The Home Christian's Handbook

Chapter 3 - Reasoning from the Scriptures

Humans were created with the ability to reason. Most of us take this skill for granted, without really examining how it works, or whether we are using it effectively. As a consequence, reasoning has been abused. False reasoning can be made to appear as correct reasoning. True belief can be made to appear as false. We all could benefit tremendously by spending some time developing our reasoning faculty, especially in understanding and applying the teachings of the bible.

In this chapter, we will learn some basics about logical reasoning, and apply this knowledge to our reasoning from the Scriptures. It takes a little work to develop our reasoning ability, but the results will be well worth the effort. We will be able to use God’s Word with more authority, and with greater understanding. It is not necessary to read this chapter in its entirety to understand the handbook, but the more we train our reasoning ability, the greater will be the rewards in the long run.

Truth Values

Logical reasoning begins with truth values. Logicians often refer to truth values with the variables P and Q. There is nothing special about these letters. It’s just easier sometimes to represent the truth or falseness of a statement with a letter. This allows us to evaluate an argument apart more objectively. P and Q can either be true or false—there is no third alternative. For example, say P represents the statement “The lamp is lit”. If the lamp is lit, this statement is true. If the lamp is not lit, then the statement is false. Since the lamp is either lit or not lit, the statement “The lamp is lit” is either 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.

Being clear in our minds about truth values allows us to reason on the scriptures with more precision. It also helps us to expose invalid arguments where the truth value of a statement in the argument is ambiguous.

“AND” and “OR”

Consider the statement “It is night and I am tired.” This has the form “P AND Q”. “It is night” is P, and “I am tired” is Q. For the statement “P AND Q” to be true, both P and Q individually must be true. In other words, if “It is night” is true, and “I am tired” is also true, then the statement “It is night and I am tired” is also true.

However, if either P or Q is false, then the statement “P AND Q” is also false. So if I make the statement “It is night and I am tired”, and I am tired, but it is noon, then the statement “It is night and I am tired” is false. With “AND”, all statements surrounding it must be true for the entire statement to be true.

“OR”, however, is not so picky. For the statement “P OR Q” to be true, only one or the other must be true. For example, if I say “I’m going jogging or I’m going swimming”, it is a true statement if I go swimming only or go jogging only. I only said I would do one or the other, not necessarily both, although I could do both and the statement would still be true.

For “P OR Q” to be false, both P and Q must be false. So if the statement “I’m going jogging or I’m going swimming” is false, I must do neither. If I instead play tennis, then the statement “P OR Q”, where P is “I’m going jogging”, and Q is “I’m going swimming”, is false. It is false because both P and Q are false.

The expressions “P AND Q” and “P OR Q” are not limited to two truth variables. We can easily extend them to several, such as “P AND Q AND R” and “P OR Q OR R OR S”. The same rules apply. In the case of “P AND Q AND R”, P,Q and R all must be true for the statement “P AND Q AND R” to be true. In the case of “P OR Q OR R OR S”, one of P,Q,R or S must be true for “P OR Q OR R OR S” to be true.

The “IF P, THEN Q” Statement

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. An example will illustrate this type of statement.

When we were children, our mother may have said to us, “On Sunday your dad will take you to the park.” We instinctively knew that if today was Sunday, then it must mean a trip to the park. We had formed a logical expression naturally: IF it is Sunday, THEN we will go to the park, an “IF P, THEN Q” statement. So every day we excitedly asked our mother, “Is it Sunday yet?” If her answer was yes, then we were able to solve the logical expression, and conclude that a trip to the park was in order. IF Sunday, THEN Park.

Some of us may have made the common mistake that if it was Saturday, we would not go to the park. We would be very surprised if our parents took us there on Saturday as well as on Sunday. We made the mistake in reasoning that we would only go to the park exclusively and only on Sunday. But our mother didn’t say that. All she said was that we would go to the park on Sunday. She didn’t say we wouldn’t go on Saturday or any other day. Her reasoning was sound, ours wasn’t, and so we unwisely lowered our expectations. Maybe our dad just received a promotion, and to celebrate, he and our mother wanted to take us to the park on both days, and perhaps even buy us a gift on the way home!

“NOT” Statement

Another example illustrates taking the negative of something, or the “NOT” Statement. Putting a “NOT” in front of a statement reverses its logical value. If it was true, it is now false. Or if it was false, it is now true. In other words NOT True is False, and NOT False is True. There are no other possibilities.

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. In the next example we will combine the “NOT” statement with the IF P, THEN Q statement.

Many of our mothers told us, “If you don’t eat your dinner, then you won’t get dessert.” This has the form IF NOT P, THEN NOT Q. So we ate our dinner, but then fought with our sister after she made a face at us. To our surprise, our mother not only withheld dessert, but also sent us to our room. Despondent and humiliated, we grumbled that it was not fair. We had eaten our dinner, but the promised dessert was not forthcoming.

