Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 9
June 20, 1957
NUMBER 8, PAGE 11a,13b

Argumentum Ad Populum

Buford E. Davidson, Levelland, Texas

An article appeared recently on the editorial page of the Gospel Advocate by brother Rue Porter who is also an editor of another publication in which his article also appeared. The editor of the Gospel Advocate says the article deserves reading.

Bro. Porter takes up quite a bit of space slaying those opposed to cooperation. In this article Bro. Porter makes use of an argument known as "Argumentum ad populum." I give a few quotations about this logic.

"Arguentum ad populum is another form of irrelevant conclusion and consists in addressing arguments to a body of people calculated to excite their feeling and prevent them from forming a dispassionate judgment upon the matter at hand. It is the great weapon of rhetoricians and demagogues." (Jevons-Hill, "Elements of Logic." pp 172,173)

"Argumentum ad populum ad misericordiam are appeals to popular prejudices, sentiments, and sympathies, instead of relying on an appeal to reason alone .. . (Daniel Sommer Robinson, "Illustrations of the Methods of Reasoning." p. 7)

Others (other fallacies consist in playing upon prevalent superstitions, upon sympathy for the unfortunate, upon ignorance, upon fear of evil consequences from the rejection of a traditional belief, or upon known specific biases of the individual or group immediately addressed. Edwin Arthur Burtt, "Principles and Problems of Right Thinking." p. 205).

"Argumentum ad populum is an appeal to the feelings, passions, and prejudices of the group addressed instead of the intellect. (Roy W. Sellers, "Essentials of Logic." pp. 157, 158).

"Argumentum ad populum is an argument addressed to the feelings, passions, or prejudices of people rather than an unbiased discussion addressed to the intellect. The use of question-begging epithets frequently accompanies this fallacy (Creighton, "An Introduction to Logic." pp. 184, 185.)

Bro. Porter compares all who hold this position (those opposed to cooperation) to Ketcherside and how he demolished this position twenty years ago. He seems to think this segment of brethren is so small that they can hardly be noticed at all. Perhaps Bro. Porter needs to be reminded that truth does not always reside in numbers, if so Rome has totally outdistanced us all. The claim of theirs recently gives them four-hundred fifty million Catholics. God's people have always been in the minority. Twelve illiterate fisherman, tax-collectors and others withstood the countless thousands of Judaism and wielded the Sword of the Spirit and in the short space of less than one hundred years turned the world upside down.

Bro. Porter has an idea that those opposed to human institutions doing the work of the church are hindering the progress of the church, his idea of the church `progressing' is to work trough human institutions. He has produced no case of any of the 'few' opposers of `cooperation" who has declared he is against caring for widows and orphans, or is against the church caring for them that are its charge. He says the opposers can only say "I am against it," and boldly accuses them of not believing anything. Thus Bro. Porter makes use of the argumentum ad populum as he does throughout his article. He is not the first to make use of this form of argument, the apostate church has used it throughout the bygone centuries, the sectarians have used it since the days of Martin Luther, and they are still using it, our forefathers sought to restore the New Testament Church, but many crept in unawares and used this argument to justify the use of the missionary society, instrumental music and other innovations until brethren who were of the minority had to abandon their buildings and start over again to serve the Lord according to his word, without the human inventions. Now, brethren are using this argument to support the institutions they seek to bind upon the church. Their appeal is to prejudice, sympathy for the unfortunate, and to tradition. Thus they appeal to the argumentum ad populum instead of to God's word. They have in times past told us over and over that the Lord left no instructions 'how' to preach the gospel, thus we are le4 to our own discretion and it is simply a matter of expediency after all. Those that introduced the instrument and the Missionary Society thought by ridicule and other tactics (notice the argument) they could dismiss the dissenters. They were in the majority, so why even notice the `few'?

Many of the brethren today base all their justification of institutions attached to the church by tradition (Notice the Argumentum ad populum). Just recently an elder (?) said. "This congregation has supported these institutions for about thirty years (tradition) and if you don't like it, you can just get up and get out." Hear Bro. Porter, "We shall urge brethren to continue as we have for a hundred years in this country to support the orphan homes, and every good work started, by helping where help is needed and we are able to send to it." Thus he appeals again to the argument, (tradition, sympathy for the unfortunate and the specific biases of the group addressed.)

Bro. Porter, there are a 'few' of us who want our tradition to go back over 1900 years to the teachings of men of inspiration, we care not one iota about just one hundred years, even if it could be proven that brethren have supported institutions of human origin that long, we want an example, command or a necessary inference of the Apostles for our authority to work through such an institution. This article gives us but one verse of scripture of justify these institutions and you and others are determined to read these institutions into it regardless. Yes, we of the 'few' believe James 1:27 and that we can execute it as the church did eighteen hundred years before these institutions were fastened upon it. Bro. Porter's argument is exactly like those of a few decades ago. The scriptures do not tell us 'how' thus we are to use our own judgment. Thus by this admission he denies Ephesians 3:10 "to the intent that now unto the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God."