Exegetical Fallacies - D. A. Carson

question means, the argument may be unsatisfying because of its form but it does have some weight. But it
is a fallacy to think this argument is conclusive, for there may be other relevant factors. For instance, Paul
may be using the word law in an anomalous fashion, perhaps because he is dealing with a peculiar topic
not treated by him elsewhere. My purpose in drawing these distinctions is to point out that even when an
argument is valid, it may not be conclusive. Some arguments are intrinsically weak.
Less commendable is that form of argumentation that earnestly seeks out the most ambiguous language
possible in order to secure the widest possible agreement. Such statements are worthless, because they
paper over honest differences. They mask more than they reveal; and they verge on the dishonest or
disreputable, for they coerce apparent agreement where there is no real agreement. Of course, it may be
wise to skirt issue A by using ambiguous language if the purpose of the exercise is to discuss issue B, and
issue A is nothing more than a red herring. But it is not a virtue to use the same language when discussing
the real topic, issue B.
It is a fallacy to think that the following statements published by the WCC reflect any substantial
agreement: "The members of Christ's body are to struggle with the oppressed towards that freedom and
dignity promised with the coming of the Kingdom. This mission needs to be carried out in varying
political, social and cultural contexts.'"' With a little effort, Harold O. J. Brown and Jose Miranda could
both agree to that statement! Or again:
The Spirit keeps the Church in the apostolic tradition until the fulfilment of history in the
Kingdom of God. Apostolic tradition in the Church means continuity in the permanent
characteristics of the Church of the apostles: witness to the apostolic faith, proclamation and
fresh interpretation of the Gospel, celebration of baptism and the eucharist, the transmission of
ministerial responsibilities, communion in prayer, love, joy and suffering, service to the sick and
needy, unity among the local churches and sharing the gifts which the Lord has given to each.5z
It is difficult to see why either a Brethren assembly or the conservative wing of the Roman Catholic
Church would have much trouble agreeing with that. Unfortunately, they would not be agreeing with each
other: Almost every clause, sometimes every phrase, would be understood differently by the two
traditions.
Another kind of equivocal argumentation occurs when a commentator wittingly or unwittingly phrases
his presentation in such a way as to leave two or more options open-perhaps because he or she does not
know the answer, or prefers to leave the matter masked or unresolved, or because there is an unwitting
adoption of mutually incompatible views. For instance, Galatians 3:12, where the apostle cites Leviticus
18:5, is one of the major cruces interpreturn of Paul's epistle to the Galatians. The question turns in part
on whether Paul thinks the Mosaic law was ever capable of granting spiritual life or not. F. F. Bruce
comments:
True, in the context of Lev. 18:5 the promise of life to those who do what God commands is a
genuine promise, but ... in Gal. 3:12 Paul indicates that, with the coming of the gospel, that way
of life has now been closed, even if once it was open-and it is doubtful if he would concede even
this.53
Does Bruce think that Paul in Galatians 3:12 announces the cessation of a way to life based on law-