But mother had not said that if we ate our dinner we got dessert. She said IF we DON’T eat our dinner (NOT P) THEN we WON’T get dessert (NOT Q). This is not the same as saying IF we eat our dinner (P), THEN we get dessert (Q). She was defining a condition—DON’T eat dinner—which leads to a consequence—WON’T get dessert. She didn’t say there were no other conditions under which we would not get dessert. One of those conditions was not eating dinner, which she spelled out to us. Apparently there was at least one more: fighting with our sister. Fighting with our sister also led to WON’T get dessert. She didn’t tell us about this condition, however, and we never asked.

Now suppose in the second example, our dad had been at the dinner table when mother made the statement, “IF you DON’T eat your dinner, THEN you WON’T get dessert”, but he left the table immediately after she said this, to answer the phone. It turned out to be a lengthy phone call—some problem at work--and when he returned to the table, one child, your sister, was already eating dessert, and you were crying because you didn’t get dessert. What can your father conclude as to who did and who didn’t eat dinner, based on your mother’s statement?

First, he considers your case. The facts are that you did not get dessert. He knows from your history that you may have finished all your dinner, but fought with your sister again. Or, it may be that you just didn’t finish your dinner. He can’t determine for sure the exact reason why you didn’t get dessert, as both your dinner plates were cleared from the table.

Unable to conclude anything concrete about your appetite, your dad now considers your sister’s situation, as she gloatingly finishes off the strawberry sundae, and at the same time, he demonstrates the Absurdity (or Contradiction) rule.

Absurdity (or Contradiction) Rule

Your dad will attempt to derive an absurd conclusion or a contradiction in his consideration whether your sister ate her dinner or not. Using the Absurdity Rule, a statement under consideration is assumed to be true, but you really want to prove that it is false. Or conversely, you may assume it is false, and want to prove that it is actually true. Through subsequent valid reasoning, if the conclusion reached is clearly ridiculous, or a contradiction is revealed, we can conclude that the original assumption was in fact not true—it was false. Or, if we had assumed it was false, we can conclude it was actually true. The reasoning is that true assumptions should always lead to true conclusions if the reasoning is sound. If the conclusions reached are absurd, or contradict other known truths, and the reasoning was valid, then the assumptions must have been false.

Your dad considers the possibilities regarding your sister. She either ate all her dinner or she didn’t. It must be one or the other. It can’t be both. He assumes she did not eat her dinner. He then reasons: If she didn’t eat her dinner, then the logical consequence is she would not get dessert, because your mother said “If you don’t eat dinner, then you won’t get dessert.” But she is eating dessert, so the original assumption must be wrong. The original assumption was she did not eat dinner, and this led to a contradiction. The correct assumption therefore, is she did eat her dinner, and this can be concluded with confidence.

So, through sound reasoning, your dad determines that your sister must have finished her dinner, but he cannot determine if you did or not, without asking someone. He knows that you did not get dessert, but cannot conclude with confidence that you did or did not finish your dinner. He now faces his cold meal while your mother scowls at him for taking so long on the phone and for staring into space and mumbling to himself ever since he returned to the table!

Of course parents are usually not so logically precise and children are usually not so logically naïve. What these examples illustrate is that although we are naturally endowed with the ability to reason, this ability needs to be trained and developed if we are to use it effectively. This is particularly important when we are reasoning from the scriptures.

Much of the misunderstanding and disagreements about what the bible teaches results from faulty reasoning, not ambiguity in the bible itself; hence the great importance of reasoning correctly from the scriptures. Although most adults would not make the same logical errors as the children in the preceding examples, there are many other logical pitfalls that many adults do fall into, and these will be discussed later in this chapter.

You should ensure that you understand the reasoning in the above examples, as these logical forms are used extensively in reasoning, and mastering them will help uncover erroneous conclusions.

Examples in the Scriptures

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?

The Pharisees could not deny that Jesus was casting out demons, so they accused him of using the power of Beelzebub, or Satan, the ruler of the demons, to perform these miracles. Jesus reasons, let us assume that you are correct, that I am in fact using the power of Satan. He assumes this statement is true in order to prove that it is false. If I continue to exercise this power, he says, casting out demons wherever I go, I am destroying Satan’s kingdom by removing his hold over people. This is clearly absurd, since they all believed that it is the Devil’s purpose to try to rule over men. Therefore, the original assumption must be false. He concludes then, that he is not using the power of Satan to cast out demons.

Jesus goes on to say that he uses God’s power to perform these miracles, and that the kingdom of heaven has passed them by if they don’t perceive this. The implied argument is that only Satan’s power or God’s power could expel a demon. In logical terms, IF demon expelled, THEN (either God’s power or Satan’s power was used—one or the other). Since he has proven it is not Satan’s power, it must be God’s power.

In the next example, Paul makes use of the IF NOT P, THEN NOT Q statement and the Absurdity Rule. Some had been teaching that there was no resurrection, and Paul wanted to set them straight.

*** 1 Corinthians 15:12-15 ***

Now if Christ is being preached that he has been raised up from the dead, how is it some among YOU say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If, indeed, there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been raised up. 14 But if Christ has not been raised up, our preaching is certainly in vain, and our faith is in vain. 15 Moreover, we are also found false witnesses of God, because we have borne witness against God that he raised up the Christ, but whom he did not raise up if the dead are really not to be raised up.

