Is Logic a Part of the Armor of God?

A THEONOMIC CRITIQUE OF LOGIC

and Survey of Law-Based Apologetics


Do not answer a stupid man
in the language of his folly
or you will grow like him;
Answer a stupid man as his folly deserves,
or he will think himself a wise man.

Proverbs 26:4-5


THE SOURCE OF IRRATIONAL THINKING

Truth and Irrationality

Truth and Language

Truth and Obedience

A Sound Argument for Truth

LOGIC AND THE LAW

The Perniciousness of Logic

THE SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE

Obedience and the Truth

Obedience Brings Truth

What's at Stake?

Biblical Law and Its Substitutes

Ethical Confidence

Intellectual High-Mindedness

A Question of Priorities

THE FOUNDATIONS OF BIBLICAL LOGIC

Avoiding Error in Our Own Lives

Humility and "Material Fallacies"

Law in Personal Contexts

Truth and Humanistic Authority

Students of the Word

Dealing with Error in Others

The Pagan Roots of Logic

Language and Abstraction

Language with Heart

APOLOGETICS WITHOUT ARISTOTLE

Some Arguments Should Not Be Answered

Logic vs. Law in Apologetics

Conclusions


THE SOURCE OF IRRATIONAL THINKING

1. Do you know anyone you feel is irrational? Someone who jumps to conclusions, sticks to his rashly-formed opinions dogmatically, and then renounces the position as though he had never formed it? Or someone who will hold to an idea knowing full well it is wrong, rather than admit his mistake?

2. I have known people who were irrational. They seem to have trouble thinking sensibly, experiencing all kinds of problems in interpersonal communication because they lack clear, stable thinking.

3. I notice this most often in non-Christians. I notice it in a lot of those who call themselves Christians, but more frequently in unbelievers. The more closely I can observe them, and the better I get to know them, the more obvious it becomes. Heated reactions to even the insignificant, and grandiose plans and decisions without good judgment. I notice an instability and an inability to think squarely and in accord with reality. Why is this?

Truth and Irrationality

4. There are at least two places in Scripture where this question is answered. Psalm 10:4 says, "The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts." The verse reads more literally, "All his thoughts are, 'There is no God.'" The unbeliever refuses to acknowledge or believe anything that would show forth the existence of an orderly God. He denies life its meaning, order, and coherence; he keeps telling himself, "There is no God; there is no God." He almost believes it.

5. Romans 1 provides an even clearer description of the unbeliever. Paul says very bluntly that they "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." They know the truth, but by immersing their lives more and more in unrighteousness, or lawless behavior, they try to suppress the truth of God's existence and Law.

6. Paul goes on in Romans 1 to list the most heinous of sins -- such as homosexuality -- as the end-result of unbelief. Not all unbelievers are homosexuals, murderers, etc, but most of the sins listed in the chapter may be present in one degree or another in most unbelievers. Most of these common sins are sins against truth and language: lying, boasting, exaggeration, arrogant claims, and other such "linguistic unrighteousness."

Truth and Language

7. Language is very important in the life of man. It is one indication that man is created in the image of God; the Lord Jesus Christ is said to be "the Word" (John 1:1; I John 1:1; 5:7; Revelation 19:13, etc.), and man, in contrast to the animals, uses words.

8. Language is essential for man to carry out the cooperative task of the "Dominion Mandate" (Genesis 1:26-28). Our speaking and our thinking are so inextricably tied together than some have suggested that without a word for an action or an object, you can't reason about it. One non-Christian, by the Grace of God, has seen this and stated, "(T)he whole realm of human intelligence is grounded on the use of language" (Michael Polanyi, 1963).

9. When God saves us, He saves our language as well (Isaiah 6:5-7; cf. James 3; Matthew 12:37). And when God saves our language, He thereby saves our thinking.

Truth and Obedience

10. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-17 tells us about the destruction of reason in the unbeliever. Verses 10 and 11 speak of Satan, "whose coming and presence is in the sphere of every kind of wicked deception geared to the gullibility of those who are perishing, this gullibility being caused by the fact that they did not accept the love for the truth to the end that they might be saved" (Wuest translation). The passage continues to speak of those who perish: "And for this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false, in order that they all may be damned who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness."

11. Note that verse 10 contrasts unrighteousness, which is a violating of God's Law, with "the love of the truth." Isn't that what we as Christians are really concerned with in our walk with the Savior: coming to, understanding, and walking in, the truth? Again, the contrast is made in verse 12. The truth is contrasted with unrighteousness (lawless deeds). Unrighteousness clearly makes one susceptible to the Big Lie, to Satan's false plan of salvation. To avoid the false, one should submit to God's Law.

A Sound Argument for Truth

12. In contrast to the unbeliever, and his various degrees of lawlessness, the Bible tells us of the Grace of God to the believer. God puts in the Christian a heart that willingly seeks His Word and obeys His Law. This produces in those who are saved a sound mind. Those who submit to the Word of God, willing to obey everything it says, are given sound reasoning. Submission to the Word of God is the unbeliever coming to his senses; he is enabled to think properly. "Sound words" (logic) are in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 1:13). A "sound mind" is the gift of God (2 Timothy 1:7). "Sound speech" is the pattern of those who are sanctified (Titus 2:8). Titus is told to exhort the young men "to be sober-minded, in all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works, with soundness in doctrine," or as Phillips puts it,

in all your teaching show the strictest regard for the truth, and show that you appreciate the seriousness of the matters you are dealing with. Your speech should be unaffected and logical, so that your opponent may feel ashamed at finding nothing in which to poke holes (Titus 2:6-8).

14. This is the Christian pattern. Its source? It comes from "sound faith" (Titus 1:13; Titus 2:2). This sound faith comes from an adherence to "sound doctrine" (1 Timothy 1:10; 4:3; Titus 1:9; Titus 2:1). And sound doctrine, as all evangelical Christians know, is found in the Scriptures. Thus, "The thoughts of the righteous are right" (Proverbs 12:5) because he submits to the Scripture, and obeys the Law of God. We will now attempt to put forth a sound argument for the proposition that to think clearly and avoid error in reasoning, one must know the Word of God.


LOGIC AND THE LAW

15. Many Christians fail to live up to the standard of prudence and logic set down in the Word and fully obeyed by Christ. These Christians claim to be led by the "spirit" rather than by God's Word.

16. But their lives are often irrational and unstable. They are not dependable or responsible. They would never even consider carefully studying and diligently working to make their lives ordered and their thinking logical, sensible, and clear. The dominion-oriented, disciplined rationality of the Bible is unknown to them; if known, then rejected. They would be very surprised to find the opening words of John's Gospel translated, "In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God."

17. Consistency is the mark of the true Christian. Wandering and contradiction are not. These so-called Christians differ little from non-Christians who make no claims, nor engage in any rituals of, piety. "Ye shall know them by their fruits."

18. In reaction to these irrational "jesus freaks," some Christians have swung to an opposite extreme. These Christians are very intelligent men, and are diligent to uphold the Scriptures as the inerrant word of God. They wish to defend "our reasonable faith." They wish to rebuke the mindless flitting-about so characteristic of many modern evangelicals. They also wish to guard the Bible against those who claim that supernatural revelation is somehow too infinite for man to understand at all.

19. To do so, they turn to philosophy in general and Aristotelian Logic in particular. Here, we are told, is a system that reflects the mind of God with amazing accuracy. We can hardly underestimate the significance of that branch of philosophy that began with Aristotle and comes down to us as "Logic." Says one of these Christians, "God is a rational thinking being, whose thought exhibits the structure of Aristotelian Logic" (Gordon H. Clark, "God and Logic," in The Trinity Review, No. 16, Nov/Dec 1980).

