As we settle into a study of logic let me begin by warning the student that he might exercise impeccably perfect logic and still come up with the wrong conclusion. Such can occur whenever one does not have all the information. Consequently, his premises can and often will be faulty. Therefore, care should always be exercised so that all the relevant information concerning the issue will be considered.

One should also be eager to reevaluate his position should additional information become available. The only way that we may learn and grow is to constantly reevaluate ourselves. There is no shame in so doing. In fact, there is shame if one does not periodically exercise self examination. (Lam. 3:40). 

One of the problems in searching out truth is the concept that one view is as good as another. We even see bumper stickers that proclaim, “Attend the church of your choice.” A much better philosophy would be to attend the church of Christ’s choice. The philosophy that one view is as good as another assumes that God does not support any particular view. If this were so, God did not need to produce the Bible as our guide. 

1. Three Types Of Appeal.

There are three types of appeal which influence the reception of a message, either for good or bad. They are logical, emotional, and ethical. It ought to be that decision making should be based on logical appeal. But such is seldom true. Actually, ethical appeal, what one thinks of the speaker, accounts for around 70% of successful communications, emotional appeal around 20%, and logical appeal, reasoned consideration of the evidence, only around 10%. Different writers assign percentages that vary somewhat to these. But all are very similar and all show that reasoned decision making is a novelty rather than the norm.

While it is not wrong to respect the speaker and while it is not wrong to feel emotions in religion, it is wrong to let such things overrule our reasoned conclusions. God has made us creatures of great mental abilities. We need to use them to reason through the Scriptures to come to the conclusions indicated by the Scriptures. If we fail to so do, we will answer to an angry God on the day of judgment. But if we study, reason, investigate, analyze, and search daily, we will stand before a benevolent Father and hear, “Well done.” While it requires much hard work, it will be worth it in the end. 

2. Over Reaction.

Over reaction is a creator of doctrine which, while it prevents or may prevent an evil, it often presents another. Because early in the church some taught wrongly that to be of the flesh was to be inherently sinful, a group arose which taught that Christ did not really come in the flesh (Gnostics). Their method of dealing with the now modern false doctrine of being born sinful actually created a greater problem. 

There is no need to overreact to an error. One must simply deal with it rationally and logically and it can be properly answered. People have in all good conscience, in the integrity of their hearts, and with all good intentions created many false doctrines by overreacting to an error of teaching or practice. Tragically, well intentioned members of the Lord’s church refuse to even consider that they might be wrong on these issues because they have become engrained with them in their minds. These overreactions have become canonized doctrine and to deal with them causes anger and frustration on the part of those supporting these positions. It can even cause the one who is relying on the truth of the Scriptures to be marked as a false teacher. Even Christ was so marked when He opposed the man-made teachings of the Pharisees.

3. Deductive And Inductive Reasoning.

In the area of logic there are two differing approaches to the practice of reasoning. There is the deductive method and the inductive method. We will briefly discuss each and see their proper application to scripture. 

Deductive reasoning is the logical process by which a conclusion is drawn from given premises. In deductive reasoning, if the premises are true and the conclusion necessarily follows, then the conclusion must be true. An example would be: 

Premise One: Baptism is for the remission of sins.

Premise Two: Remission of sins is necessary for one to be saved.

Conclusion: Baptism is necessary for one to be saved.

These two premises, if true, demand the conclusion. It can be no other way. 

Inductive reasoning is the logical process by which a conclusion is drawn from observation or principles, etc., that conclusion being very probable but not absolutely certain. It can be presented in a syllogistic form but will have some identifiers which demonstrate that it is inductive and not deductive. An example one may consider is the following inductive reasoning in a syllogistic form.

Premise One: Most true Christians read their Bible daily.

Premise Two: Marty is a true Christian.

Conclusion: Marty reads his Bible daily.

While the conclusion is probable, it is not demanded by the premises. In this case the identifier “most” makes this an inductive rather than a deductive syllogistic form. Marty may be blind, unable to read, sick, etc., which precludes daily Bible reading.

I often point out in personal Bible studies on salvation that every convert in Acts was baptized. I then argue that such suggests that the practice of baptism was necessary. This is an example of inductive reasoning. That argument by itself is not conclusive, only suggestive. The earlier baptism argument (the deductive one) on the other hand, was conclusive.

4. Pattern Thinking – Pattern Theology.

In the area of religion I would be considered a pattern person. In approaching the Scriptures in a logical manner, one can clearly see there are established patterns of worship, Christian living, and even Christian thinking. While the patterns have some flexibility built in as far as order, performance, etc., they are inflexible relative to their content. Pattern theologists, as people like me are sometimes called, should not be embarrassed by our position simply because of name calling from the other side of the aisle. Name calling or labeling is just a logical fallacy called prejudicial language which we will discuss in a few minutes.