Paul’s argument goes like this. Some were saying there was no resurrection. He assumes this is true in order to prove it is false. If there is no resurrection he reasons, then Christ could not have been raised from the dead. This is logically of the form, IF NOT P, THEN NOT Q. Yet this is a fundamental belief of Christians, that Christ was raised from the dead, and in fact there were hundreds of eyewitnesses to this truth. If this fundamental belief is a lie, then we are false witnesses of God and our faith is in vain. There is no future hope beyond this life and we are indeed a pitiful bunch. Since this is clearly absurd, given all the promises in the scriptures, the original assumption must be false (there is no resurrection). Therefore, there must be a resurrection of the dead, he concludes, and his reasoning is sound.

Determining Universal Biblical Truths

Some people say there are no universal truths, despite Jesus’ declared purpose to bear witness to such truths. Some say everything is relative. Others, like Pilate, wonder what truth is, or think truth is relative, or discount its importance. In the following scripture, Jesus converses with Pilate regarding truth.

*** John 18:37-38 ***

For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone that is on the side of the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate said to him: “What is truth?”

We already have enough skills from this chapter to solve the problem of universal truths—that is, whether they exist or not, using the Absurdity Rule. This sounds like a striking statement, yet when viewed from a perspective of logic is reasonable.

Let us assume there are no universal truths, anywhere in God’s great universe—which includes the physical universe and the heavenly places. But this is a universal truth—that there are no universal truths, so we have a contradiction. Therefore, our original assumption, that there are no universal truths, must be false, and we can therefore conclude that there are universal truths. Furthermore, if we allow “truths” to exist only in a person’s mind, and allow these “truths” to be relative and subjective, then we also must allow for contradictions between my “truth” and your “truth”. However, we know that truths cannot contradict each other, otherwise they are not truths. A statement which is either true or false cannot be both true and false at the same time. It must be one or the other. Therefore, if I believe P to be true, and you believe P to be false, one of us must be wrong. Logic dictates this.

This is a simple argument yet profound in its implications. Universal truths exist and are there to be discovered by those who seek them. Indeed, Jesus reveals many of them to us in the Scriptures. When he says he is bearing witness to the truth, we should take his claim very seriously.

There is more to the bible than logic, however. The bible is a book of true statements, certainly, but also sure prophecies, sound teachings, righteous principles, and faith-strengthening examples, written by men who were inspired by God.

*** John 8:31-32 ***

31 And so Jesus went on to say to the Jews that had believed him: “If YOU remain in my word, YOU are really my disciples, 32 and YOU will know the truth, and the truth will set YOU free.”

*** Psalm 119:160 ***

160 The substance of your word is truth,

And every righteous judicial decision of yours is to time indefinite.

*** John 17:17 ***

17 Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth.

*** 2 Peter 1:20-21 ***

20 For YOU know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by Holy Spirit.

*** 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ***

All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

So men were directed by the Holy Spirit to write down God’s thoughts. It really is then God’s book written for our enlightenment. Because it contains universal truths, we can reason on these truths to reach sound conclusions. However, if our conclusions are to be trustworthy, we must be consistent and correct in our reasoning. Otherwise, we will form conclusions which we may think are true but in fact are erroneous. As a check, we must make sure that any conclusions that we draw don’t contradict any truths taught in the scriptures. All scriptural truths must harmonize. Otherwise we will have contradictions, and we have learned that we cannot tolerate these and respect the truth at the same time. Paul recognized that the toleration of contradictions was evidence of false knowledge.

*** 1 Timothy 6:20-21 ***

20 O Timothy, guard what is laid up in trust with you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.” 21 For making a show of such [knowledge] some have deviated from the faith.

Of course reasoning ability alone is not sufficient to understand the bible. We also need God’s help. The bible clearly attests to this.

*** Matthew 13:10-11 ***

10 So the disciples came up and said to him: “Why is it you speak to them by the use of illustrations?” 11 In reply he said: “To YOU it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the kingdom of the heavens, but to those people it is not granted.

*** Matthew 16:15-17 ***

He said to them: “YOU, though, who do YOU say I am?” 16 In answer Simon Peter said: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Jo'nah, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did.

So we see that these “sacred secrets” can be revealed to those whom God chooses to reveal them. Peter was a faithful worshipper of God and had a close personal relationship with Jesus. He was therefore found worthy by God of receiving insights into his purpose. The scriptures explicitly encourage us to ask God for understanding.

*** Luke 11:9-10 ***

Accordingly I say to YOU, Keep on asking, and it will be given YOU; keep on seeking, and YOU will find; keep on knocking, and it will be opened to YOU. 10 For everyone asking receives, and everyone seeking finds, and to everyone knocking it will be opened.

*** James 1:5 ***

So, if any one of YOU is lacking in wisdom, let him keep on asking God, for he gives generously to all and without reproaching; and it will be given him.

*** John 17:3 ***

This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.

*** Luke 11:13 ***

13 Therefore, if YOU, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to YOUR children, how much more so will the Father in heaven give Holy Spirit to those asking him!”

We see then, that the scriptures themselves implore us to ask God, in Jesus’ name, for Holy Spirit, understanding, and wisdom, and that he is pleased to grant these to us as gifts. Other scriptures help us understand how God answers these prayers for insight.