20. This notion has some very important implications. Is it adequate to merely study and apply the Bible to gain sound, rational thought? Or need we also turn to Aristotle? If we as parents and educators are attempting to fulfill Deuteronomy 6:6-9, is it sufficient to give our children a knowledge of the Scriptures, or must they also learn of his secular science called Logic? Is it necessary for us as Christians to learn the fallacies of "converse accident," "the undistributed middle," or "affirming the consequent"? Or is a living knowledge of the Scriptures sufficient to enable us both to avoid "fallacies" in our own speech and thought and to detect and refute error in the everyday language of others?

21. These questions would seem to be very important, affecting our own study of the Scriptures, the education of our children, and our apologetics (or defense of the faith). These are times that demand a Theonomic View of Logic.

The Perniciousness of Logic

22. We have, up until now, been setting forth the need for Christians to be logical and rational. Because God cannot deny or contradict Himself (2 Timothy 2:13), and never lies (Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2; I Samuel 15:29; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17), we also are to be non-contradictory (I Peter 1:13-16).

23. But from now on, "Logic" will be for us an undesirable object. For we will be pitting the Scripture, as the all-sufficient rule for our life and thought, against Aristotelian "Logic."

24. "Logic" means for most people today a secular science, a branch of philosophy. Although the Bible tells us to be "logical" or reasonable, it does not thereby require us to read Irving Copi's Introduction to Logic any more than it required first-century Christians to read Aristotle. If the Bible tells us to be "logical" it means thereby "sensible" and free from error. Henceforth, when "Logic" is capitalized, it refers to the secular science of "Logic" and its canons.

25. The relationship between Logic and the Law of God is, we believe, quite simple. Logic, as a secular science, is simply a secularization of the demands of the Law. What Benjamin Franklin did for practical morality, Aristotle did for the world of intellectual thought and reason: he secularized and re-formed the ethical norms of Scripture.

26. But while Mr. Franklin stole many of the laws verbatim (word-for-word), Aristotle removed the Law from its broader personal and practical context in Scripture. In Logic, one studies intellectual thought processes in the abstract, ignoring the broader social and interpersonal dimensions that are inherent in God's Law, and in man, upon whose heart is written the work of the Law.

55. Our thesis is not necessarily that Logic is somehow wrong or sinful; that employing Logic self-consciously ("Let's see, this would be my 'p-term' and this my 'q-term'") is completely contrary to Scripture.

56. But there is a danger that Logic is exalted above God's Word.


THE SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE

27. An absolutely crucial point in any discussion of the Christian life must be the Scriptures and their sufficiency as an ethical guide.

28. All that we need to know about how to walk in the truth and how to deal with the facts of God's creation is found in the Bible. Everything we need to know and do in order to have sound words and sound thought is in the Scriptures.

29. Other men have said very wise things, and while they aren't inSpired we may still advance our understanding of the world through them. But to the extent these men are wise, they have themselves learned from God's revelation. If they are unbelievers they have often stolen from the Bible!

30. Economist Clarence B. Carson, in an article on indebtedness (The Review of the News, Dec. 30, 1981), favorably quoted Benjamin Franklin, who made a very wise statement:

"The borrower is the slave of the lender."

32. This is indeed a very wise statement, as were many things Ben Franklin said.

33. This is indeed a very plagiarized statement, as were many things Ben Franklin said. It comes directly from Proverbs 22:7.

34. Now we must admit that to be a wise man one should be familiar with the proverbs of Benjamin Franklin (especially this one!). But if one is already familiar with the Proverbs of Solomon, which are inSpired of God, then he need not read Mr. Franklin. This is because everything we need to know about wisdom is in the Bible.

35. The Bible is completely sufficient to give us a "sound mind."

36. The Bible does more than give us a set of principles or rules of conduct. The Bible exhibits to us a way of thinking.

37. If we were to thoroughly learn the language of Scripture we would have our minds saturated with the thinking of the Bible. The Bible, it may be said, implicitly commands us to learn our language, and to learn it well, so that we can understand the Bible. In turn, as we learn more of the Bible, we learn the principles of a Godly use of language. Through this somewhat circular or "symbiotic" process by which we learn a Godly use of language, we learn to "think God's thoughts after Him."

38. Peter tells us that in the Scriptures God "hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and Godliness" (I Peter 1:3). Paul tells Timothy that through the Scriptures "the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Timothy 3:17). If you will listen to the Word of God, "then thou shalt understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yea, every good path" (Proverbs 2:1,9). Nothing has been left out, Mormons and others to the contrary notwithstanding.

Obedience and the Truth

39. In the Bible there is an interesting relationship between the Law of God, the standard of "righteousness," and truth, which is, after all, the source as well as the object (goal) of clear thinking.

40. The first thing we find the Scriptures telling us about obedience and the truth is that they are inseparable.

41. Some people think that there is a difference between "doctrine" and "law." "Law" is seen to reflect only outward behavior, while "truth" or "Doctrine" is something we "believe" in our hearts or minds alone. This distinction is not a Biblical one.

42. We obey the truth, and we believe the law, as well as the other way around. The opposite of wickedness (acing contrary to the Law) is truth (Proverbs 8:7). To choose the truth is to obey the commandments (Psalm 119:30). In fact, the Law is the truth (Ps. 119:151). To obey the Law is to speak the truth (Proverbs 12:7) because the truth is in the Law (Romans 2:20). Love rejoices in the truth, which is to say, not in lawlessness (I Corinthians 13:6). The truth is a standard of upright conduct (Galatians 2:14). Truth is not merely a noun, it is a verb (Ephesians 4:15). Men who do evil deeds are "destitute of the truth" (1 Timothy 6:3-5), because the truth is "after Godliness" (Titus 1:1). Any commandment of men which turns one from the commandment of God turns one from the truth (Titus 1:14). To convert a man who errs from the truth is to hide a multitude of sins (James 5:19-20). Truth is not mere words to be believed, but is righteous action (I John 3:18; cf. the "commandments" in vv. 19-24). One does not have the truth unless he obeys the Law. We are to do the truth, not just "believe" it (I John 1:6). Paul says we are to obey the truth (Romans 1:5; Romans 2:8; Romans 11:30-31; Galatians 3:1; Galatians 5:7; 2 Thessalonians 1:8), as does Peter (I Peter 1:22). We are to walk in the course charted by the Law (I John 1:7 + Proverbs 6:23) which is to say, we are to walk in the truth (2 John 4; 3 John 3,4; Psalm 26:3; Psalm 86:11).

43. A clear relationship exists between obedience to the Law and Truth (cf. also Psalm 119:43; Proverbs 14:22; Romans 1:18; Romans 2:20; Ephesians 5:9). If you want to be truthful you have to be obedient to the Law of God.

44. An excellent illustration of the relationship between obedience and sound thinking is found in our education of children.

45. To turn a child into a disciplined worker for Christ requires instruction in doctrine and instilling a subjection to wise and Godly authority. A worker is a competent man of self-control, a master of his passions and thoughts. Because he can submit to authority in others, he can direct himself and conquer his frustrations.

46. As parents, we are required to do more than have our children memorize the catechism. The parents must have their child in control, so that when a command is given the child obeys with all due respect for the parents' authority (I Timothy 3:4, NIV). When the parents give their child a command, the child must be deferent, submissive, and stable. An outspoken "NO!" in response to a command is evidence of a child who is bound for frustration and an absence of self-control. Even when the authority is unGodly and the command unfair, the child must have an ability to submit as unto persecution.

