The Seriousness of the Ridicule, Rejection, and Hatred of Logic
Logic is the science of valid reasoning. It is not mere wishing. It is not mere thinking. It is not mere wrangling. Logic has to do with inference—that is, the inferring of what is implied by explicit statements. It raises the question, "Do the premises of this argument imply the conclusion of this argument?" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
Some people think very seldom—if at all—specifically about logic; that is, they do not say such things as, "Let me show you the sound argument which proves that Proposition X is true." However, every one who is intelligent enough to be accountable for what he does is a logician. And most people are "pretty good" logicians, even though they have never formally studied logic in any college or university.
Let it here be emphasized that—in order to correctly interpret the Bible—one must (even if he has never formally studied the details of valid reasoning and sound arguments) infer what the explicit statements of the Bible imply.
And, may I also emphasize that what is implicitly bound on men (by the explicit statements of the Bible) is bound on them not because they (men) have inferred it, but because God has implied it.
Since valid reasoning is absolutely essential to correctly interpreting the Bible, knowledge of the principles of logic are vital to every one who tries to correctly interpret the Bible.
THE IMPORTANCE OF LOGIC IN BIBLE STUDY
No one can be saved without being obedient to God's word. But no one can be obedient to God's word unless he knows what that word teaches. No one can know what to do to be saved without knowing what the Bible teaches one to do to be saved. And no one can know what the Bible teaches one to do to be saved without both (l) gathering the evidence which is relevant to that problem and (2) correctly handling that evidence after he has gathered it. But no one can correctly handle the evidence he has gathered (even if he has gathered the relevant evidence) in any way other than by drawing only such conclusions as are warranted (implied) by that evidence.
After having learned the truth, no one can be saved without obeying from the heart the very things which the Bible teaches him to do to be saved. This same general procedure applies to every subject in the Bible.
Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. Thus, Biblical hermeneutics is the science of correctly interpreting the explicit statements of the Bible. Every person should be deeply concerned about Biblical hermeneutics. Every one who studies the Bible and who draws conclusions as to what is taught by the Bible must—or at least should—be deeply concerned about the correct use of logical principles.
Some men have foolishly claimed that only that which is explicitly stated can be bound (by either doing or not doing a given thing). Fortunately, this claim is false. If it were true, it would mean that the Bible has nothing to say to any person now living on the earth. This is the case because the Bible does not explicitly address anything to (by explicitly stating the name of) any person now living on the earth. For any of us who now live on the earth to know that the Bible authorizes us to do a given thing or forbids us to do a given thing, one would have to find his own name explicitly stated in connection with that specific activity (that is, if the "no-logic" view is regarded as true). To say that a given proposition is taught implicitly in the Bible is to say that it is impossible for the explicit statements which are involved to be true and yet the proposition which is implied to be false. Theologians with a bent toward misology (the hatred or rejection of logic) or logophobia (the fear of logic) would do well-to take note of this truth.
The Bible demands that we prove all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Jesus and His apostles all proved their cases. (I have dealt with this fact in some detail in my books, Logic And The Bible and When Is An "Example" Binding?) One can, of course, prove that the Bible explicitly teaches a certain proposition if he can find it to be stated word for word in the Bible. But to prove that the Bible implicitly teaches a certain proposition, one must prove that there are explicit statements in the Bible which imply that particular proposition. To say that one (or more) statements imply another proposition is to say that it is impossible for the first statement(s) to be true and the latter to be false. But, may it be carefully noted, this requires argument (not argument in the sense of mere quarreling or "fussing"—but argument in the sense that there is such a relationship between the evidence and the conclusion that the truth of the evidence demands the truth of the conclusion).
Thus, being a good student of the Bible requires one (l) to gather the relevant evidence from the Bible and (2) to draw only such conclusions as are warranted by that evidence (the explicit statements which are involved).
The foregoing requires that one (l) formulate an argument which is valid and (2) prove that all of the premises (which comprise the evidence) are true. When such is the case, the argument is a sound one (only sound arguments prove anything). When one produces a sound argument, he has proved that the conclusion of that argument is true. (Ridiculing the use of logic in the study of the Bible or accusing someone of claiming to "know everything" [just because he claims to prove that a given proposition has been proved to be true] is a tactic which is not worthy of a Christian.)