*** John 14:25-26 ***

“While remaining with YOU I have spoken these things to YOU. 26 But the helper, the Holy Spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach YOU all things and bring back to YOUR minds all the things I told YOU.

This promised Holy Spirit was indeed given to the disciples on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). The same Holy Spirit is available today to all who sincerely love God and desire to please him. Many years after Pentecost, the apostle John wrote concerning the Holy Spirit:

*** 1 John 2:27 ***

And as for YOU, the anointing that YOU received from him remains in YOU, and YOU do not need anyone to be teaching YOU; but, as the anointing from him is teaching YOU about all things, and is true and is no lie, and just as it has taught YOU, remain in union with him.

So it is clear then, from the scriptures, that it is possible for a sincere Christian to be taught directly by God, through the action of the Holy Spirit, and the authority of the bible. The claims made by many religious organizations, that their own particular hierarchy of priests, pastors or ministers are the select few that God has enlightened are false. A note of caution is in order, however. Any insight which God gives us through His Spirit must not contradict Scripture. If it does, then the insight is not from God, for God is a God of truth.

It is true that some individuals will be further along the Christian path than others. The bible does teach that in the congregations, there will be those who naturally take the lead in teaching and helping those who are new in the faith, or providing support in other ways. But the goal should always be to teach others to teach themselves--to help new ones grow to maturity so they too can help others in turn. Religious organizations that try to restrict this growth, or who claim special knowledge and absolute authority for a select few, and who demand obedience to these ones, should be avoided. Christianity is not about authority and control. It’s about love, truth, and freedom of worship in Jesus Christ. Those who are mature spiritually serve their brothers and endeavor to free them to worship God through Christ.

*** Matthew 23:8-12 ***

“8 But YOU, do not YOU be called Rabbi, for one is YOUR teacher, whereas all YOU are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone YOUR father on earth, for one is YOUR Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called ‘leaders,’ for YOUR Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among YOU must be YOUR minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

*** Matthew 18:1-5 ***

18 In that hour the disciples came near to Jesus and said: “Who really is greatest in the kingdom of the heavens?” 2 So, calling a young child to him, he set it in their midst 3 and said: “Truly I say to YOU, Unless YOU turn around and become as young children, YOU will by no means enter into the kingdom of the heavens. 4 Therefore, whoever will humble himself like this young child is the one that is the greatest in the kingdom of the heavens; 5 and whoever receives one such young child on the basis of my name receives me [also].

*** Matthew 10:8 ***

YOU received free, give free.

So far, we have seen that the scriptures contain those spiritual truths needed to build our faith, and that we must be careful about applying the reasoning process to these truths if we don’t want to fall into error. We have also seen that we can prayerfully ask God for wisdom, and he will give us the Holy Spirit to guide us. However, there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Many people today claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, yet they disagree with one another over what it has taught them. It is not uncommon for these disagreements to become violent, even resulting in armed struggle. Ireland is a case in point. Catholics have killed Protestants and Protestants have killed Catholics, yet both claim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, and many would claim to be led by the Holy Spirit. Yet Jesus clearly taught us to love our enemies, and to turn the other cheek (Luke 6:27-30). Obviously, then, engaging in violence is both unscriptural and unchristian.

So how do we know which ideas are inspired by God through the Holy Spirit, and are therefore true, and which are not, and are therefore delusions? The apostles John and Paul provide the answer.

*** 1 John 4:1 ***

4 Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world.

*** Hebrews 4:12 ***

For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints and [their] marrow, and [is] able to discern thoughts and intentions of [the] heart.

*** 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ***

So we can test these “inspired expressions” in the light of God’s Word, the bible. Any spiritual understanding we come to, or any doctrine espoused by any other person, can be either supported or discarded by examining its validity by the authority of the Scriptures, and by using sound reasoning. If an idea or doctrine is from God, and therefore true, it will be supported by the Scriptures. If it is not from God, we will not be able to use the scriptures to support it. We will find a contradiction or other misuse of logic. A doctrine is either supported by the truths contained in the scriptures, or it is not. It can’t be both.

Erroneous Reasoning and False Teachings

Unfortunately, not all people are motivated by a humble and honest love of truth, and not all people are able to reason soundly. The Jewish religious leaders, in general, were more interested in getting rid of Jesus than learning from his teachings. Jesus condemned them for this.

*** John 8:44 ***

YOU are from YOUR father the Devil, and YOU wish to do the desires of YOUR father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of [the lie].

The Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees still exist today, but they go by other names. They claim to be followers of Christ, but much of their teaching is contrary to Scripture. They are still a danger to sincere Christians.

*** Mark 8:15 ***

And he began to order them expressly and say: “Keep YOUR eyes open, look out for the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.”

*** Matthew 16:11-12 ***

11 How is it YOU do not discern that I did not talk to YOU about loaves? But watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they grasped that he said to watch out, not for the leaven of the loaves, but for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

The teaching of these proud, domineering, religious leaders was like leaven, or yeast. If the disciples were not careful, these teachings would spread quickly throughout the mass of believers, corrupting everything it touched, as yeast, a bacterium, will quickly spread through a mass of dough, as it multiplies.

