assume that someone they just met is angry at them, simply because that person wasn’t smiling at them while they talked, even though there are many alternative explanations for that behavior."

Assuming that smokers have a high life expectancy because one's uncle was a lifelong smoker who lived into his nineties is an example of hasty generalization or jumping to conclusions.

I have had to be careful in this regard when I say something about "Primitive Baptists" for I have seen where not all who go by that name believe or practice the same things. Even though what I say about them is true in most instances, it is not true in every instance. This was clear to me when brother Mann called my attention to a large group of "Primitive Baptists" in the Eastern District Association. Since then I try to be careful and now say "Hardshell" Primitive Baptists and affirm that not all who called themselves "Primitive Baptists" are of the Hardshell variety. New evidence made me do this.

On the other hand, without a doubt, many Hardshells who have visited this blog and made comments or sent me a private e-mail have often jumped to conclusions about my writing against Hardshellism. In these instances it is done mostly because they have a bias against seeing anything commendable in my writings against their errors. They have jumped to the conclusion that I am doing this out of spite, because I am bitter about how I was treated when I was a Hardshell, etc. None of this is true, however. I write in order to try to help them see their errors, to correct them, and to help them see the way of the Lord more perfectly. I also write against their errors so that those coming in contact with Hardshells will not get snared in their cult thinking.