LESSONS IN LOGIC
By Ryan Hicks
These basic lessons in logic are here to
educate believers and to help them avoid all manner of false doctrine.
Almost all false doctrines are based around illogic, and thus it may be
of great benefit to explain the basics of logic.
Logic is correct reasoning, valid induction or deduction. It is a correct way of reasoning, and should be found in the thought patterns of all believers. Without correct reasoning or logic one can fail to grasp many of the simple truths of the gospel. It seems that many are brought up throughout their lives being taught to accept all manner of illogic, and thus it becomes far too easy for them to confuse simple issues because that is what they have been doing all their lives.
Isaiah 1:18
18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
God calls sinners to come to Him and "let us reason together." It is no
confusing thing that many fail to obtain salvation when they refuse to
think logically. They refuse to reason correctly and admit they are
sinners in need of a Saviour. Even worse is when they do admit such a
truth, and yet do not do all in their power to be assured that they
have secured the salvation of their soul.
In logic there is a conditional proposition. This is an informative
statement whose truth or falsity can be evaluated by means of logic. In
a conditional proposition there is the expression that states the
condition which is called the antecedent or major premise,
and is the first term in a conditional proposition. Then there is the
expression of the second term in a conditional proposition or the
inference which is called the consequent or minor premise. Finally, there is a consequence or conclusion
which is the logical result of a matter (in cases of illogic the
consequence would be false). An example of a conditional proposition
would be:
1. The sky is blue.
2. At night the sky is black.
3. The sky is always blue.
The antecedent was number 1 or the first
term in the conditional proposition. The consequent was number 2 or the
second term in the conditional proposition; and the consequence was
number 3 or the conclusion of the matter. This is obviously a false
conditional proposition because the consequent clearly contradicts the
consequence, that is to say if the sky is black at night, then it
obviously cannot always be blue.
A=B
B=K
K=A
This is very basic example of how the major premise leads to the minor premise and ends in an accurate conclusion.
Here is an example of illogic, or false reasoning in the form of
syllogisms (i.e. a form of reasoning in which two premises are given
and a conclusion is drawn from them).
Sin is transgression of the law of God.
I have transgressed the law of God.
Yet, I am not a sinner.
The consequence is illogical and based on false reasoning and self delusion. The logical reasoning would be:
Sin is transgression of the law of God.
I have transgressed the law of God.
Thus, I am a sinner.
A common fatal flaw in many people's
logic can be seen in the issue of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. I use this example
because it is so widespread that most can relate to it and see the
error of their ways.
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery (Luke 16:18)
Whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery (Luke 16:18).
Putting away or divorce must end the marriage covenant.
Now obviously if a man divorcing his
wife and marrying another constitutes adultery, then that divorce did
not end his marriage bond. And also if marrying a divorced woman
constitutes adultery, then obviously her divorce did not end her
marriage bond. A proper conclusion would be something like, "Putting
away or divorce must not change one's marital state," or something
similar. If you added 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:2-3 into the
conditional proposition then it would also clarify the truthful
consequence in that it plainly teaches that only death ends the
marriage bond, and divorce does not end the marriage bond because it is
nothing more than a separation,;it does not constitute the ending of a
marriage. Of course, even the accurate form would be somewhat illogical
because it lacks certain key elements that it assumes the reader
understands like adultery being relations between a married person with
someone they are not married to, thus if remarrying after divorcing or
being divorced is adultery, then obviously that remarriage is not
legitimate, otherwise the divorcee and the person who married the
divorcee would not be considered to be committing adultery or relations
with a married person and someone they are not married to.
What about the fatal flaw of unconditional eternal security? It can be seen to fail the logic test many times over.
We are saved by faith through grace (Ephesians 2:8-9)
We are not saved by works (Ephesians 2:8-9)
We do not stay saved by works
This is false because it takes two
truths and applies them to another issue as if they were the same
thing, and yet this is exactly what most unconditional eternal
securists teach. It is true enough that "For by grace are ye saved
through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of
God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). So the
major and minor premises are correct, and yet, they say nothing about
how one remains saved. So this is illogical and inaccurate.
Once one has been saved by grace through faith, it is up to them to remain in that grace.
Acts 13:43
43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
2 Corinthians 6:1
1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.
Galatians 5:4
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
We see from all these verses that once one has the grace of God they
must continue in it, not receive it in vain, and not be fallen from
grace. All of these points show us the real possibility of departing
from God's grace and the true need for "holiness, without which no man
shall see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14).
Other errors like the Oneness cult's error can also be seen to be based on faulty logic, or illogic to be more accurate.
God is one.
There is only on Person who is God.
Thus, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all one Person Who is God.
The Oneness groups make the Father, The
Son, and The Holy Spirit into mere multiple personalities of the one
God. Thus, they teach a god with multiple personalities, which modern
people would call "multiple personality disorder." The conclusion in this
conditional proposition was incorrect, because the Bible is plain that
there are Three Persons who are God (1 John 5:7). There is one essence
that They each possess, and that essence is what makes Them each
individually fully God. Three Persons, one God. Similar to three
humans, yet one humanity. For further study on this point please see The Godhead.
It would be even more illogical if you look at how they try to make the
Three numerically into One numerically while totally ignoring the
truth that "one" is not always a word for a number, rather it is also
commonly used for unity. If you examine their teachings on God you will
soon see it is a lesson in illogic all by itself.
An example of proper logic:
Man is mortal.
God is not mortal.
Thus, God is not a man (Numbers 23:18).
Now had this read "Man is mortal/God is
not a man (Numbers 23:18)/Thus God is not mortal;" then it would have
been incorrect logic, because it only rules out God being a man, but
not another mortal being. The conclusion would have been true, because
God is not mortal, even though the reasoning is incorrect. The point
being that even with incorrect logic, one can sometimes still reach an
accurate conclusion in spite of such illogic.
Most illogic or incorrect reasoning is based in one of the following three reasons:
1. The whole line of reasoning is based on a misconception of the subject at hand.
2. The premises upon which the conclusion is reached are invalid themselves.
3. The conclusion is wholly wrong and does not follow the line of reasoning of the premises.
When it comes to understanding the Bible's truths generally the third
reason is the culprit. A person may base the premise of their argument
on accurate truths from the word of God, and yet they conclude
something totally contrary to the word of God taught in the premises.
Many times one can draw a correct conclusion but the premises they laid
out did not confirm the correct conclusion, and this is a typical occurrence. It happens often when people assume truths as self-evident
and leave such truths out of their premises from which they determine
to form a conclusion. For the learned in whatever area such people are
discussing, this may be an easily overlooked flaw, but for the saint we
should strive to explain the basis for our conclusions thoroughly.
Though, it will not be necessary to go into too many details just for
those that refuse to learn.
In trying to reason who is a child of God and who is not we can deduce quite simply upon looking at these verses. These verses strike fear in the hearts of those that have deceived themselves into believing they are saved, when in actuality they have neither part nor lot in salvation.1 John 3:7-10
7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
Verse 7 sets up the context. Verse 8 could be considered the major premise, and verse 9 the minor premise (though nothing is minor about its points). The conclusion is verse 10 and is perfectly correct, and that which defines the children of the devil is the opposite of that which defines the children of God. Children of the devil sin, while children of God cannot sin. Children of the devil do not love their brothers, while children of God love their brothers.
This is not meant to be exhaustive, rather the intent is to give an overview of proper logic. I want the children of God to reason from the Scriptures and come to proper conclusions. Follow after the example of the Apostle Paul and reason from the Scriptures!
Acts 17:2-3
2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