We need to identify and reject false teachings, but how can we recognize them? We will now consider some specific techniques these false teachers used then and still use today. These misuses of logic are known as fallacies. We will now explore the most common logical fallacies.

Questionable Premise

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 may not true either.

Many religious organizations demand that we obey their teachings without questioning them. The Pharisees were of this mind, when confronted with a man Jesus had healed.

*** John 9:34 ***

“You were altogether born in sins, and yet are you teaching us?” And they threw him out!

In Europe, just a few hundred years ago, one could be tortured and burned alive for disobeying the institutional church—which included the Catholic and Protestant branches. Thankfully today, it is illegal to do this, but we still can be ejected from some religious organizations, and shunned by their members, among who may be family and friends. We could be deprived of our precious relationships with others of the same faith. They use the following argument:

God has blessed an individual or elite group of religious leaders with special insight, allowing them, and them alone, to grasp the complex teachings of the bible. In turn, they will teach us what the bible has to say—we are not qualified to understand it without their help. Since only they have this special knowledge, we should be diligent disciples and obey them loyally when they speak. We should not question their teachings, since they have been ordained by God to lead us in the Christian walk.

This conclusion, that we must obey these religious leaders unconditionally, is based on the premise that these leaders are chosen by God and therefore have some special knowledge or privilege not available to others. Yet this contradicts the scriptures quoted earlier, in Luke 11:9-10, James 1:5, John 14:13-14, John 17:3, and 1 John 2:27. Since the bible clearly teaches that any sincere and honest person can understand the scriptures with God’s help, the claim that there is an elite group with exclusive knowledge from God, along with absolute authority, is false. The premise is questionable.

It is true that some people understand more about the bible than others, but it does not follow that authority accompanies this understanding. Consider the following scripture:

*** Acts 17:10-12 ***

10 Immediately by night the brothers sent both Paul and Silas out to Be·roe'a, and these, upon arriving, went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thes·sa·lo·ni'ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them became believers…

The apostle Paul does not demand absolute obedience from the Beroeans, but praises them for validating everything he says with the Scriptures. Likewise today, any statements made by anyone claiming to speak in God’s name must be examined and tested using the bible. We should be very suspicious if those making these claims do not allow their teaching to be examined openly and honestly.

The lesson here is that when an individual or group makes a claim for itself, or makes statements that it claims are true, but which contradict what we believe, we should ask on what premises these claims are founded on. We should question the premises themselves. If the premises are false, then the conclusions drawn may also be false. The conclusions may be confidently rejected.

Appeal to Authority

Often authorities are quoted to support a statement or argument. There is nothing wrong with this. If it is done fairly, a quoted authority can greatly strengthen an argument. However, it must be recognized that not all authorities on a subject necessarily agree. One could simply search the authorities for a voice that agrees with one’s argument, and then quote that source. 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.

Take the theory of evolution. In the New Scientist of April 1982, in the article “The Necessity of Darwinism,” Richard Dawkins states that “Darwin’s theory is now supported by all the available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by any serious modern biologist.”

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.”

When we examine the range of opinion among scientists regarding evolution, we see there is great disagreement. To suggest that all “serious biologists” support evolution is not true. To quote a scientist that supports evolution, and imply that he speaks for all others is misleading and intellectually dishonest. The reality is that scientists are divided on the theory of evolution, and claiming that it is a proven theory, supported by science, is a false claim.

When someone appeals to authority to support an argument, we need to examine that authority. We should look at their track record and question their motivation. We should also determine if other credible authorities tend to agree or disagree.

Inconsistency

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, it no longer respects the truth and its claims should not be taken seriously.

Most churches state openly that there is only one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ. This is clearly taught in the scriptures.

*** 1 Timothy 2:5-6 ***

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all.

*** 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.

The bible clearly teaches that there is only one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ. He can’t be the only mediator, and at the same time, not be the only mediator. He is either the only mediator or he is not the only mediator. The bible clearly shows he is the only mediator. The claims of some religious organizations that they are another mediator—implied or otherwise--contradict Jesus’ statements, and are therefore false. These organizations have committed the fallacy of logical inconsistency.

Jesus himself had something to say about those that claim a mediatorship apart from him.

*** John 10:7-9 ***

7 Therefore Jesus said again: “Most truly I say to YOU, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All those that have come in place of me are thieves and plunderers; but the sheep have not listened to them. 9 I am the door; whoever enters through me will be saved, and he will go in and out and find pasturage.

*** Mark 13:21-23 ***

21 “Then, too, if anyone says to YOU, ‘See! Here is the Christ,’ ‘See! There he is,’ do not believe [it]. 22 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will give signs and wonders to lead astray, if possible, the chosen ones. 23 YOU, then, watch out; I have told YOU all things beforehand.

We need to examine doctrinal statements and behaviors by religious organizations and their leaders. If we detect inconsistencies and contradictions, we should reject their claims. Be especially wary of people or churches that cherry-pick scriptures to support their point of view. If their ideas are clearly contradicted by other scriptures (which they conveniently ignore), their ideas are false.

Straw Man

In the Straw Man fallacy, an opponent misrepresents our position, and then proceeds to attack that position to prove we are wrong. If we can show how the position was misrepresented, the rest of the argument collapses.

*** John 5:15-18 ***

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.

