Ad Hominem: A Commonly Misused Fallacy in Debate
Few charges are tossed around in debate today with more carelessness than “ad hominem.” It has become the favorite defense of those who cannot endure rebuke. A man’s reasoning is answered from Scripture, but instead of dealing with the reply he objects, “That’s an ad hominem!” as if invoking a Latin phrase were enough to silence the argument. More often than not, this is little more than a deflection. It is a way of dodging the issue by pretending the opponent has broken a rule of logic.
But what does the ad hominem fallacy really mean? The Latin phrase simply means “to the man.” In its true form, the fallacy arises when an attack on a person is offered in place of an argument. The mistake is not that something negative was said, nor even that the words were harsh, but that the argument itself was never touched. If someone affirms the bodily resurrection of the dead, and the reply is, “Well, you are arrogant and uneducated,” that is ad hominem. The truth of the resurrection does not hinge on the speaker’s character. The reasoning has been avoided, and the man himself has been struck instead.
Contrast that with another situation. Suppose a man denies the resurrection, and his reasoning is dismantled from the text of 1 Corinthians 15. If it is then added that he is mishandling the Word deceitfully, there is no fallacy. The argument has been answered, and the rebuke follows as commentary. To confuse this with ad hominem is to mistake logic for etiquette.
This is where many in our day go astray. In an age of fragile egos, the moment someone is called “foolish” or “blind” or “ignorant,” the alarm sounds: “Fallacy!” But sting is not the same as fallacy. The prophets and apostles did not confront error with silk gloves. They named hypocrisy and deceit plainly, all while reasoning carefully from Scripture. Their severity was not a substitute for argument but the sharp edge of truth applied after the case had been made.
Still, a caution is in order. Scripture warns us that the tongue is powerful and dangerous. James writes, “If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man” (James 3:2). Paul exhorts believers to let their speech be “always gracious, seasoned with salt” (Colossians 4:6). There is a difference between Christlike rebuke and fleshly insult. A fool hurls names without thought. A Christian must speak firmly only when strong words are tethered to truth, aimed at correction, and freed from pride or malice. The prophets and apostles never indulged in insults for sport. Their words were fitting, true, and Spirit-filled. Ours must be measured by the same standard.
Consider the consequence of confusing these categories. If calling someone names were itself an ad hominem fallacy, then Jesus Christ would stand condemned by the laws of logic, and the Christian faith would crumble with Him. But He is not guilty. He called the Pharisees “whitewashed tombs” and “hypocrites” (Matthew 23:27). He said, “You are of your father the devil” (John 8:44). John the Baptist called the religious leaders a “brood of vipers” (Matthew 3:7). Paul told the Galatians they were “foolish” (Galatians 3:1). None of these replaced argument. They were the piercing application of truth after the reasoning had been laid down.
To make this concrete: if I say, “Your view of baptism is false because you are a fool,” that is ad hominem. The reasoning is untouched. If I say, “Her doctrine of creation is wrong because she never went to seminary, so ignore her,” that too is ad hominem. The issue is evaded, and the person is attacked. This is the fallacy in its proper sense. But if I say, “Your view of baptism is false because Romans and Acts prove otherwise, and your refusal to deal with those texts shows you are foolish,” that is not a fallacy. That is argument plus rebuke. If I say, “Her view of creation contradicts Genesis, and her lack of training explains her error,” that is not fallacy. The reasoning has been given, and the criticism is supplemental. The difference is glaring: in the first case, the person is attacked instead of the issue. In the second, the issue is answered and the person is addressed as well. The one is evasion. The other is truth with teeth.
If you cannot tell the difference, you will end up condemning Christ and His apostles as fallacious reasoners. Worse, you will shield error by silencing those who speak plainly. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal. Jeremiah denounced lying shepherds. John the Baptist thundered against a brood of vipers. Jesus declared that the Pharisees shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. Paul even wished false teachers would emasculate themselves. Were all of these men guilty of ad hominem? Not in the least. They were servants of truth, reasoning and rebuking in the name of the Lord.
So let us put an end to the lazy habit of crying “ad hominem” whenever sharp words are used. The fallacy is real, but it is not what most imagine. It is not “he hurt my feelings.” It is not “he called me a name.” It is the substitution of personal attack for argument. To confuse the two is to turn logic into cowardice and to rebuke prophets for speaking like prophets.
The real question, when someone speaks against you, is not whether their words sting. The question is whether they answered the issue. If they dodged your argument by attacking you, then yes, you have witnessed a true ad hominem fallacy. But if they answered your reasoning and then exposed your deceit, laziness, or ignorance, that is not fallacy. That is light shining on darkness. And the call in such moments is not to hide behind a Latin phrase, but to repent before the Word of God.