It’s common to hear people say “I do not expect to change your mind” in the course of debate these days. Just recently I was debating someone on an exegetical issue involving 1Thessalonians 4:14 who said these very words to me after only one round of correspondence.
While there are instances in which this assessment is justified–such as when your opponent declares, “Nothing you say is going to change my mind,” or when, after a sufficient amount of dialogue it becomes clear that your opponent suffers from intellectual stubbornness–it is often used prematurely and inappropriately. I would advise dispensing with such talk for two reasons.
First, I think it communicates a defeatist message, and that prematurely. It may be that neither individual will change his position as a result of the debate (although they often cede various points), but one should let the debate run its course before concluding that their arguments failed to persuade their opponent.
Secondly, and more importantly, the comment is demeaning to either oneself, or one’s opponent. It can be self-demeaning in that it cedes the lack of cogency in one’s argument a priori. How can we be so sure our arguments will not persuade our opponent? If we do not think they are persuasive, why even offer them?
More often, however, such a comment is meant to demean your opponent. It communicates the idea that you don’t think he possesses enough intellectual honesty to change his position in light of the evidence you are presenting. That is very demeaning.
Whether we mean to demean the quality of our arguments, or the intellectual honesty of our opponents, such a statement is demeaning and should be used wisely and infrequently.
And for the record, I do expect my arguments for a limited use of this comment to change your mind! And so should I. If our arguments are good ones, none of us should expect any less.
December 22, 2007 at 9:27 pm
I’m surely guilty of the sort of thing you’re describing. We all need to work on our ability to communicate clearly, particularly in the exchange of ideas. Good call. Thanks!
If it’s ever me blathering nonsense, just call me out! We all need a sharp iron to hone our own edge against. Iron doesn’t sharpen iron until they “rub each other the wrong way”!
Chad
LikeLike
December 26, 2007 at 4:41 pm
This is Off Topic. But I was curious have you read this book Jason.
http://books.google.com/books?id=MFh3Nqdg7soC&pg=PP1&dq=Edward+L.+Dalcour&sig=30iad6Mf_6nfIk5cno6eSagG_XY#PPP1,M1
If so, What did you think, and why are Trinitarian constalty saying that We Beleive “the Son” equals only the human flesh.
C.J. Cook
LikeLike
December 27, 2007 at 8:23 am
CJ,
If you understand the Trinitarian view of the Son and what they mean when they say the Son of God, it will make more sense to you. You have to look at the Oneness view of the Son of God with Trinitarian spectacles on.
LikeLike
December 27, 2007 at 8:59 am
I remember, many years ago, saying something like this:
“I thought Johnny’s singing was off key.”
The listener scrunched his face and replied, “I like Johnny.”
“Oh, I like Johnny, too. I just thought his singing was a little off tonight.”
More scrunching, glaring. “Arthur, Johnny’s a good guy”…
I soon realized that whether you like something is supposed to have no relationship to its objective merits, but whether you like the person(s) associated with it. Ideas and opinions aren’t expressed to convey ideas, but to convey approval or disapproval of individuals. To say “your belief on X is wrong” is a way of lowering the other person in the pecking order, or of revealing that you hold a lowered view of that person in the pecking order.
So I can understand why a person would say that he’s not trying to change your mind. He’s just saying that he’s one of those foolish people who judge things on the merits and says what he really believes. He’s not making a veiled attack on your intelligence, or trying to insult you by suggesting that your deepest-held beliefs are foolish or mythical. He’s just calling it like he sees it. And if you want to maintain belief in something that is manifestly untrue, he won’t hold it against you.
LikeLike
December 27, 2007 at 1:19 pm
I fully understand the Trinitarian view. My problem is, is that they say – WE SAY – that when we use the term “Son” it is a reference to Christ humanity only. Thus make it sound like we divide him up.
From that point of view, they argue against our Oneness Doctrine, which is a Straw-Man argument. By using that View, they turn us into semi-quazy Nestorians or Adoptionist, which we are neither.
Their doctrine of the Incarnation is not too theologialy different from ours, the only question is, is the “WHO” that came in the flesh.
One advantage they do have over us, it the term SON. They use the term interchagebly, though theologically they can be speaking of 2 different things. In their THEOLOGY Christ is both “the Son” in eternal generation and also “The Son” born of Mary (the Hypostatic Union). By using one word that is packed with two completley differnt theological concepts gives them an advantage in their argumnets. And it is hard if not impossible to get most Trinitarian to realize that they are using the word SON to describe two completly different THEOLOGICAL concepts. So when we speak of “the Son” (the Hyspostatic union) they will measure it against their use of “the Son” (eternal generation) in order to make us sound theologically wrong.
C.J. Cook
LikeLike
December 27, 2007 at 4:26 pm
C.J.,
I haven’t read that book. I hadn’t even heard of it until now. Why do Trinitarians accuse us of saying “Son” is Christ’s humanity? Because so many Oneness people say that! Very few describe it the way you and I do. That’s unfortunate, but I think it is true. That’s why we have to work harder at getting OPs to think harder about their theology.
Jason
LikeLike
December 27, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Arthur,
I agree with you that most people who say such things do not mean to communicate anything demeaning, but what they intend, and what their comments actually communicate are two different things.
Jason
LikeLike
March 31, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Jason,
I enjoy the blog. OP’s for the most part are taught that the son is the visible expression. The incarnation. What should they say differently? Are they taught wrong? Thanks.
Chad
LikeLike