"Prove All Things"--The Bible and God’s Law of Rationality
(Christianity Is Not irrational)
Some Introductory Matters
The Bible teaches that men should “prove all things,” and “hold fast” to that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). This means simply that men should draw only such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence which the Bible (the word of God, 2 Timothy 3:16-17) provides. This means that men’s conclusions must be the conclusions of sound arguments: that is, men should draw only such conclusions as are a part of arguments which are valid and have true premises.
There are a number of reasons why students of the Bible should recognize and honor the Law of Rationality: (1) the way the Bible is written demands that such be the case, (2) specific instances of Bible characters u sing the Law of Rationality demand that such be the case, and (3) the specific passages in the Bible (which teach in various ways) demand that such be the case.
A Quick Look At Matthew 4:1-11
Matthew 4:1-11 gives the record of the temptation of Christ by the devil. In the first temptation, the devil said to Jesus, “If thou are the son of God, command that these stones become bread” (Matthew 4:3). In response, Jesus said, (in quoting from Deuteronomy 8:3). “It is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). Thus, Jesus countered Satan’s effort to persuade him to fall into sin by quoting from the Word of God.
Satan himself then quoted from the Scriptures. After having taken Jesus into the holy city and having set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, Satan said to Jesus, “If thou art the son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, he shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and, on their hands they shall bear thee up, lest haply thou dash thy foot against a stone.” In making this statement, the devil quoted from Psalm 91:11. In response to this temptation, Jesus said, “Again it is written, thou shalt not make trial of the Lord thy God.” Here Jesus quoted from Deuteronomy 6:16. It should be carefully noted that even though Satan quoted from the Psalms in order to tempt Jesus, in response Jesus quoted from the book of Deuteronomy. Thus, the very way the Bible is written demands that men recognize and honor the Law of Rationality. Jesus used the passage from Deuteronomy to make clear the fact that Satan was making too broad an application of the words from Psalm 91:11. But, in order for this to be clear to a student of the Bible, he would have to reason correctly about what is explicitly stated in the two passages involved. First of all, he would have to know that the Bible made both statements. Secondly, he would have to know how to logically fit together the teaching of the two passages so as to draw only the conclusion which is warranted by that evidence.
The Bible is comprised of sixty-six books. In order to accurately interpret the Bible, one must not only learn what these books explicitly affirm, he must also reason correctly about the explicit statements of the various books of the Bible so as to avoid drawing any conclusions which are not warranted by the evidence. This means that one must accurately “fit together” the sixty-six books of the Bible so as to understand, for example, that the Law of Moses was addressed to the Jews (not the Gentiles) and that the law (of Moses) has not been in force since the new covenant (the law of Christ) came into force on the first day of Pentecost following the resurrection of Christ (cf. Hebrews 10:9; Colossians 2:14; Galatians 3:23-25; 4:21-31; et al.). Various debates which have been conducted on the question as to when the church of Christ was established make clear that one must very carefully study and reason about the relevant explicit affirmations (statements) in the Bible. Foolish indeed is the man who thinks that this question can be settled properly without recognition of and honoring of the Law of Rationality.
Some Passages which Teach by Precept that the Law if Rationality Should be Honored
In addition to material in chapter eleven, which showed that Jesus Himself honored (and demanded that men honor) the Law of Rationality, and in chapter twelve, which showed that the apostles and prophets of Christ both recognized and honored the Law of Rationality. There are a number of other passages which, although they do not give a historical account of men actually engaged in rational argumentation, do plainly teach that the Law of Rationality is to be honored. The attention of the reader is now called to some of these passages.
1. The apostle Paul, in writing to the Thessalonians, said, “Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). This means, in regard to religious doctrine which one encounters, one is under the solemn obligation to put the doctrine to the appropriate test. The appropriate test for religious doctrine is to determine whether it is taught by the Bible. How does one do that? One does it by determining whether the argument (which is used in an effort to establish the c:ase for a particular doctrine) is sound or unsound. If it is a sound argument, then the truthfulness of the conclusion has been established and, thus should be accepted on the basis of that argument.
If one can show that the doctrine which is under consideration implies a false doctrine. then, since every doctrine which implies a false doctrine, is itself a false doctrine, then the doctrine should be rejected (because it is false). Men are to “hold fast” only to that which is good and/or true, for only truth can save from sin (John 8:32; 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12).
First Thessalonians 5:21 lays on men the obligation to be deeply and vitally concerned about the evidence for a given claim, about gathering all of the relevant evidence, and about handling that evidence properly (and that means drawing only such conclusions a s are warranted by that evidence).
The Law of Rationality is upheld in the Bible by precept as well as by account of approved action.