ON THOSE WHO RIDICULE LOGIC
I have observed, on many occasions, that some men, after ridiculing the necessity of sound argumentation, go right ahead (no doubt without realizing just what they are doing) and try to offer logical proof for their own position. (It might be difficult to persuade them to admit that such is the case.) It is grossly inconsistent to write articles which criticize men because they criticize some things. They also oppose those whom they call "opposers." And they infer that nothing which has been inferred can be bound on anyone (they claim that only that which is explicitly stated can be binding on any one—even though the Bible nowhere explicitly states [or implies] that only that which is explicitly stated can be binding). But men who understand the cruciality of sound argumentation (in regard to the explicit statements of the Bible) do not fall into such obvious self-contradiction in regard to such matters.
I have noted that often, when men are trying to defend a false doctrine, they suddenly (if indeed they have not already done so) turn "anti-logic." I plead with brethren not to do that. I plead with all who listen to "anti-logic” men, not to be misled by their "leaps into the dark" (the conclusions which they have drawn for which there is not adequate evidence).
I submit that no man can find even one instance in all of the Bible where the Holy Spirit—in setting out God's case—ever used an unsound argument. God expects men to do the same. that is, to set out sound arguments and to demand sound arguments from other men. Let it be noted that faith comes from the evidence of God's word (Romans 10:17)—not from some "leap into the dark" to some conclusion which is not implied by the explicit statements of the Bible.
For those who think that they can correctly interpret the Bible without both (l) gathering the evidence which is relevant to a given proposition and (2) correctly handling that evidence (that is, drawing only such conclusions as are warranted by that evidence), I offer this challenge: explain the following passage (there are many, many others just as relevant to the problem) without correctly using the principles of logic: Luke 6:12-16 (in connection with the question: Did Jesus establish His church when He called the disciples as per Luke 6:12-16? If not, when did He establish it? Was it on the first day of Pentecost after His resurrection from the dead? If so, where is the explicit statement which explicitly says, "Jesus established the church on the first day of Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus Christ”?
What about the large number of explicit statements in regard to miraculous gifts in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14? Are men living on earth explicitly instructed to "desire earnestly spiritual gifts" (14:1)? Are men living on earth explicitly instructed to "prophesy" (14:l)? Has God explicitly instructed Christians living today to "speak in tongues" (as per 14:5)? And so on and so on in chapters 12-14! No man can either learn or teach the truth on this matter without inferring what is implied by the explicit statements of those and other passages. And, may it be carefully noted, when one has inferred what the explicit statements have implied, the inferences (conclusions) are bound, not because he (the man) has inferred them but because God has implied them!
Since no man can understand (correctly interpret) the Bible without inferring what is implied by the explicit statements of the Bible, it behooves every responsible person to study the Bible with an honest, open, and eager mind which is focused on this great truth.
The New Testament is simply "filled" with sound argumentation by Jesus and His apostles and prophets. Just a few of these will be noted here: Matthew 4:1-11; 22:15-22; 22:23-33; 22:34-46, Acts 3:1-4:4; 1 Corinthians 15:12-19.
Jesus taught that men both can and must (if they are to be saved) know the truth (John 6:45; 8:32). No man can know the truth which applies to him (that is, what is required [obligatory], what is forbidden [negatively obligatory], or what is allowed [optional]) without reasoning correctly about the explicit statements of the Bible.
When one is studying the Bible, he should be careful to note such words as: "therefore,” “if,” “then," "why," "because," et al. This is the case because these words usually constitute keys to the sound arguments which God is giving to men. At times, of course, they may be used in setting out the unsound arguments which the servants of Satan are making.
The truths which have been set forth here constitute at least some of the good reasons why I plead with all students of the Bible to infer (by the correct use of the principles of valid reasoning) only what the explicit statements of the Bible imply. Thus, I repeat: God always presents His case in the form of a sound argument (one in which both the argument is valid and all of the premises are true). Since this is the case, why have so many brethren allowed themselves to be lured into the acceptance of logic-rejecting philosophies (such as Existentialism) in spite of the fact that God demands that men "prove all things" and "hold fast to that which is good”?
I challenge any man who holds that nothing which is implied by the explicit statements of the Bible can be bound on any one, to refute denominationalists who use the account of the thief on the cross to conclude that men living today are saved at the point of their faith in Christ, before and without being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Further, I challenge them to find the statement in the New Testament which explicitly forbids the use of instrumental music in the worship of God today. (Note: it is forbidden implicitly, but it is not forbidden explicitly. Men must infer this because the explicit statements of God [in the Bible] do imply it. And, may I repeat, it is bound on men today not because they have inferred it, but because God has implied it.)
May God help us all to love, learn, obey and teach the truth (Mark 16:15-16; Galatians 1:6-9). May we all lovingly strive to be faithful to the Lord that we may eternally be with Him who died for us all (Hebrews 2:9).