So the Jews, who we know were seeking to kill Jesus, said that since he called God his own Father, he was claiming to be equal to God. They reasoned that anyone who claimed to be equal to God was committing a blasphemy, and was therefore liable to death. They may have had in mind the following scripture:

*** Exodus 34:14 ***

For you must not prostrate yourself to another god, because Jehovah, whose name is Jealous, he is a jealous God;

However, they had 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.

Jesus clearly states that he was not claiming to be equal to God the Father by showing “…he cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing…”, and thus exposes their Straw Man fallacy. Of course this did not stop them from seeking to kill him, but it did bear witness to the truth, to the benefit of those that would listen both then and now.

We should be suspicious when an opponent is seemingly arguing our case. They may have set up a straw man and are intending to knock him down.

False Dilemma and the Either-Or Fallacy

At times our opponent may put two choices before us and ask us to choose one. For example, a television evangelist may state that there are only two choices ahead for us—heaven or eternal damnation--the implication being that we need to join his church and donate some money if we are to avoid the fires of hell.

When we are faced with a False Dilemma or the Either-Or Fallacy, we can do either of two things: discredit one of the choices, or find a third choice. We will first look at creating a third choice.

The television evangelist and most churches, say you either go to heaven or you burn in hell forever. There is no other choice. If we could find a third alternative in the scriptures, the dilemma would be defused.

*** Psalm 37:29 ***

29 The righteous themselves will possess the earth,

And they will reside forever upon it.

*** Matthew 5:5 ***

5 “Happy are the mild-tempered ones, since they will inherit the earth.

*** Psalm 2:8 ***

8 Ask of me, that I may give nations as your inheritance

And the ends of the earth as your own possession.

*** Psalm 25:13 ***

13 His own soul will lodge in goodness itself,

And his own offspring will take possession of the earth.

*** Psalm 37:8-9 ***

9 For evildoers themselves will be cut off,

But those hoping in Jehovah are the ones that will possess the earth.

Both the First Testament and Jesus himself testify that some righteous and mild-tempered ones will live on the earth during a future age. This is sufficient to show that the either-or dilemma is not founded on bible teachings. We have shown that there is at least one other possibility besides heaven and hell—living forever on earth—and have defused the dilemma.

If the preacher demands that we choose heaven or hell, we can confidently say “neither”, if it is our hope to live on the earth in a restored paradise rather than in heaven.

The other tactic we can use when faced with the False Dilemma is to question one of the choices presented in the dilemma--in this case either heaven or hell as the only possibilities. The bible clearly does show that some Christians go to heaven. We will not be able to discredit this claim—it is scriptural, true, and therefore must be believed.

*** John 14:2-3 ***

In the house of my Father there are many abodes. Otherwise, I would have told YOU, because I am going my way to prepare a place for YOU. 3 Also, if I go my way and prepare a place for YOU, I am coming again and will receive YOU home to myself, that where I am YOU also may be.

*** 1 Thessalonians 4:17 ***

Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we shall always be with [the] Lord.

Why some go to heaven and some live on the earth will be examined in a later chapter.

The other choice, that all bad people go to hell, can be questioned. That is, if hell is defined as a place of eternal fiery torment.

The word hell is translated from the Hebrew sheohl and the Greek haides, both which mean the place of the dead, literally, the grave. There is no idea here of fiery torment. The other Greek word often translated as hell is gehenna, which means utter, unrecoverable destruction, resulting from God’s judgement. Bible translations that render these words as hell, without defining what hell is, are not translating the original words clearly. Further on this, the scriptures show that one who dies is not conscious, and that souls can die.

*** Ecclesiastes 9:10 ***

10 All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in She'ol, the place to which you are going.

*** Ezekiel 18:4 ***

The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.

If dead people are not conscious, and their soul is dead, they cannot be alive and conscious in hell, tormented by fire. This choice is not a valid one scripturally, and we have thus again defused the false dilemma and quenched the fires of hell at the same time. The idea of hellfire is actually a pagan idea that was adopted into Christianity long after the apostles had died. It is not founded in Scripture.

When an opponent tries to force us to choose between two possibilities, try to find a third, or examine the validity of the choices presented.

These results may be very surprising to people who have been taught the doctrine of hellfire from infancy by their church. It is a great relief to know that the scriptures do not teach these things. God does not torture people forever in hell. He is a God of love, wisdom and justice, not a God of hate and revenge.

The condition and hope of the dead will is discussed at more length in Chapter One, The Good News.

Begging the Question or Assuming the Conclusion

In this fallacy, our opponent assumes part of the question, or converts the question to a statement, without every really proving it. He assumes the conclusion.

For example, some individuals or religious organizations claim to be the sole spokesperson for God. When asked on what scriptural basis they believe this, we often hear replies similar to the following:

“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, or begged the question. We can patiently reply:

“That’s a nice story, but you haven’t answered the question. What scriptural proof do you have that God has entrusted you with this exclusive authority and insight?”

Demand that they show you their logic, and then examine it carefully using the Scriptures. Begging the question or assuming the conclusion does not prove anything. It’s another way of saying “It’s true because I said it’s true.”