47. These two aspects -- Doctrine (learning, instruction) and Discipline (correction) -- are inseparable. The Greek Old Testament uses an important word, paideia, to describe both the process and the result of Biblical instruction and discipline. From this word we get our word "pedagogy," meaning the art of teaching. Both discipline and instruction are contained in this word. When referring to its result, it means "mental culture, learning, or education."

48. The ability to think is contingent not just upon a multitude of facts from textbooks and workbooks (which we might call "doctrine" or "instruction"), but upon maturity, sobriety, and obedience to God's Word. You can teach your 14 month-old son to say "Secular Humanism" or "epistemological self-consciousness," but if he has no fear of God, no respect for Godly authority, or no ability to defer to his elders or family, you will have accomplished very little.

49. Comparing the NASV and KJV translations of these verses will show the relationship between instruction and discipline: Psalm 50:17; Proverbs 6:23; 12:1; 13:1,18; 15:5,32-33; 19:20; 23:12-13; and in the New Testament, Ephesians 6:4 uses paideia as well as another word, nouthesia, which Jay Adams has shown in full to the brim with implications of obedience to the Word of God.

50. I Timothy 1:7 says that a sound mind is the gift of God; a result of discipline (NASV). A child (or an adult) who cannot submit to authority is a child that cannot control himself in the short term in order to achieve long-term goals. He will experience continued frustration rather than success through disciplined obedience. And if he cannot control himself neither can he think. Thinking is work. Thinking requires submission to God. The unfaithful man is an irrational man.

Obedience Brings Truth

51. The second thing the Scriptures tell us about obedience and truth is that obedience to the Law makes you think straight, that is, truthfully. Obedience to God's judgments brings truth (Psalm 119:43). Obedience brings understanding (Psalm 111:10; Psalm 119:104; Psalm 119:130; Psalm 119:98100). Obedience opens the eyes (Psalm 19:8) and the ears (Jeremiah 6:10). Obedience enables us to understand the sound doctrine that is the source of sound speech and a sound mind (John 17:7).

52. No mere textbook or home Bible study course is adequate to make one wise; a sound mind is the result of more than just intellectual study. Only by putting into practice the Law of God, by obeying, does one truly understand the Word. And the more you do what the Bible requires, the more you see more of what the Bible requires; and if you continue to obey you will be given still more insight. Paul, in Hebrews 5:12-14, speaks of "them that are of full age, even those who be reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." The word "exercise" is the Greek word from which we derive the English word "gymnasium." The bottom line is this: obey and you will be made wise. The "knowledge" of God is obedience to the truth (Jeremiah 22:16) and all the principles of truth we need to know are in the Scripture.

53. The Sound Word (i.e., the Scriptures, 2 Timothy 1:13) contains sound doctrine (I Timothy 1:10; 2 Timothy 4:3; Titus 1:9; Titus 2:1), which is the source of a sound faith (Titus 1:13; Titus 2:2), which is necessary for a sound mind (2 Timothy 1:7). The man with a sound mind in Christ is a man of sound thought (Titus 2:8) and wisdom (Proverbs 2:7; Proverbs 3:21; Proverbs 8:14).

54. Our conclusion thus far is that logical, sensible, sober, reasonable behavior and thinking is a result of obedience to God's Word. In fact, logical, sensible, sober, rational thinking is commanded by God's Word. Do you wish to avoid being irrational and illogical? Then do it! God commands you this day to become logical, clear-headed, and practical. The man who thinks he is God thinks that he can say anything and get away with it. But the Christian, because he is humble before God, watches his words, is balanced, perceptive, and far-sighted. Gradually, with diligent effort and study of God's word, he attains a measure of the stature of Christ (Ephesians 4:13).


What's at Stake?

205. It is not our contention in this paper that one must never ever read a Logic book, or that one could not gain wisdom in the writings of Ben Franklin. Go right ahead.

Nor are we contending that the use of Logic when dealing with an unbeliever has never nor never will lead to conversion.

Our concern is with "professionals" -- often seminary professors or teachers or writers of Christian school programs -- who maintain that one must be taught Logic. This paper will embarrass them with its reactionism and naivete.

206. The world wants the Christian to believe that it can't be good if it is not big, impersonal, complex, and macho. But the Biblical world-view is none of these. While Christianity is increasingly universal (Isaiah 11:9) it is no enemy of intimacy (Isaiah 1:9; Zech 4:10). This is because its approach to men is not institutional, but personal, one-to-one, face-to-face; the home is always basic to Christian growth (Acts 2:46; Romans 16:5; I Corinthians 16:19; etc.). It is easy to baffle, fuddle, and impress one's opponent with complexity, but simplicity communicates. The world seems to cultivate distance, aloofness, and the "macho" mystique; loving, sacrificial service of others is basic to Christ's ministry and to the Gospel (Philippians 2:1-8; Romans 12:10,15-16). This perspective on life pervades the Law (Matthew 22:39-40.)

207. The heart of this paper must not be reduced to a dispute over the technical terms of Logic; we are trying to speak of a way of looking at life.

Biblical Law and Its Substitutes

57. One could follow Ben Franklin's advice ("Hmmm. . . . Poor Richard's Almanac says that 'The borrower is the slave of the lender.' I'd better stay out of debt.") and do quite well, but he would have only an indirect appreciation of God's sufficient Law. One who self-consciously followed Proverbs 22:7 ("Hmmm. . . . God says 'The borrower is the slave of the lender.' I'd better stay out of debt") sees quite directly how comprehensive God's Law is.

58. Similarly, if one is trained to apply the Law of God to every area of life, he will know all of the good things that Benjamin Franklin and the Logicians can teach us, but will see his wisdom coming directly from the mouth of God, rather than Aristotle, Copi, or any other man.

59. Application of Logic rather than a self-conscious application of the Law of God, particularly by Pastors, tends to obstruct from view the usefulness and sufficiency of the Scriptures.

Ethical Confidence

60. Many Christians already fail to see how rich and enlightening the Bible is. They feel that it is very limited in scope and application, even though their car has a sticker on its bumper proclaiming, "The Bible has all the answers!" Many Christians have been told that they Bible has answers to every problems, and may even believe it in theory, but they aren't trained to use the Bible to answer all of these questions (Hebrews 5:12-14).

61. Further, many church members, upon reading the great tomes of theologians who employ so frequently the laws of Logic, or upon hearing those laws so frequently from the pulpit, get the impression that without a knowledge of the "p's" and "q's" or without an ability to correctly distribute their middle term, they cannot understand the Bible and avoid being misled. These sheep become intimidated by the "expert" in the pulpit and assume that theology is a spectator sport. The "clergy-laity" gap is widened; laymen tend to rely on the "expert," trained in Logic, to do their Bible study for them. Those who have studied secular philosophy are more respected than those who know and obey the Bible.

Intellectual High-Mindedness

62. Focus on "rules for argumentation" at the expense of God's principles for life and Godliness, has, in many churches, fostered an argumentative spirit. People tend to reduce the Christian life to the intellectual, and when the broader concerns of Biblical Law are neglected, interpersonal relations suffer.

A Question of Priorities

63. Finally, time spent studying Logic, especially in an effort to refute the anti-Christian attacks of high-level Humanist intellectuals, is time that could be more profitably spent studying and practicing God's Law.