Since the Bible is patterned, it is easily adaptable to logical defense. In fact, it is the most logically arranged message in the entire universe. Everything that God does is logical because it emanates from the only perfectly logical source in existence, God Himself. Those who would attack the Scriptures, suggesting them to be vague, contradictory, or confusing, simply have not approached them in fairness or with a logical mind. Whenever I am confused or feel I see a contradiction, I simply need to logically analyze the available information. God is truly a God of reason and has designed a pattern of service to Him that all can understand if they really want to please their God.

5. The Should-Would Argument.

I am not aware of this term being found in any book of logic. It is an old debate term that comes from the college debate circuit of years gone by. If it is still used, I do not know. But it was applied to an argument that was not absolutely conclusive and depended on surrounding factors. I will give you an example of one such argument from Scripture.

The argument comes from Rom. 14 and is the argument that Paul makes concerning eating meat. The argument is also found other places and goes like this. If you eat meat (a thing which is authorized) at a time of place that causes a weak Christian to sin, then you have sinned.

This is a legitimate argument but it cannot be used to condemn something in every situation, only in certain situations. The validity of the argument that the eating of meat is a sin is conditional on outside sources, that is, the presence of the one who would be caused to stumble. Without this presence, the eating of meat is not sinful.

6. Logical Fallacies.

There are a great number of logical fallacies used daily in conversation as if they were the greatest of arguments. We will view only a few so that we will have at least some basis in recognizing a false argument.

False Dilemma.

A false dilemma is when you are placed in a position where you are forced to chose from a list that is not complete. The following argument is a false dilemma. 

“If the United States does not allow abortion then you will have parents raising children they do not want and they will abuse them.”

First, there are other options to this false dilemma. There is, for example, adoption. There is also intervention and education. Additionally, the fact that a child is initially unwanted does not mean that he will remain unwanted or that he will be abused even if he is unwanted. There are lots of options other than abortion.

Prejudicial Language.

Prejudicial language is when one chooses words or phrases to subliminally influence the listener to accept the argument even though it may not be valid. Consider the following usage of prejudicial language. 

“A person should be pro-choice and not be anti-abortion.”

This use of “pro” versus “anti” prejudices the thinking of the one listening. It does nothing to logically defend abortion but it is constantly presented in this format on the news media, causing the audience to have prejudice towards logical dialogue on the subject.

Other terms used in this manner are terms such as old-fashioned, pattern theology, hard headed, and such other terms. The logician must be on the lookout for such terms so that he can head them off, at least in his own vocabulary.

Appeal To Pity.

An appeal to pity is when one appeals to emotion and not to logic to plead his case. When I was taking a logic course at Georgia State we were given a test in which one student failed. After class he approached the teacher and began to explain how he had been sick, he had to work late, and several other problems which interfered with his study. He asked for an opportunity to take the test again. This was the teacher’s reply.

“That is a logical fallacy called an appeal to pity. We will discuss it in chapter three.”

He did not get to take the test over and I never made the same mistake in that class. Never use an appeal to pity with a logic teacher! 

Appeal To Authority.

This type of appeal is quite common. It is often said that a theologian has no right to comment on science, only a scientist has such a right. Of course, those that make such a statement have no problem with a scientist commenting on theology! However, just being a scientist doesn’t make the individual right. For that matter, just being a preacher or an elder or a deacon or the largest contributor doesn’t make one right. Only all the available evidence coupled with proper reasoning skills makes one right. 

Attacking The Person.

It is a very common approach to attack the person if his personality is easier to defeat than his position. Remember one thing. Truth, even from the lips of a hypocrite, is still truth! Never dismiss an argument simply because you do not care for the one making it. Always let the argument stand of fall on its own merits. If you can learn to successfully do this, you will become both a better student and a better teacher. 

There are many other logical fallacies which are a part of daily life and conversation. Time and space do not allow for the discussion of even the lion’s share of them. But by having at least a cursory introduction to this problem I hope the committed Bible student will recognize the need to exercise care when examining or making an argument. 

7. Evaluating Arguments.

There are three areas one may examine to establish the validity or lack of validity of a formal argument (syllogism). Let’s take a brief look at these to see how this evaluation should be done.

The first issue is, are the premises structurally related. That is, do they follow each other or can they be connected to each other in a logical sequential manner. The second issue would be whether the facts contained in the premises are accurate (truth) or inaccurate (error). The final issue is whether or not the conclusion follows from the premises, that is, do the premises demand the conclusion. If the structure is valid and the premises are true and the conclusion arises from the relationship of the premises, then the conclusion is demanded, not suggested.

8. Structure And Use Of Syllogisms.

In this section we will be introduced to several types or styles of syllogisms. But these are not nearly exhaustive. In fact, these can be revised a hundred different ways. Remember, as long as one develops a structurally valid syllogistic form and follows it faithfully with true premises, then the conclusion is always demanded.