Suppressed Evidence

Suppressed evidence is a fallacy whereby your opponent leaves out valuable information in order to prove a point or to mislead.

For example, throughout history, but especially during the late 19^th and the early 20^th centuries, it was common for individuals and religious organizations to predict the end of the world. Some religious organizations may claim that they prophesied something special about a particular year, and something significant did happen in that year. What they fail to report is that they also predicted that significant events would occur in several other years, all of which failed. Also, they may neglect to tell you that the year on which their prophesy supposedly succeeded resulted in a significant event, but not the significant event that was originally predicted. This information is conveniently withheld. Setting predictions for many different years will eventually result in something significant happening on one of them.

Another example is the theory of evolution. It is common in biology textbooks to see a series of pictures showing the gradual transition from apes to men over millions of years. The textbooks imply that there is abundant evidence to support the many transitional life forms that eventually resulted in modern man. When one sees the evidence is just a collection of a few bone fragments from around the world, one wonders if perhaps the imaginations of the evolutionists have been overactive. Also, why are there no transitional life forms observable today? Has evolution stopped? This evidence, or lack of it, has also been withheld.

When our opponent cites evidence to prove his point, we need to determine if there is other evidence existing that would not support his conclusion. Has this contradictory evidence perhaps been withheld from us? If it has, then our opponent’s argument is invalid.

Poisoning the Well

Poisoning the well refers to casting your opponent in a poor light, in order to minimize his position. Words like “heretic”, “apostate”, or “rebel” are used to refer to those who disagree with a religious authority. The intent is to imply that the person is morally deficient or of bad character and therefore should not be listened to. The logic of their arguments is never addressed. Poisoning the well is nothing more than name-calling and is intellectually dishonest. 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.”

Jesus was not concerned with their name-calling. His actions clearly proved what he was. Similarly, we can point out the illogic and dishonesty of Poisoning the Well and leave it at that. If your opponent must resort to name-calling, he has abandoned the reasoning process and probably has something to hide, or he has recognized that your position is valid, but does not have the honesty or humility to admit it. Expose him for what he is and let the onlookers decide for themselves.

Of course if our opponent correctly points out moral deficiencies in our own behavior, this will detract from our words even if our words are true and our arguments valid. It is our Christian duty to ensure our behavior is morally upright at all times, so enemies of the good news of Jesus Christ cannot play this card.

Weasel Words

Weasel words are used to imply something, but leave the weasel free to deny he ever said anything specific. “Evidently it may be the case…”, or “…seems to imply…” are 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. Some politicians are masters of weasel words. They continually rewrite history depending on the need of the moment.

*** James 5:12 ***

But let YOUR Yes mean Yes, and YOUR No, No, so that YOU do not fall under judgment.

*** 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.

The bible teaches us to be clear and honest in our communications. Using weasel words violates this principle.

Sometimes, however, we are just not certain about a conclusion, and therefore employ words like “probably” etc. If we are honest about our position, this is acceptable. However, if we are using weasel words to leave our options open, this is dishonest.

Tokenism

Tokenism is substituting a gesture for the real thing. For example, many religious organizations today are accused of corruption and misconduct. There are many pending law suits filed by those that claim to have been victimized by these organizations or their agents. The media is filled with these accounts to the point where one honestly wonders if religious organizations actually do any good at all!

Now suppose that the religious organization in question, in the face of these many lawsuits, were to announce publicly that it will form a committee to look into the matter, or it will initiate personal counseling for the alleged offenders, but doesn’t really intend to reform itself fundamentally. This is tokenism. The gesture—forming a committee to study the problem, or promising to initiate counseling—is held out as a serious response to the accusations. But the reality may be that they are just stalling while they consult their lawyers.

Tokenism is not just a tactic of religious organizations. Governments love to study problems to death, or at least until everyone has forgotten why the problem was important to study. Tokenism is just another dishonest attempt to deflect attention from the real issue at hand and to avoid responsibility.

Red Herring

In the Red Herring fallacy, our opponent introduces an issue that is not directly related to the issue at hand. Like Tokenism, 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.

Jesus was showing, by this miraculous healing, that he was performing the works of God, and was therefore the Messiah. The Pharisees, knowing he was about to cure a man, and that they would not be able to deny this, introduce a Red Herring. Since healing can be considered work, and the law prohibits work on the Sabbath, they accuse him of working on the Sabbath. This is a technicality that is thrown on the table to deflect people’s attention from the main issue: that Jesus, by performing this miracle, and many others, must have been sent by God.

Jesus shows that they are guilty of inconsistency and are hypocrites, that the accusation that he is performing work on the Sabbath is really a Red Herring. Therefore their argument is invalid.

*** 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.

If our attention is being deflected to a minor or loosely-related issue, our opponent is attempting to use the Red Herring fallacy as a distraction. We can either show that the Red Herring is not important to the argument at hand, or we can show that the Red Herring itself is invalid. We should then get the discussion back onto the real issue at hand. If an opponent refused to deal with the scriptural points we make, we can conclude that he probably does not have a good counter-argument.

Logic is Not Logical or Beyond Logic

In this fallacy, our opponent argues that logic cannot be used to solve the problem at hand, or that the problem is so complex that we can never understand it and should not even try.