64. If we were to view Logic as just about as unimportant in the Christian life as the increasingly-forgotten and uninSpired proverbs of Ben Franklin, we would find a renewed appreciation for the Law of God; that it governs every single facet of our lives (not just the abstract or intellectual). We would avoid error in our own speech and thought, detect it in others, and find some noticeable and favorable improvement in our apologetics, interpersonal relations, and Spiritual growth of our churches.


THE FOUNDATIONS OF BIBLICAL LOGIC

65. We do not have the time, nor are we as qualified as we would like to be, to write a Biblical replacement for modern secular Logic books. Such a book would undoubtedly resemble Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law in many ways. Our purpose here is more to defend the Bible against the claims of the philosophers who insist that Christians must learn and venerate the canons of Aristotle in order to bridge the ethical gaps in Scripture.

66. There are at least three things we as Christians are commanded to do, and the question before us is whether we need to study Logic to do them: (1) Avoid error in our own lives, (2) Detect error in others, and (3) Defend the faith against heresy.

Avoiding Error in Our Own Lives

67. It should go without saying that the Christian desires to avoid error. He does not wish to utter falsehoods. He does not even wish to think them. We wish to "think God's thoughts after Him." The question is not whether we wish to be truthful or not, but how we can best become trained to avoid error. From what we've already said, it should be clear that reasoned, consistent thought is a product of Godliness and stability of character. The more wisdom one acquires from the Scriptures the fewer "fallacies" in thought one commits. If one sees the Scriptures as the absolute and detailed blueprint for life's conduct, he uses it as an infallible ethical standard, rather than the shifting, contradictory standards of men and their systems.

Humility and "Material Fallacies"

68. Errors have many sources. One source is in our evaluation of the facts. As obedient Christians collect the facts for their task of dominion, they are guarded against erroneous interpretations of the facts.

69. To avoid such fallacies we can spend some time taking a Logic class at a nearby university. But this should be unnecessary if we have already studied and become practiced in Biblical Law. Christians in Godly humility should not be guilty of forming construction of God's facts that are not in accord with God's world.

70. Ecclesiastes 5:2 tells us, "Do not be hasty in word or impulsive in thought. . . . For God is in heaven and you are on earth; therefore let your words be few." Proverbs 19:2 repeats that thought: "It is no use to act before you think: to be hasty is to miss the mark." (Moffat). It is all too easy to believe that we have all the facts and then to make a pronouncement concerning the nature of the facts. But it is not humility, but pride and high-mindedness that speaks without studying (Proverbs 15:28), and such pride is forbidden by the Law of God (Job 38:2; 42:3; Romans 12:3; Psalm 131:1).

71. Don't think so highly of yourself that you blurt out things that you can't be very sure of; things that you can't guarantee. And don't be so high-minded as to think that you can guarantee all things. If we would just be a little humble we wouldn't "put our foot in our mouth." But the first step in humility is bowing before the Word of God, and in this the Logicians do not encourage us.

72. Making pronouncements before all the facts are in is to judge contrary to God's foreordaining plan. It is to use one's words as a guarantee or promise of things that will not come to pass. This kind of promise is wrong; as the Westminster Confession of Faith states (xxii.2), one ought "to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth (Exod. 20:7; 2 Chron 6:22; Jer. 4:2)." We should consider our everyday conversation as every bit as serious as a word spoken before God (Matthew 5:34-37; James 5:12), where "I don't know" is a completely appropriate response. Our evaluation or classification of the facts should be governed always by our understanding of the decree of God. The Logician can make guidelines, but the Christian knows that some things have already been infallibly assessed by God in His Word. We avoid errors by keeping in mind God's evaluation of people and their actions, as well as His judgments upon societies and their laws. Unwarranted pronouncements are ultimately a taking of the Lord's Name in vain (WCF xxii; WLC 113). The Bible obviously condemns what the Logicians call "material fallacies" such as "converse accident" (or "hasty generalizations"), but by following a law of Logic instead of turning to the Word, God's Law is secularized and credit given to the Logicians instead of to God.

Law in Personal Contexts

73. We have given far too little study to the practical application of God's Word in our lives, and this is why many are unaware of the sufficiency of Scripture. Logicians will claim a great deal for the laws of Logic, and many church-goers will fall for these claims. Not only does the Bible simply say not to be hasty, but it puts the command in many contexts, and approaches it from various angles. The Bible says not to make pronouncements without sufficient warrant in legal contexts (Proverbs 25:8) as well as interpersonal situations (Proverbs 18:13). We should know not to make a judgment on the basis of only one fact from the dozen or so times the Bible tells us that every matter must be established by at least two witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15, for example).

208. But the Bible does more than simply focus in on what we say. It also approaches the problem from other perspectives.

Making pronouncements before all the facts are in is to judge contrary to God's foreordaining plan. It is to use one's words as a guarantee or promise of things that will not come to pass. This kind of promise is wrong; as the Westminster Confession of Faith states (xxii.2), one ought "to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth (Exod. 20:7; 2 Chron 6:22; Jer. 4:2)." We should consider our everyday conversation as every bit as serious as a word spoken before God (Matthew 5:34-37; James 5:12), where "I don't know" is a completely appropriate response. Our evaluation or classification of the facts should be governed always by our understanding of the decree of God. The Logician can make guidelines, but the Christian knows that some things have already been infallibly assessed by God in His Word. We avoid errors by keeping in mind God's evaluation of people and their actions, as well as His judgments upon societies and their laws. Unwarranted pronouncements are ultimately a taking of the Lord's Name in vain (WCF xxii; WLC 113).

Another source of error is an unsanctified heart. Pride often causes us to speak out as though we were "experts," not because we have in fact studied long and carefully, but because we seek to impress our acquaintances. Hasty generalizations are often a product of a rash and foolish spirit, about which the Bible has much to say (Ps. 115:11; Prov. 21:5; Prov. 29:20; Eccl. 7:9). Non-Christian attitudes, emotions, and motivations often produce unwarranted constructions of the facts. False claims are often made out of anger toward another (Ecc. 7:9). False allegations against our neighbor or the products of his vocation are surely forbidden (Ex. 20: 16; Prov. 20:14.)

Truth and Humanistic Authority

75. One of the most crippling diseases in the "Christian Reconstruction" movement is the misconception that it is of primary importance that the intellectuals and men of high social status be evangelized and converted. Even worse is the belief that this must be done on their terms. Bus drivers, plumbers, and farmers receive little attention because they are not "influential."

When they are addressed the names and alleged ideas of these men are expected to impress these uneducated peons.

76. Failure to abide by God's Written Standard often produces this and other mis-directed appeals; appeals that are directed to some creaturely authority, often against some other person. The Christian is obviously forbidden to engage in such appeals.

77. When the Logician speaks of the fallacies of ad Baculum, ad Hominem, ad Misericordium, ad Populum, ad Verecundium, he is not complaining because the appeals are to men rather than to God and His Law, and thus ultimately he does not help the Christian. One Logician has even gone so far as to assert that the Bible contains some of these fallacies, and that to appeal to the Bible is itself a fallacy. This is the result of abstracting Biblical Law; of setting down principles to substitute for Scripture without giving due glory to God (cf. Romans 12:16).

Students of the Word

211. Language was given to man so that he might praise God and tell of His Glory. It is a tool. It can be used Biblically or it can be misused. With proper motivation, in accord with the standard of the Scriptures, language affords a boundary of classification and definition which serves as a framework of meaning which helps us communicate honestly and effectively. If God can use language to reveal Himself to us infallibly, then we also can communicate truthfully.