2. Jude instructed men to “contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered unto the saints.” There are many men now living—quite a number of whom are members of the Lord’s true church—who hold that it is simply unChristlike to contend for the faith. But, this passage corrects that erroneous claim. To “contend earnestly for the faith” is strive in combat, to engage in a fight, etc. and, since “earnestly” carries the idea of intensification, it is clear that Jude 3 teaches that men are to fight with great intensity for the truth and against error. Obviously, this does not mean that Christ wants men to engage in petty quarrels. He does not wish that men should wrangle for the sake of wrangling or that they have strife just for the sake of strife. Such activity must grow out of a heart that if filled with selfishness, haughtiness, and pride. But one can be humble, loving, kind, and deeply concerned for the cause of Christ and for the souls of men while fighting desperately for the truth of the gospel. Jesus did. Peter did. Paul did. And so did many other faithful men during New Testament days. And so have many men who have lived in our day.
Of course, there are many people who have a perverted sense of love and kindness and a distorted sense of what it means to be Christ-like. Such people are severely critical of those who spend most of their lives in doing what the Holy Spirit, through Jude, enjoins men to do. But faithful men must not allow themselves to be intimidated into becoming unfaithful no matter how unpleasant the criticism of liberal, modernistic thinkers may become.
Rather, one must remember not only such persons as Jesus, Peter, and Paul but also men such as Stephen who disputed with the Jews and put them to rout by his arguments which proved that what he was preaching was really true (Acts 6:9-10; 7:51-60). Stephen spoke very strongly and argued cogently. Yet, it seems hardly likely that any mere man loved his audience more than did he. Even as men were stoning his life’s blood from him, Stephen prayed, “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge” (Acts 7:60). This writer challenges any man to show greater love.
In spite of the pseudo-optimistic attitude of many people, there are teachers of false doctrine in this world, there are doctrines being taught which will cause those who believe and obey them to be lost (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9). There are preachers and elders—even in the Lord’s church—who teach error on fundamental doctrines, doctrines about which one must be right in order to be saved. Such men must be opposed and those outside of the church who teach error must also be opposed. It is a grievous error to suppose that be merely pretending that there are no false doctrines, God’s pleasure will rest upon us if we do nothing about false doctrines and false teachers. Many Christians, it seems, adopt a “holier-thanthou” attitude simply on the ground that they—in contrast to some others—never engage in any kind of controversy. Brother B. C. Goodpasture once told me about a preacher who said to him, referring to the pulpit work with a certain congregation, “as long as I am in this pulpit, nothing controversial will ever be preached.” There are a number of things wrong with this statement. In the first place, no one can preach the whole counsel of God without preaching that which is controversial, at least with some persons. In the second place, such sentiment is directly opposed to the sentiment (and actions) enjoined upon men in Jude 3!
Since no one can defend the faith without presenting sound arguments, then it is obvious that Jude 3 demands that men both recognize and honor the Law of Rationality.
3. John instructed men to not believe every religious teacher but to put them all to the appropriate test. John said, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). Quite obviously, this instruction means that men are not to believe every preacher or religious teacher. Many people are inclined to believe that which they wish to believe on little or no evidence. But such a course of action is not pleasing to God. He demands that men put teachers and preachers to the test. There are various things to be tested. There are various kinds of people (that is, engaged in different sorts of activities). Various sorts of tests must be used in order to ascertain whether the activities or people are what one should approve. The test for religious teachers is whether they have presented sound arguments for what they have taught.
Thus, when John says, “. . . believe not every spirit, but try the spirits . . .” he means that when any one hears what some teacher of religious doctrine says, he should not gullibly accept that doctrine without testing it. And, to test it, he must determine whether the man has really proved his case with sound arguments (that is, with arguments which both are valid and have all true premises). The laws of valid reasoning must be applied to every doctrine which is presented. There simply is not any other way to do it!
4. The Bible teaches that men are to be good soldiers for Christ. The basic job of a good soldier is to fight. He must fight for the army of which he is a member and he must fight against those who oppose that army and its mission. Jesus Christ, through Paul, taught men to “endure hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ” (2 Timothy 3:2). Paul also taught that men should “fight the good fight of the faith” (1 Timothy 6:12). The basic mission of the church for which Jesus died is the glorification of God and the salvation of men through Christ by the making known of the Word of God, in both word and deed (See the Bible, Passim).
The fight which Paul refers to has to do with the proclamation and defense of the gospel of Christ (the new doctrine of Christ, et al). There can be no “good fight” without one’s proclaiming the gospel. There can be no adequate proclaiming the gospel without the proclaimer’s having studied the Bible to the point that he has learned the evidence and having reasoned about that evidence in the proper way (drawing only such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence).
