 |  |
While it is true that believers hold varying views as to what
constitutes 'a firm hold on the blessed hope of the Lord's Second Advent',
and as to the 'Rapture of the Saints', it is clear that Mr. Pitt's statement
quoted above is contrary to the facts.
On page 15 comes the final instance of prejudice:
'It must suffice in a pamphlet to establish from Scripture the
undeniable fact that the spirit of man is conscious after his body has
been laid in the grave'.
The reader whose critical calibre is such as to have been misled by the
discussion of 2 Corinthians 5:8 quoted above, will probably believe that Mr.
Pitt's pamphlet is really packed with overwhelming proofs. It contains not
one; yet such is the mind of man, that reasoning like this can pass for
truth, which is absolutely deplorable.
We consider this pamphlet an example of what to guard against in
controversial literature.
A fallacy has been defined as follows:
'Any sound mode of arguing, which appears to demand our conviction, and
to be decisive of the question in hand, when, in fairness, it is not'
(Whately).
The proverb of the world, 'If you give a dog a bad name, you might as
well hang it' is often illustrated in controversial writings. A common type
of 'argument' which appeals not to the reason but to the weakness and
prejudice of men, is the invention of evil -sounding names with which to
describe one's opponent, or his teaching. The very words 'Bullingerism' and
'Dispensationalism' are calculated to prejudice the reader; and to this is
added the prefix 'ultra'. Most men desire to avoid extremes, and when any
system of doctrine is described by one whose words have weight by virtue of
his position in Christian witness, not only as an 'ism', but as 'ultra', the
question is almost settled before its investigation has commenced.
Dr. E. W. Bullinger was a prolific writer, he expressed himself simply
and earnestly. Most of his literary output is still accessible, but Mr.
Hoste makes practically no quotation from his works, preferring to interpret
Dr. Bullinger himself. This method is not just, and certainly would not be
allowable in a court of justice.
The special feature, however, to which we draw the reader's attention
is the subtle way in which Mr. Hoste implies that Dr. Bullinger must be held
responsible for the doctrine of 'Universal Reconciliation', knowing full well
that the more convinced his readers become of the error of 'Universalism' as
he exposes it, the more they will feel convinced of the error of so -called
'Bullingerism'. Mr. Hoste writes:
'Whether Dr. Bullinger was what is known as Orthodox, or as
Annihilationists used to claim, one of themselves, or a Universalist is
difficult to determine, for he never as far as I know came out into the
open, or declared unequivocally what he was ... He might, however, have
been a Universalist, for a considerable and militant section of his
followers in the U.S.A. are Universalist in all but name, and so far