The term "bureaucratese" as been coined to describe a misuse of language which seeks to cover up and obscure the truth, rather than display it. The Christian should never engage in such double-talk, but should always seek to bring out the truth in every discussion (Eph. 4:25,29).

80. Modern Logic texts are, to their credit, recognizing the importance of language and the need for simple, non-deceptive communication. Communication requires an understanding that language can serve many different functions, and is seldom exclusively dry and intellectual. Our rich language reflects the rich variety of God's creation and our own creation in His Image. But this richness can be abused by wicked men to create ambiguity through equivocation or distortion. Logic books are increasingly aware of the hazards of language misuse. But the Bible has been saying this all along. Familiarization with the language of the Bible will familiarize one with reasonable, clear thinking, since the language of the Scriptures will reflect the thinking of God. The kind of thinking and reasoning evident in the Bible, as well as the use of language, is the best teacher of these principles, and a wise and loving person will avoid misusing our language, because his heart is not froward (cf. Prov. 8:8).

214. There is, in summary, nothing (of value) that we can learn from Logic that we cannot learn from the Scriptures. Every sound principle of Logic is a principle of Sound Doctrine; every problem that can be solved by Logic can be more effectively handled by the Scriptures. In the Bible we have "all things that pertain unto life and godliness" (II Peter 1:3). If we wish to avoid error we need to learn the Scriptures, for they are able to equip us for every good work (II Timothy 3:17). If we wish to avoid error we must become disciplined, obedient, faithful servants of Christ, with lives filled with the fruits of the Spirit. This obedience is a work of God's grace through His Word. You must not expect to learn a list of fallacies and syllogistic forms from a Logic text and then be able to live and teach an error-free life before men and God if prior to your Logic class you were a loud-mouthed, bombastic, rash, and envious fool! The obedience of which we speak requires diligence!

Dealing with Error in Others

82. If we are committed to detecting error in others, to avoid being misled by it, and, as we shall see below, testifying against it, then we need to compare the principles of Logic with the principles of God's Word to decide which will better equip the Christian in his apologetics and interpersonal relations. The scope of Biblical Law is broad and personal, while logic is abstract, impersonal, and intellectualistic.

The Pagan Roots of Logic

83. Logic tends to be narrow in its conception of life. We can see this more clearly if we learn a little about the Greek philosophers in general. The non-Christian Greek philosophers took a delight in the non-practical, gaining a kind of religious, mystical satisfaction from "geometric" and "deductive" truths and proofs. The non-Christian Encyclopedia of Philosophy (III:285), in discussing geometry, notes the Greeks' penchant for the abstract:

84. Geometry is thought to have had its origin in the practical work of surveying land. . . . (But) the Greeks prized (a) theoretical study of geometry for its own sake, not merely for its useful applications. . . . The Greeks took the decisive step of embracing deduction as their method of discovering new laws, and finding it a delightful method, they began to construct deductive proofs even of geometrical propositions that were not doubtful. . . . Pythagoras and, after him, Plato exalted the intellectual importance of geometry because in its abstract timeless purity it seemed to them to have a close kinship with metaphysics and religion.

85. Isn't that an amazing admission? And, of course, much of our public school curricula have as their foundation a belief in the abstract as somehow "religiously" important. Most geometry classes have no real practical value. Educators, following the Greeks, believe that it is important for the children to experience metaphysical union with the abstract, and so geometry is required of most students, separated from a dominion context. Logic suffers from this same origin and the same problems. Intellectual methods of thought are abstracted out of Biblical Law and formulated as the laws of Logic. We must be prepared, then, to find quite a difference between Biblical Law on the one hand, and its Greek secularization, Logic, on the other.

Language and Abstraction

86. The amateur Logician, as he surveys his Logic text, is confident that, armed with the laws of Logic, he can arbitrate all disputes and avoid all errors. He gets this impression from the Logic texts that offer air-tight, contrived, and simplistic examples of Logic in action. But when he gets out into the real world, and has to deal with real people, he finds the situation is more complex, and his Logic less applicable. (This is provided he has some degree of sanctification; without it he may well continue thoughtlessly applying his Logic, oblivious to its counter-productivity. What is the problem in such a case? One non-Christian writer, in an article for the Journal of the American Forensic Association entitled, "The Limits of Logic," has said,

It is important to note that the examples commonly used in argumentation texts to show the use of variant logics all share one critical common attribute -- the examples exhibit a minimum of linguistic slippage. Yet it is precisely under such stable language conditions where critics can readily prove the workability of almost any logical system. What the real test of logic's relevance must include are the sorts of equivocal and untractable arguments which typify so much public controversy; for it is usually in intricate marketplace dispute where severe problems in translation arise -- mainly because the nature of the inference leap is not made self-evident nor recognizable by the manifest language content.

88. In other words, before you can test the validity of any common argument that you might run up against, you have to translate it into one of the many different syllogistic forms described in the Logic text. This is one of the drawbacks of dealing with abstract laws, rather than Biblical Law. The Bible enlightens not just the abstract process of reasoning, but the personal situation and the heart of the apologete. Biblical Law can be applied directly to the heart of the erring party (Hebrews 4:12). Too often the heart and the personal situation (motivations, goals, etc. of the erring party) are ignored in Logic texts -- and who could expect otherwise, for "man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart" (I Samuel 16:7). Knowledge of the principles of Logic will avail little if your heart has no knowledge of God. You will not be able to judge righteous judgment (John 7:24), because a froward heart will destroy words in order to accomplish its evil purpose (Proverbs 2:12; 8:13, etc.). Consider this classic textbook example of Logic in action:

If Shakespeare wrote Paradise Lost, he would be a great author.
Shakespeare was a great author.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, Shakespeare wrote Paradise Lost.

89. This is most obviously false, but it is also kind of ridiculous, isn't it? It certainly seems to point out "the limits of Logic."

90. This example is terribly unlifelike. I can't imagine that anyone could be so confused about literature as to argue this innocently. It's too contrived. It would have to be a trick.

91. I smell deception. This is the first cousin to deceptive questions like, "Who wrote Ravel's Bolero?"

92. But let us assume that someone is actually trying to prove that Paradise Lost was written by Shakespeare, and that they were using this argument to do so. The Logician says he commits the fallacy of "affirming the consequent." But that's too air-tight. If we may be allowed to be as unlifelike as the Logic text, we may poke a little fun by hypothesizing the following:

93. Maybe this is a new literary theory about the use of pen-names by great authors; with just a little reformulation, this could be perfectly Logical:

If "Shakespeare" (a pseudonym) wrote Paradise Lost, he would be a great author (namely, John Milton).
"Shakespeare" was that great author.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, "Shakespeare" wrote Paradise Lost.

94. This argument is unlike the first formulation, in that it is perfectly Logical, but like the first, in that it is perfectly ridiculous.

95. Another (preposterous) possibility: Somebody is on "What's My Line." Mr X. has already signed in, and our student is trying to piece together the clues. He thinks to himself, "If Mr. X. wrote Paradise Lost, he would be that great author, John Milton." While he ponders this certain truth, Mr. X.'s secret is discovered by another panelist; he is in fact that great author, John Milton. Our student immediately and correctly infers that Mr. X. is the author of Paradise Lost. All of this is perfectly Logical and perfectly useless. It is sheer abstraction to discuss this classic example simply in terms of "affirming the consequent" or any other Logical form.

