More than just reasoning is needed to understand the scriptures. We need a humble, teachable heart, Holy Spirit from God, prayers for understanding, and help from our brothers and sisters. However, if these things exist, improving our reasoning ability cannot help but improve our understanding and our ability to defend God’s Word. (1 Jn 4:1 – test the spirits, 1 Tim 3:16 – all scripture inspired)
Logical reasoning begins with truth values. Logicians often refer to truth values with the variables P and Q. P and Q can either be true or false—there is no third alternative.
A biblical example is the statement “Jesus is God’s son.” This statement is either true or false. It can’t be both. He is either God’s son or he is not God’s son. He can’t be both God’s son and not God’s son. The scriptures clearly show that Jesus is God’s son. Therefore, the statement “Jesus is God’s son” is a true statement.
P AND Q
“It is night” AND “I am tired” -> for “P AND Q” to be true, both must be true
P OR Q
“I am going jogging” OR “I am going swimming” -> Either P or Q must be true
P and Q are statements that can be either true or false. IF P, THEN Q is known as a conditional statement. It says if P is true, then Q follows as a consequence.
P -> Q
If [it is raining] THEN [the game is cancelled]
A common mistake: If the game is cancelled, it must be raining. NO! The game could be cancelled for other reasons (like no one brought a football).
However, we can derive the following: If the game is not cancelled, it is not raining.
NOT Q -> NOT P
NOT True = False
NOT False = True
To illustrate, take a coin. It must be either heads or tails if flipped. After flipping it, if it is NOT heads, then it must be tails. If it is NOT tails, then it must be heads.
True assumptions cannot lead to false conclusions if the reasoning is sound. A statement cannot be both true and false at the same time. In other words:
P AND NOT P is a logical impossibility. Example:
“The Bible is God’s Word” AND “The Bible is not God’s Word.” Both statements cannot be true—this is absurd (or a contradiction). If our argument leads to such a result, we know for certain that either one or more of our assumptions are false.
è Real truth-seekers cannot tolerate contradiction.
In the following example, Jesus uses the Absurdity Rule masterfully.
*** Matthew 12:23-26 ***
Well, all the crowds were simply carried away and
began to say: “May this not perhaps be the Son of David?” 24 At hearing
this, the Pharisees said: “This fellow does not expel the demons except by
means of Be·el'ze·bub, the
ruler of the demons.” 25 Knowing their thoughts, he said to them: “Every
kingdom divided against itself comes to desolation,
and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 In the
same way, if Satan expels Satan, he has become divided against himself; how,
then, will his kingdom stand?
Another
Example: 1 Corinthians 15:12-15 (Resurrection)
Matthew
16:11-12 - watch out
for the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees
We need to identify and reject false teachings, but how can we recognize them? We will consider some specific techniques these false teachers used then and still use today. These misuses of logic are known as fallacies.
In this fallacy, our opponent states a premise and derives an invalid conclusion from that premise. For example, a Lutheran minister once said, “God has a place where the righteous go for eternity—heaven. Therefore, he must have a place where the wicked go for eternity; namely, hell.
However, it does not follow that there must be hell if there is heaven. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. God may have annihilation in mind for the incorrigibly wicked. In fact, this is what the bible teaches:
Behold, all souls are Mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine; the soul that sins, it shall die. (Ezekiel 18:4, Amplified Version)
In this fallacy, a person states that a premise is true, and
builds an argument leading to a logical conclusion, but this conclusion is
something that contradicts or otherwise violates what we already know to be
true. We should examine the premises of
the argument. If the premises are not true, then the
conclusion isn’t either.
Example: Religious organizations that demand we obey their teachings without question, because they adhere to the “orthodox” or “historical” faith. Yet, their beliefs contradict scripture. Therefore, the premise (that the “orthodox” or “historical” faith is true), is false.
Often authorities are quoted to support a statement or argument. We need to question whether the authority cited is an appropriate expert opinion or not. We also need to ask if there are dissenting opinions of similar stature.