Thus, to be told to “fight the good fight of the faith” is to be told to “preach the word” (2 Timothy 4: 1-5). to contend earnestly for that Word (Jude 3). and to be set for the defense of it (1 Peter 3: 15). This all, of necessity, involves both recognizing and honoring the Law of Rationality.
Conclusions from this Section
Only a small portion of what the Bible teaches by precept about the cruciality of the law of rationality (and, therefore, about the use of valid reasoning in connection with the evidence which is the explicit teaching of the Bible) has been noted here. Yet, what has been noted is sufficient to prove that it is absurdly anti-Biblical to reject the Law of Rationality and to espouse irrationalism. God demands that men prove the case for Christianity. If the case for Christianity is not a sound one, then no one should accept it.
Men are to “prove all things, hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Men are not to believe every preacher or teacher but are to put each one to the test in order to see whether they are teaching the truth (cf. 1 John 4:1).
These passages and many, many others demand that men recognize and honor the Law of Rationality—that men draw only such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence. No one can do otherwise and be pleasing to God. The Holy Spirit guided the apostle Peter to teach us that we must be prepared to defend the truth to every man who might ask about it (1 Peter 3:15).
Specific Instances of Bible Characters Using the Law of Rationality
If it is the case that Jesus, His apostles, and the New Testament prophets used the Law of Rationality (using the law of implication and/ or inference) in such fashion clear that the use of those two laws is necessary in learning and teaching God’s Word, then it is clear that such is necessary.
1. Jesus and The Law of Rationality (including implication and inference). During His earthly ministry, Jesus was almost constantly involved in controversy. There are many accounts in the New Testament of Jesus’ activities in which He is described as being in discussions which involved the Law of Rationality. However, only one of these will be considered here. (The author is planning to write a full-length book on Jesus’ use of the Law of Rationality in his work as a controversialist).
Attention is again called to the fact that Matthew gives an account of a discussion which Jesus had in the temple with the chief priests and the elders of the people (Matthew 21:23-27):
And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, “By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?” And Jesus answered and said unto them, “I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell men, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?” And they reasoned with themselves, saying, “If we shall say, from heaven; he will say unto us, ‘Why did ye not then believe him?’ But if we shall say, ‘Of men;’ we fear people; for all hold John as a prophet.” And they answered Jesus, and said, “We cannot tell.” And he said unto them, “Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.”
According to this account, the Jewish leaders came to Jesus as He was teaching and asked Him, “By what authority doest thou these things? And who gave thee this authority?” Jesus replied to them by saying that if they would answer one question for Him, then He would answer their question. The question which He asked was: Was the baptism of John from heaven of from men?” (That is, did John baptize by the authority of God or merely by the authority of men? The Jews then argued with one another in this fashion. They said, in effect, “If we say that John’s baptism is from God (from Heaven), then Jesus will point out that we should have believed him. On the other hand, if we say that the baptism of John is not from God (but merely from men), then we are afraid that the multitude will hurt us.”
Actually, Jesus’ question to the Jews set up the situation for the logical argument form known as “constructive dilemma.” This has been discussed earlier, but a more detailed, more technical account is given here.
The argument form known as “constructive dilemma” goes like this: (1) the first premise is made up of the conjunction of two implicative statements, (2) the second premise is a disjunctive proposition comprised of the antecedents of the two elements in premise one, and (3) the conclusion is a disjunctive statement comprised of the consequences of the two elements of premise one. This is a valid argument form, and, thus, when the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
Put into precise logical form, the argument looks like this:
1. If we say that the baptism of John is from God, then we should have believed him (and, thus, should have obeyed his baptism) and, if we say that the baptism of John is not from God (but is only from men), then (we are afraid that) the multitude will hurt us (for they hold that John is a prophet).
2. Either the baptism of John is from God or the baptism of John is not from God.
3. Therefore, either we should have believed John or we are afraid that the multitudes will hurt us (for they hold that John is a prophet).
Faced with the dilemma which is set out in the conclusion, the Jews decided that they would not take either “horn” of that dilemma. So, they said to Jesus, “We know not”; that is, they said that they were not going to answer Jesus’ question.
If the matter were not so serious (in that it involves the eternal salvation of men and women), it would be amusing to see men claim to be followers of the Bible, and get reject the Law of Rationality and espouse irrationalism (and, thus, deny the obvious relationship between evidence, valid reasoning, and the conclusion).
Every one functions on any given occasion (especially are we here concerned with occasions which involve consideration of evidence from the Bible) either rationally or irrationally. To function rationally is to draw only such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence. To function irrationally is to draw conclusions for which one does not have adequate evidence. It is utter blasphemy to charge Jesus with teaching men to function irrationally when they study His sacred word.
Another way of setting out the argument which is implied by the question which Jesus asked, is as follows (for men living at the time of John): (1) if the baptism of John is from God (that is, if it is authorized by God and not by men), then men should believe John (and obey the baptism which he teaches). (2) The baptism of John is from God (3) Therefore. men should believe (and obey the baptism which he teaches).