Language with Heart

96. Let us return to our initial reaction to this scenario. Biblically we can say that the problem with the argument (trying our darndest to pretend that it could really happen in "the real world") is not that it violates a Logical form. The problem is evident from the outset: It's packed with deception. What could it mean to say something like, "If Shakespeare wrote Milton's Paradise Lost he would be a great author" Why the hypothesis about Shakespeare Would our conclusion about Shakespeare's greatness be altered by a revelation one way or the other concerning Paradise Lost Why is Shakespeare's name being associated with Milton's work This is already implicitly spreading falsehood about one's neighbor. Whoever says such a thing is intending to deceive, not inform.

97. While the Logician will say that this example is guilty of affirming the consequent, the Theonomist will say that its proponent is trying to deceive and to attack Milton's (or Shakespeare's) good name.

98. As far as avoiding this error in our lives, the Theonomist would not make this error because he avoids being deceptive. His desire is to shepherd, not to deceive. He does not make literary judgments just to impress others when he doesn't know the facts. In real life, if you are of a pure heart, judging according to the Law of God, you will not "affirm the consequent," "deny the antecedent," or leave your middle undistributed.

99. As far as detecting error in the statements of others, to avoid being misled, the sanctified Theonomist is trained to detect a froward heart, and avoids his error. God does not judge by appearances only, but knows the heart (I Samuel 16:7). As the Spirit perfects the Image of God in us (Psalm 82:6) we are able to avoid judging on the simplistic level of logical form. We can apply the Word directly to the heart of the gainsayer (John 7:24; 2 Corinthians 10:7,4-5).


APOLOGETICS WITHOUT ARISTOTLE

100. It should be clear that not all men are committed to the Scriptures as an absolute, infallible standard of authority. They seek to deny the faith rather than uphold it.

101. In our day, many Christians take a lively interest in "dialoging" (if I may resurrect that term) with secular philosophers and intellectuals. The purported purpose of such interaction is an apologetic one; they claim to be involved in defending the faith in the world of ideas. Whether the field is economics, politics, philosophy, or modern theology, these Christians regularly don Saul's armor by employing secular thought patterns, terms, and issues to fight secular thought patterns, terms, and issues. The idea of this paper, that Logic is not a part of the armor of God, will surely strike these men as unsophisticated, naive, or obscurantist. How can we effectively deal with unbelieving intellectuals and those how are influenced by them without Aristotle's laws of Logic under our belt?

102. There are at least two ways unbelievers can deny the faith They may do this by employing the principles of Logic, or they may self-consciously employ Logical fallacies in an attempt to deceive the Christian. But with a knowledge of Scripture we may detect their errors, avoid them ourselves, and witness against them. There is no man who is immune from the two-edged sword of the Spirit, which discerns his inner motivations. There is no argument or problem which cannot be dealt with in terms of Scripture. Every argument that does not contain an obvious misstatement of fact (an error that can be detected best by a man with a pure heart, but also by Logicians independent of their Logical abilities) will be at odds with Scripture in some way. Its premises may directly contradict Scripture; its conclusion may contradict Scripture (in which case the form of the argument may be irrelevant); it may be a part of a larger and more obviously anti-Biblical argument, and thus evidence of evil motives; or it may be just plain stupid.

103. Let us consider this last case: the apprentice apologist encounters an the argument is, in terms of sanctified common sense, moronic. It doesn't take a course in Logic to detect these questions.

Some Arguments Should Not Be Answered

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Proverbs 26:4

104. Titus 3:9 literally says to "avoid moronic questions."

105. The Theonomist, concerned as he is with the Word of God as it governs the lives of men, is always alert to an unsubmissive heart as evidenced by lawless behavior or thought.

Sometimes arguments against the faith are better ignored than answered, even if a technically correct answer can be given. Some people will not be persuaded no matter how correct the answer is. They should be ignored.

106. Instead of nit-picking or engaging in unprofitable debates over words or mere intellectual forms prescribed by a Logic text, the Theonomist is always pushing his neighbor towards Godliness according to God's Word. He sees Logic as unnecessary, because it diverts one's attention from the Word of God to the rules of a man-made game. He always moves the conversation away from trivia and focuses in on a man's relationship to the Law of God.

107. But what should be our response to the moronic question? Those Christians who support Logic as a necessary supplement to Scripture have a tendency to major on the intellectual and minor on the Ethics of Scripture (i.e., personal Godliness in life and society). This writer is very sensitive to this fact, because an educational background dominated by high-pressure academic debate has fostered a debating spirit in him, and he is even today quick to refute and eager to give his rebuttal in even the most moronic of matters. Those who follow in the steps of the Reformers seem in general to be plagued by this impulse to polemic and disputation. This is strange, since perhaps the greatest Reformer, John Calvin, has written so eloquently against a debater mentality and an intellectualistic indifference to personal Godliness and Theonomic ethics. Scripture makes a very plain and pointed admonition to avoid any and every conversation or argument that is not centered on the Word and capable of producing the fruit of Godliness in the lives of the disputants. It is simply not necessary to refute some teachings, even if they are false. Much less should we argue with these errorists about the form of their argument. We are simply instructed to ignore them, and move on to more profitable ventures. Let us hear Calvin's comments on these important passages of Scripture.

Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than Godly edifying which is in faith. Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: from which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling. (I Timothy 1:4-6)

109. From this passage Calvin teaches us a principle that few Reconstructionists seem to accept: Not all things which are false are worthy of our refutation; not all things that are merely true are worthy of our attention;

110. Many Christian scholars are convinced of the need to learn many trifling things in order to get on the good side of the Humanists; to earn their "respect." Calvin says if it doesn't produce ethical change and increase our faithfulness, it isn't worth talking about.

111. Many Christian scholars feel the need to refute Humanistic assertions or arguments which, even if refuted, have little to do with Godliness. It may display our ability to engage in "cultural critique," but has little to do with the knowledge of God (cf. Jeremiah 22:16):

"In my view he means by fables not so much contrived falsehoods but rather trifles and foolish tales that have nothing solid in them. A thing which is not false may yet be fabulous. Paul includes disputes about genealogies among fables, not because everything that can be said about them is fictitious, but because it is foolish and unprofitable. This is in fact . . . something that, even among men of letters, has rightly been always held in derision by people of good sense. For it was impossible not to regard as ridiculous curiosity that which neglected useful knowledge in order to spend a lifetime examining the family tree of Achilles or Ajax and exhausted its ingenuity in reckoning up the sons of Priam. If this is intolerable in the learning of the schoolroom, where there is a place for pleasant diversions, how much more so in our knowledge of God.

"He judges doctrine by its fruit. All that is unedifying is to be rejected, even if there is nothing else wrong with it, and all that serves only to stir up controversy should be doubly condemned. Such are all these subtle questions on which self-seeking men exercise their abilities. We should remember that this is the rule by which all doctrines are to be tried: those which tend to edification may be approved, but those that prove themselves material for fruitless controversies are to be rejected as unworthy of the Church of God. If this test had been applied over several centuries, then, although religion might have been corrupted by many errors, at least there would have been less of that devilish art of disputation which goes by the name of scholastic theology. For that theology is nothing but contentions and idle speculations with nothing of value in them. The more learned in them a man is, the more wretched he should be thought to be. I am aware of the plausible arguments with which it is defended, but they will never succeed in proving false what Paul says here by way of condemnation of all this sort of thing. Subtleties of this kind build up men in pride and vanity but not in God. So today, when we define true theology, it is quite clear that it is we who desire to restore something which has been wretchedly mangled and disfigured by those triflers who are puffed up by the empty title of theologian, but offer nothing but emasculated and meaningless trifles."