It is true that True or False logic cannot be applied to all problems. For example, how many rocks make up a pile? Two, three, four or five? It depends on how you define a pile. In the Logic is Not Logical fallacy, however, our opponent is applying this reasoning to a case where logic can be applied to the problem.

When discussing doctrine using the scriptures, sometimes our opponent will say something like:

“If logic was all that was needed to understand the scriptures, then the theologians would have figured it all out by now. But they disagree with each other. Therefore, faith and heart are needed, and these are beyond logic. Therefore, logic cannot be used to determine all doctrine.”

Or he may say:

“This doctrine concerns the very nature of God, and therefore is a mystery too complex for us to understand, so we have to take it on faith.”

In the first statement, our opponent uses logic to show that logic doesn’t work. However, this is a contradiction. If logic doesn’t work, then you can’t use it to show it doesn’t work. In other words, you can’t prove anything with broken logic! As discussed earlier in the chapter, we recognize that God does reveal truths to His servants through the Holy Spirit, but that these truths will not contradict what has already been revealed in His Word, and therefore can be analyzed logically.

The second statement is commonly used by people defending false doctrines in the face of contrary scriptural evidence. Unable to argue against the logic, an appeal is made to Beyond Logic. It is true that God’s thinking is beyond human comprehension.

*** Isaiah 55:8-9 ***

8 “For the thoughts of YOU people are not my thoughts, nor are my ways YOUR ways,” is the utterance of Jehovah. 9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than YOUR ways, and my thoughts than YOUR thoughts.

However, God has given us His Word, the bible, for our benefit. He has also given us a brain and the ability to think logically. Therefore, in the domain of human understanding, we have the ability to discern doctrine by applying logic to the scriptures. This must have been God’s purpose is giving us the bible. The doctrine that we are able to comprehend must be logically consistent. Otherwise, according to the rules of logic, we are permitting error. Error in a human mind is still error. Truth comprehended in a human brain is still truth, if it is based on the Scriptures and sound reasoning.

If our opponent states that a doctrine is too complex to understand, and there is scriptural evidence that contradicts the doctrine, where did this doctrine come from then? If it is not supported by the scriptures, then why should we accept it? Perhaps it is just traditional church dogma developed by men.

We have to differentiate between things that are too difficult for us to understand, and things that are not supported by Scripture. We have to assume that the teachings contained in the bible are understandable by humans. If not, why would God have had men write them down for us? When an opponent states that something must be taken on faith, we should search the scriptures to see if they support this. If they don’t, the statement must be rejected.

Arguing that logic is not logical is a contradiction, and therefore not valid reasoning. Trying to demonstrate that a doctrine is too complex to be understood, and therefore should be accepted on faith, is contrary to what the bible says about itself.

*** 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ***

If someone states that a doctrine is too complex to be understood completely, we should be suspicious. It may be that the doctrine is not taught by the scriptures at all.

Arguing from Silence

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. The scriptures do mention several occasions where Jesus or his apostles had contact with those of faith who were employed by the Roman military. In fact, in Matthew chapter eight, Jesus says of a Roman Centurion, "Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel.” Yet Jesus does not tell him to leave the army. Proponents of war argue then, that Jesus must support war, and therefore it is acceptable for Christians to engage in it.

But this is erroneous reasoning. Just because Jesus didn’t specifically tell the Centurion to leave the army at that time does not mean he supported war. We cannot read the Lord’s mind! 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.

Regarding the Centurion, Jesus may have thought that the soldier would realize himself that in time he would have to leave the army. We don’t know—the Lord is silent on the matter. To put words into our Lord’s mind when he does not speak them is erroneous reasoning. To reason from what is not said is committing the fallacy of Arguing from Silence.

Interpretation as Scripture

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.

For example, many churches today consider the Trinity doctrine as a touchstone for belief. Unless one believes in the Trinity, they say, they are not true Christians, they are “heretics”. However, the word Trinity as well as the explicit definition is not found in the bible anywhere! The doctrine is an interpretation of scripture only. We should not require others to believe something which is not explicitly stated in the bible.

Often interpretation of bible prophecy is presented as scripture. For example, some religious organizations believe and teach that Christ has already returned, but the return is invisible—only those with special insight are aware of it. Then they proceed to interpret much of scripture in light of the already-returned-but-invisible Christ. However, this is an interpretation only. We are under no obligation to treat it as scripture. In fact, Christ said that when he returned, it would be like “lightning [that] comes out of the eastern parts and shines over to western parts” (Matthew 24:27). This hardly suggests an “invisible” return.

When someone presents their interpretation as scripture, we need to show that it is just that—an interpretation. It will be sufficient to show that it is not an explicit teaching or command of Jesus or his apostles. We are under no obligation to believe someone’s interpretation. We are under obligation, however, to believe what scripture explicitly teaches.

There are other fallacies that are utilized in the abuse of logic, but these are the most common ones. Once you get used to analyzing arguments for logical consistency, you should be able to spot new fallacies that arise.

Conclusion

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 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 in the faith.

Bibliography and Further Reading

Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric – The Use of Reason in Everyday Life – Eighth Edition, by Howard Hahane and Nancy Cavender

Beginning Logic, by E.J. Lemmon