Example: Theory
of Evolution. In the New Scientist of
April 1982, in the article “The Necessity of Darwinism,” Richard Dawkins states
that “
A quotation like this is enough to intimidate many people into accepting evolution as fact. However, in the same publication a year earlier, Michael Ruse states in “Darwin’s Theory: An Exercise in Science”, that “an increasing number of scientists…argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all...Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”
Beware of individuals or organizations that use or allow contradictory statements or behaviors. As we noted earlier, a true or false statement must be either true or false, it can’t be both. If an individual or institution allows contradictory statements or behaviors, they no longer respect the truth and their claims should not be taken seriously.
Example: Most churches state openly that there is only one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ. This is clearly taught in the scriptures.
*** John 14:6 ***
6 Jesus said to him: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one
comes to the Father except through me.
At the same time, these same religious organizations will claim that
salvation is only attainable by believing their particular doctrine and obeying
their “divinely appointed” leaders. They
have implicitly or explicitly claimed to be another mediator between the
congregation members and God. This
contradiction is a red flag and alerts us that something is wrong. Inconsistency signals a lack of respect for
truth.
In the Straw Man fallacy, an opponent misrepresents our position, and then proceeds to attack that position. If we can show how the position was misrepresented, the rest of the argument collapses.
Example: *** John
The man went away and told the Jews it was Jesus that
made him sound in health. 16 So on this account the Jews went
persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things during Sabbath. 17
But he answered them: “My Father has kept working until now, and I keep
working.” 18 On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all the
more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also
calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.
The Jews misrepresented Jesus’ statement, and created a Straw Man. He did not say he was equal to God. All he said was that God was his Father. It would be sufficient for Jesus to clarify his position.
*** John 5:19 ***
19 Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: “Most truly I say
to YOU, The Son cannot do a single thing
of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever
things that One does, these things the Son also does
in like manner.
In the False Dilemma, our opponent forces us to select one of two choices, both which are undesirable.
Example: In “Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics ask About the Christian Faith”, by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, the Authors state:
“If He [Jesus] is God, as He claimed, we must believe in
Him, and if He is not, then we should have nothing to do with Him. Jesus is either Lord of all or not Lord at
all.”
This is a classic false dilemma. We can either discredit one of the choices,
or we can find a third alternative.
(Grab a horn or go between the horns of a dilemma).
In this fallacy, our opponent assumes what he is trying to prove.
Example: “God looked upon the earth, and examined all the groups of people that claimed to worship him, and he chose us, and gave us special insight. Therefore, we speak for God exclusively, and you should recognize our authority, and obey our teachings.”
What we do recognize is that they have assumed the conclusion. We can patiently reply:
“That’s a nice story, but what scriptural proof do you have that God has entrusted you with this exclusive authority and insight?”
Suppressed evidence is a fallacy whereby your opponent leaves out valuable information in order to prove a point or to mislead.
Example: In biology textbooks we see a series of pictures showing the gradual transition from apes to men over millions of years. Yet the evidence is a small collection of bone fragments from around the world. Why are there no transitional life-forms observable today? What about the probability of chance life? Scientists have calculated that this is impossible. These facts are generally withheld by those promoting Evolution.
Poisoning the well refers to casting your opponent in a poor light, in order to minimize his position. Words like “heretic” or “apostate” are commonly used to refer to those who disagree with a religious authority. Poisoning the well is nothing more than name-calling and is intellectually dishonest.
Example: GospelOutreach.Net
"In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He
was in the beginning with God" (John 1:1-2). What could be clearer? John
describes Jesus as both God and eternal, and existing with God. John here
affirms both the deity of Christ and the Trinity. For a Biblical defense of
this passage against cults and anti-Trinitarian groups I suggest the reader
consults Walter Martin's classic, Kingdom of the Cults.”
Most of us and many scholars are aware that John 1:1-2 can be translated as “The Word was Divine” or something similar. And notice the Trinity is not mentioned but read into the passage.
The Pharisees used this tactic with Jesus and John the Baptist. Jesus said to them,
*** Luke 7:33-35 ***
John the Baptist has come neither eating bread nor drinking wine, but YOU say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of man has
come eating and drinking, but YOU say, ‘Look!
A man gluttonous and given to drinking wine, a friend of tax collectors and
sinners!’ 35 All the same, wisdom is proved righteous by all its
children.”