113. Calvin forces us to examine our hearts to see if we can justify spending long hours learning the intellectual games and questions of secular philosophy. Arguing with fools over moronic questions and issues, and over the rules of the intellectual game, actually corrupts the Church by entangling her in their foolishness (Proverbs 26:4). The Law of God forces issues of ethical Godliness into our hearts, and questions of endless intellectual dispute far from us.

But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women. On the other hand, discipline yourself for the purpose of Godliness (I Timothy 4:7).

If anyone is teaching otherwise, and will not give his mind to wholesome precepts of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to Godliness, I call him a pompous ignoramus. He is morbidly keen on verbal questions and quibbles, which give rise to jealousy, quarreling, slander, base suspicions, and endless wrangles; all typical of men who have let their reasoning powers become atrophied and have lost grip of the truth, who think of piety in terms of profit; from such withdraw thyself (I Timothy 6:3-5)

"It is possible not to profess any unGodly or manifest error and yet to corrupt the doctrine of Godliness by silly boastful babbling. For when there is no progress or edification from any teaching, it has already departed from the institution of Christ. But although Paul is not speaking of the avowed originators of unGodly doctrines, but rather about empty and irreligious teachers, who out of self-seeking or avarice deform the simple and genuine doctrine of Godliness, yet we see how sharply and vehemently he attacks them. And it is no wonder; for it is almost impossible to overstate the amount of harm done by hypocritical preaching, whose only aim is ostentation and vain display. And what is this but to reject the sound words of Christ? They are called sound because their effect is to confer upon us, or because they are fitted to promote, soundness.

"Doctrine which is according to godliness means the same. For it will be consistent with Godliness only if it establishes us in the fear and worship of God, if it builds up our faith, if it trains us in patience and humility and all the duties of love. Thus anyone who does not try to teach profitably, does not teach rightly; whatever display it may make, teaching is not sound unless it tends to the profit of its hearers. Paul charges these profitless teachers first with foolish and empty pride. Secondly, since the best punishment for self-seekers is to condemn all the things they delight in as ignorance, he says that they know nothing, though they are puffed up with many subtle arguments. They have nothing solid but only empty wind. At the same time he warns all Godly men not to let themselves by carried away by that kind of vain display but to remain rather steadfast in the simplicity of the Gospel.

"Paul has good reason to mention together questionings and disputes of words, for by the first term he does not mean the kind of question that either springs from a moderate and sober desire to learn, or contributes to a clear explanation of useful points, but rather the kind of question that today is dealt with in the schools of the Sorbonne, to make a display of intellectual ability. There one question leads to another, for there is no end to them, when everybody indulges his vanity in seeking to know more than he ought. . . . [These] contentious disputes [are] concerned with words rather than with anything real, which are, as is commonly said, without substance or foundation. If anyone investigates carefully the kind of questions that are of burning concern to sophists, he will find that they do not arise from anything real, but are concocted out of nothing. In short, Paul's purpose was to condemn all questions which would involve us in sharp disputes over matters of no consequence.

"He adds that by such things men are corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth. It is quite clear that here he is censuring the sophists who have no concern for edification and turn God's Word into trivialities and a source of ingenious discussions. From this passage we should learn to detest sophistry as a thing inconceivably harmful to the Church of God. He does not only forbid Timothy from imitating them, but tells him to avoid them as harmful pests. Although they do not openly oppose the Gospel, but make a profession of it, yet their company is infectious. Besides if the crowd sees us to be familiar with these men, there is a danger that they will use our friendship to insinuate themselves into its favor. We should therefore take great pains to make everyone understand that we are quite different from them, and have nothing at all in common with them."

115. We must separate ourselves from those theologians who intellectualize faithfulness.

116. Calvin's mention of training "in patience and humility and all the duties of love" is the heart of a Theonomic apologetic (Romans 13:8-10). The Law is God's expression of the practical manifestations of Love and Lordship, which we call faithfulness. Theonomic faithfulness is the essence of the Gospel, not an intellectual wrangling over words; obedience, not disputation, is Godliness.

Have nothing to do with a factious person after a first and second warning (Titus 3:10).

"A Man that is heretical avoid. He had good reason to add this, for there will be no end of quarrels and altercations, if we wish to conquer obstinate men in argument, for they will never lack words, and they will derive fresh courage from their wickedness so that they will never grow weary of fighting. Thus, having laid down for Titus what form of doctrine he ought to teach, he now tells him not to waste time in debating with heretics. . . . This is the cunning of Satan, that by the wicked talkativeness of such men he entangles good and faithful pastors so as to distract them from their concern with teaching. Thus we should beware not to let ourselves become involved in quarrelsome arguments, because then we shall never be free to devote our labor to the Lord's flock, and argumentative people will never cease to trouble us.

"In telling him to avoid such people, it is as if he had said that he must not spend much effort in satisfying them, for there is nothing better than denying to them the chance to fight they desire. This warning is highly necessary, for even those who would be glad to take no part in verbal battles are sometimes drawn into controversy, because they think that it would be shameful cowardice to yield. But Paul does not wish Christ's servants to be too much or too long employed in disputing with heretics."

118. This author has long been under the impression that every argument had to be answered, and had to be answered according the rhetorical and argumentative standards of Aristotle and the Humanists. I probably deluded myself into thinking it was in the interest of the purity of the Church, but pride was undoubtedly not absent. It is not shameful cowardice to recognize a contentious spirit, declare God's Word against disputatious pride, and let the Spirit work on his heart with the Law of God you have presented.

Remind them about these things, solemnly calling on them in the Presence of God not to argue about words, since that is of no use and tears down those who listen. Do your utmost to let God see that you at least are a sound workman, with no need to be ashamed of the way you handle the Word of Truth. Avoid all that profane jargon, for it leads people still further into unGodliness (2 Timothy 2:14-16).

120. Calvin rightly notes that this passage, while it underscores the importance of sound teaching, places greatest emphasis upon the goal of teaching, which is Godly obedience. Calvin contrasts the workman, who handles the Word of God, with the man who uses the pulpit to peddle philosophical jargon:

"Let us notice first that teaching is rightly condemned on the sole ground that it does no good. God's purpose is not to pander to our inquisitiveness, but to give us profitable instruction. Away with all speculations that produce no edification! I wish that this could be taken to heart by those who are always looking for wordy battles, searching out a quarrel in every question and quibbling over single words or syllables. But they are carried away by ambition, which, as I know by experience with some of them, is sometimes an almost fatal disease.

"The source of all doctrinal disputes is that clever men wish to show off their abilities before the world, and Paul here lays down the best and most fitting remedy for this by telling Timothy to keep his eyes fixed on God. It is as if he had said, 'Some men seek popular applause, but let it be your aim to approve yourself and your ministry to God.'

"Erasmus translates, 'that needeth not to blush or to be ashamed,' and I have no fault to find. But I prefer to take it actively, 'that doth not blush or is not ashamed,' both because that is the more customary Greek usage, and because it seems to fit the present passage better. There is an implied contrast; those who disturb the Church with their contentions are so fierce against each other because they are ashamed to admit that there is anything they do not know. Paul on the other hand calls them back to God's judgment and tells them first not to be lazy disputers but workmen. By the word he indirectly rebukes the foolishness of those who wrack themselves in doing nothing. Let us therefore be workmen who build up the Church, and let us set about God's work in such a way that some fruit may appear; then there will be no cause to be ashamed. For even if we cannot compete with talkative braggarts in disputing, it will be sufficient if we excel them in our zeal for edification, our industry and courage, the efficacy of our teaching. In short, he charges Timothy to work with diligence that he may not be ashamed before God; whereas the only kind of shame ambitious men dread is to lose their reputation for acuteness or abstruse knowledge."

