I have to begin by saying that it should be self-evident that logical fallacies exist, and that they should be avoided. Having the mind of Christ includes avoiding the kinds of confusions and mistakes in reasoning that are so characteristic of our time. I think it was John Stott who said that fuzzy-mindedness is one of the sins of the age.
That said, it needs to be reaffirmed yet again that for Christians the standard is Scripture. But the problem is that good little Christians tend to make a standard for themselves out of bits and pieces of good advice, lessons, and lectures that they picked up over the years from their teachers and other intimidating authorities.
When I tell people what I believe is going on in various controversies (including the Auburn flap) a common response is that I should limit myself to the argument, stick to the issue, and not go bringing in the character of my opponents. This is because the ad hominem is a logical fallacy, they say. Well, actually it is a fallacy of distraction, not a fallacy of logical structure, and this is a good thing. Sometimes the character of an opponent is the issue, and it is not a distraction to bring it up, still less a fallacy of distraction. Think of a lying witness on the stand — a good attorney will go after his credibility precisely because his credibility is the issue. When Jesus attacked the hypocrisy of Pharisees, He was not indulging in fallacious reasoning. Rather, He was teaching us how to reason in any comparable situation.
If I am losing an argument on the merits and I tell my adversary that his mother is a lizard, I am doing this to distract attention away from the fact that he has the better part of the argument. If I start a fight because I am losing the argument, then I really am guilty of trying to distract attention away from my lost cause. And this really is an intellectual sin.
But this was not Eve’s problem. She had the opposite problem in that she did not consider the character of the one who brought the argument. She considered the argument apart from considering the source of the argument. The serpent was up to no good, as she ought to have known. And Adam knew the character of the God who had given him the requirement to stay away from the tree in the middle of the garden. Adam also ought to have known the serpent was up to no good.
Jesus specifically instructed us to weigh the competing claims of theologians, writers, authors, preachers, teachers, and pastors on the basis of fruit. Some want to devour the sheep; they are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Pretend for a moment that it was not Jesus who came up with that metaphor. I can imagine many people telling the hapless one who said it that he really ought to content himself with addressing the arguments of that strange-looking sheep over there, and to stop trying to pull the fleece off to reveal the wolf beneath. “That sort of ad lupum argument (or is it ad ovem? Can’t be sure.) hardly does credit to your position.”
When we are told in Hebrews to remember our rulers and instructors in the Scriptures, we are required to follow their faith (not just the argument they laid out on the blackboard), and we are to do so while considering the outcome of their conduct. We are to consider the fruit of their lives. “Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct” (Heb. 13:7). An elder must be “one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)” (1 Tim. 3:4-5)
The Auburn Avenue controversy is a controversy about our theology of children. What does it mean to be a covenant child? What is the covenantal position of those who are born into Christian families? Does God promise us generational succession within the covenant? How are such promises to be apprehended? What does the Bible command us to do as we consider such controversies? This is not the only thing we are commanded to do, but it is right at the center of what we are commanded to do — we are to look at the children. Whether this is “disobedience to Aristotle” is debateable, but it is certainly obedience to the Lord Jesus.