Weasel words are used to imply something, but leave the weasel free to deny he ever said anything specific. “Possibly may be the case…”, or “…it may imply…” are common weasel words. The person using them can then deny that he specifically stated anything, or he can claim credit for saying it, depending on his need at the time. Politicians are masters of weasel words.
*** Matthew 5:37 ***
Just let YOUR word Yes mean Yes, YOUR No, No; for what is in excess of these is
from the wicked one.
Example: Watchtower Society and 1975
Public Address by District
Overseer Bro. Charles Sunutko in Spring
1967 in
In the Red Herring fallacy, our opponent introduces an issue that is not directly related to the topic at hand. The intent is to deflect the attention onto another path, away from the original issue. An example of this occurs when Jesus cures a man of a withered hand in the synagogue.
*** Matthew 12:9-10 ***
9 After departing from that place he went into
their synagogue; 10 and, look! a man with a
withered hand! So they asked him, “Is it lawful to cure on the sabbath?” that they might get an
accusation against him.
The Jews used the Sabbath issue as a Red Herring—to deflect people’s focus from Jesus’ good works and Messiahship.
*** Matthew 12:10-13 ***
11 He said to them: “Who will be
the man among YOU that has one sheep and, if this
falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not get hold of
it and lift it out? 12 All considered, of how
much more worth is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do a fine thing on
the sabbath.” 13 Then
he said to the man: “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and it
was restored sound like the other hand.
In this fallacy, our opponent argues that logic cannot be used to solve the problem at hand, or that the problem or doctrine is so complex that we can never understand it and should not even try.
The classic example is the Trinity—a “mystery”. We are told we must accept it on faith, because it is an “orthodox” teaching of the “historical church.” Logic cannot be used in this special case, because the Trinity deals with God’s very nature; something beyond human comprehension.
The fallacy is that if logic cannot be used to examine the Trinity, then it cannot be used to prove the Trinity is an exception to logic. In other words, if we prove that logic does not apply to the Trinity, which is a so-called fundamental Christian doctrine, we have abandoned the reasoning process altogether and may just as well believe in Martians, because we can make the same argument: logic doesn’t apply to Martians; they must be accepted on faith alone.
In this fallacy, our opponent argues from what is not stated, rather than from what is stated. This is known as arguing from silence.
For example, ‘Christian’ proponents of war argue that Jesus and his apostles never told Christians to leave the Roman army.
But this is erroneous
reasoning. Just because Jesus didn’t
specifically tell anyone to leave the army does not mean he supported war. We can’t read the Lord’s mind can we? Instead, we must go by what he said, not what
he didn’t say. He explicitly taught us
to “love our enemies”, to “turn the other cheek”, to “put away the sword”, to
“pray for those that persecute us.” He
also said his kingdom “was no part of this world.” We must conclude, therefore, from what he did say, that
he did not support war—that he was calling Christians to a higher purpose.
In this fallacy, our opponent makes an interpretation of scripture, and then expects others to view his interpretation as scripture. However, the scriptures are inspired of God, our interpretations are not. Our interpretations are subject to error, the bible is not.
Examples: Invisible Presence; All Christians go to Heaven; No Christians go to Heaven; Socinianism; Investigative Judgment; ‘Historical Orthodox Faith’; 144,000; Modern State of Israel
The scriptures are the authoritative source for universal spiritual truths. They are the touchstone for all Christian doctrine and belief. By developing our reasoning ability, we will be able to use the scriptures with greater authority and skill, to the spiritual benefit of ourselves and those we wish to help. We will be able to discern false doctrines by analyzing where the fallacies occur. More importantly, we will be able to discern the true sayings of God, and use them to build up ourselves and our fellow Christians.
However, logic is no replacement for love. It is love of God and Christ and each other that are central to our worship and our spiritual understanding. Applying the scriptures using logic helps us discern truth from error, and helps us defend the faith, but it is love that makes the scriptures live, and it is love that motivates us to serve our God and our brothers and sisters with humility and sincerity.
Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric – The Use of Reason in Everyday Life – Eighth Edition, by Howard Hahane and Nancy Cavender
Copyright 1998, Wadsworth Publishing Company
The Home Christians Handbook, Chapter 3
http://members.shaw.ca/homechristian/docs/handbook/3reasoning.htm