Jesus clearly taught that men should recognize and honor the Law of Rationality.
2. The apostle Peter and The Law of Rationality. Just as was the case with Jesus, the apostle Peter was almost constantly involved in preaching and discussions which make clear that Peter (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) both recognized and honored the Law of Rationality. Guided by the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, Peter presented a case for the basic affirmation of this sermon “. . . God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified,” (Acts 2:36).
Peter’s argument is a modus ponens form (with a compound antecedent). It goes like this:
(1) If it is the case that proposition A, and if it is the case that proposition B. and if it is the case that proposition C, and if it is the case the proposition D. then it follows that proposition E (the conclusion stated in verse 36: “. . . God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified”).
(2) It is the case that proposition A, and it is the case that proposition B. and it is the case that proposition C. and it is the case that proposition D.
(3) Therefore, it follows that (all of you can know that) “God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.”
While space will not be taken here to go into Peter’s argument in detail, the reader is strongly urged to study Acts 2:14-36 carefully and prayerfully in the light of the above logical argument. Valuable aid in understanding the argument made by Peter can be obtained from the respective commentaries on the book of Acts by J. W. McGarvey and H. Leo Boles.
The reader is also urged to study very carefully the record of Peter’s sermons which are recorded in Acts 3:11-26; 10:34-48; 14-18. All of these are comprised of precise, logical argumentation. The Holy Spirit guided the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 3:5), both in their oral preaching and in their writing, to always present the case for Christianity with logical precision--never being guilty of presenting unsound arguments.
3. The Apostle Paul and The Law of Rationality. (1) A general look. The reader should carefully study all of the preaching and teaching of the apostle Paul, the record of which is found in the book of Acts and the various epistles which he wrote. Perhaps of special note are the following: Acts 9:20-22; 13: 16-52; 17: 1-3; 17:22-31. The sacred record makes clear that when Paul preached, he set out the evidence, he explained that evidence, and he proved the conclusion of his argument (Acts 9:22). His action was in harmony with what he enjoined on others (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
(2) Paul at Damascus. Every reader should note carefully the record of what Paul did shortly after he was baptized into Christ: “But Paul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews that dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is the Christ” (Acts 9:22). Utilizing the law of implication (expecting this audience to infer the warranted conclusions), Paul established the case for Christianity. He proved (demonstrated) that Jesus is the Christ! Luke’s record of Paul’s activities is quite different from what contemporary irrationalists imply about what he and other apostles and prophets did in carrying out the great commission. If Luke’s record of Paul’s preaching and teaching activities had shown Paul to have functioned irrationally. then no one living today would have any way of knowing what to do to be saved.
(3) Paul and the Bereans. Acts 17:11 makes clear that the Law of Rationality should be honored. When Paul and Silas arrived in Berea, they went into the synagogue and there Paul preached the Word of God. Luke makes clear that the people of Berea were “more noble” than were those in Thessalonica. On what ground were they described as being more noble? Because they received the Word with all readiness of mind (eagerness) and searched the Scriptures daily in order to determine whether what was preached was really true (Acts 17:10-11). What did these people do when they “searched the Scriptures to see if these things were so”? Did they merely read the Scriptures without trying to fit them together by logical reasoning? Obviously not. It is clear that it was necessary for them to listen to the explicit affirmations (statements) of the speaker, consider carefully the arguments which the speaker made in connection with the explicit statements of the Scriptures, and then to reason correctly about all of that evidence so as to draw the correct conclusion (that is, the conclusion which was warranted by the evidence).
(4) Apollos. and the Law of Rationality. According to Acts 18:28, Apollos powerfully and publicly refuted the Jews, using the Scriptures to prove that Jesus is Christ. To present the case one must recognize the force of implication. To understand the case as it is presented, one must understand the force of inference. Apollos presented the case in a logical way and he (just as did Jesus and all of His apostles) expected people to be able to recognize what they should infer from the case which He presented.
Conclusion
Only a small portion of the great amount of evidence in the Bible which sustains the necessity of men’s honoring the Law of Rationality has been cited in this chapter. Yet, what has been noted is sufficient to prove that it is absurdly anti-Biblical to reject the Law of Rationality and to espouse irrationalism. God demands that men prove the case for Christianity. If the case for Christianity is not a sound one, then no one should accept it.
Men are to “prove all things, hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Men are not to believe every preacher or teacher but are to put each one to the test, in order to see whether they are teaching the truth (cf. 1 John 4:1).
These passages and many, many others demand that men recognize and honor the Law of Rationality-that men draw only such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence. No one can do otherwise and be pleasing to God.