Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy that takes the following form:
If p, then q;
q
Therefore, p.
When asking anchorites to establish the biblical or normative roots of certain "tradition-practices," they will employ the above fallacious reasoning.
Magisterial Protestant: How can you prove that said practice is binding on Christians today?
Anchorite: It is part of tradition.
Mag. Prot.: How do I know it is biblical tradition?
Anchorite: We have apostolic succession.
Mag. Prot: How do I know the apostles taught that certain practice?
Anchorite: Paul told the churches to hold to the traditions.
Mag. Prot: Can you define the content of those traditions?
Anchorite: It is the practices you see today.
Did you see the sleight of hand?
If p, then q;
q
Therefore, p.
When asking anchorites to establish the biblical or normative roots of certain "tradition-practices," they will employ the above fallacious reasoning.
Magisterial Protestant: How can you prove that said practice is binding on Christians today?
Anchorite: It is part of tradition.
Mag. Prot.: How do I know it is biblical tradition?
Anchorite: We have apostolic succession.
Mag. Prot: How do I know the apostles taught that certain practice?
Anchorite: Paul told the churches to hold to the traditions.
Mag. Prot: Can you define the content of those traditions?
Anchorite: It is the practices you see today.
Did you see the sleight of hand?