122. It is not that Calvin was weak and unprepared to argue Logic and sophism with "talkative braggarts." Calvin undoubtedly could have out-talked the best of them, reducing them to whimpering puppies in the sight of men. But in so doing he may well have produced nothing but resentment, hardness of heart, and no greater obedience to God's Law, and in fact increased lawlessness by sinking to their level.

123. I have been admonished by Calvin's comments. My greatest personal fear in evangelism has been that of being out-talked by contentious Humanists. I felt I had to respond to every single point they made, and argue until sunrise if need be to completely refute them. I have often wasted hours on what were clearly moronic questions.

124. An obedience-centered apologetic relies on the Spirit to change the heart. More than one Reconstructionist has expressed concern that if we simply rely on the Law and neglect to counter Humanistic arguments with Logic, we will be seen as simplistic and naive, and the Humanist will lose respect for us. The simple statement that the Humanist's proposal (for example) to liberalize abortion laws is plainly unethical and immoral, will probably cause him to walk away muttering something about fundamentalists. But if your presentation of the Law of God was done in meekness and fear, rather than a spirit of intellectual machismo, the Humanist might come back -- if he is moved by the Spirit.

125. It took Calvin's insightful comments to convince me that I am not God. I can't make him come back. I can't save him. Even if I learn all of Aristotle's laws of Logic and point such trivial fallacies in his pro-abortion argument out to him, I still won't be God. It is the Spirit Who changes men, and He witnesses to the Word of God (Isaiah 55:10-11).

126. The notion of the workman also brings to mind the importance of a Theonomic (Law-Centered) apologetic, because our attention is focused on practical obedience. If we are trying to build up the Church into obedience, and ourselves as well, we simply won't have time for the scholastic disputes of the world's academes. Separation from disputatious persons may be a passive result of obedience as much as an active goal. Consider the impact widespread Covenantal obedience would have on our apologetics: If a good percent of all Americans practiced Theonomic ethics, and were thus continually engaged in works of mercy, love, and faith (Matthew 23:23) with the poor, widows, the elderly, and the fatherless being personally cared for in Christ's Name (Jeremiah 22:16), the great leisure-class and the influential seminary/university caste would be miniscule and ridiculous in comparison. When all of society is freely functioning, prospering, and so obviously ordered and preserved by Christian ethics and Biblical faithfulness, the man who steps up and announces he has "a Logical argument against the Virgin Birth" is met with unanswerable questions: "What? An argument against social order? An argument against property, peace, and prosperity? An argument against civilization? An argument against reality? The infidel would quickly and uncoercively be carted off to a room with pillows on the wall, his insanity would be so blatant. Better still, what would be obvious would be that this man is unproductive, rebellious, and disobedient, and for obvious reasons we just put our hand back to the plow and ignore him; not just because we are to ignore fools and avoid them, but because God has commanded us to be servant-workmen.

127. Someday, when Christians are united in obedience to God and His Law, there will be this kind of social apologetic; men will believe that Christ is sent of the Father (John 17:21). In the meantime, Godliness is still the best apologetic. When Peter commands us to be ready to give an answer to any who would ask a reason of the hope that is in us (I Peter 3:15), he also commands us to have obedient lives, in spite of the prevailing culture (v. 16). Likewise Titus is told that an obedient life will pre-empt foolish questions (Titus 2:8).

128. But when Christians are intellectually puffed up and neglect their duties as covenant workmen, there is an inadequate apologetic. A "victory" for Christian Reconstruction on paper or in an auditorium alone is no victory at all.

129. In an age dominated by profane philosophy, simplicity is seldom a vice. Academic bombast is today the plague of the Reconstructionists, who are far too eager to please the intellectuals:

130. This is not just a fault of the Pastors and leaders of the movement. Followers have picked up the tendency to boast in the jargon of the Humanists and Logicians. Talk about personal holiness and the power of the Spirit is seldom heard, much less seen. Critique of "(name polysyllabic philosophical/theological trend)" is torrential. The more big philosophical and Logical terms one can employ the surer his place in Reconstructionist circles is felt to be.

O Timothy, keep the securities of the faith intact; avoid the profane jargon and contradictions of what is falsely called "knowledge." Certain individuals have failed in the faith by professing that (I Timothy 6:20).

"The purpose of this admonition is that he should be devoted to solid teaching, and this can happen only if he turns away from all ostentation, for where a desire to please predominates, there is no longer any concern for edification. he is censuring the high-sounding talk and the bombastic verbosity of those who are not content with the simplicity of the Gospel, but turn it into profane philosophy. Thus the vain babblings do not consist of specific single words, but of that swollen bombastic talk which is continually and disgustingly pouring forth from ambitious men who seek applause for themselves more than progress for the Church. Even though they taught nothing contrary to godliness, because their whole teaching is nothing but big bombastic words, since it is completely inconsistent with the majesty of Scripture, with the power of the Spirit, with the earnestness of the prophets and the sincerity of the Apostles, it is therefore an absolute profanation of genuine theology. What, I ask, do they teach about faith or repentance, or calling on God, or human incapacity, the help of the Holy Spirit or the free remission of sins, or about the work of Christ, that can have any value in building up men solidly in Godliness? Certainly anyone endowed with moderate intelligence and impartiality will agree that all the high-sounding terms of (their) theology and all the authoritative definitions of doctrine that make such a noise in their schools are nothing but profane kenophoniai -- and no better term for describing them can be found. It is most just that those who turn aside from the purity of Scripture should be punished for their arrogance by ending in profanation. The teachers of the Church cannot therefore be too careful in avoiding corruptions of that kind and in defending young men from them.

"By oppositions to true knowledge the Apostle means exhibitions of pomp which court and win the world's applause. For ambition is always contentious and leads to disputes, so that those who wish to show off are always ready to draw the sword on any subject. The only thing which on Paul's authority truly deserves to be called knowledge is that which instructs us in the confidence and fear of God, that is, in Godliness."

132. It is always more tempting to appear knowledgeable and savvy in secular argumentation thus gaining the temporary approval of Humanism's intellectual elite than it is to present the bold but "simple" claims of Christ the King. Giving in to this temptation will come back to haunt us, as Calvin explains:

"God's way of punishing the arrogance of those who for the sake of winning a reputation, corrupt and deform the doctrine of Godliness, is to allow them to lose the soundness of their understanding, so that they become involved in many absurd errors."

134. This author has seen it happen.

The Word is trustworthy. And concerning these things I desire you to be constantly strongly assertive, in order that those who have believed God may be taking careful thought to busy themselves constantly in good works. These things are good and profitable to men. But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, strifes, and wranglings about the law, for they are futile and purposeless. Have nothing to do with a factious man after a first and second warning (Titus 3:9-10).

"He calls them foolish not because at first sight they seem to be so -- often they deceive us by an empty show of wisdom -- but because they contribute nothing to Godliness.

"He rightly adds strifes, because in questionings the ruling motive is ambition, and the inevitable result is that they at once break out into contention and quarrels, for everyone wishes to be the conqueror. This is accompanied by a rashness in affirming things which are uncertain, and this of necessity provokes conflicts."

136. Calvin has correctly diagnosed a problem that is tormenting many churches in Reconstructionist circles. Instead of seeing apologetics as a testimony to a persecuting world (I Peter 3:15-16), and instead of seeing interpersonal counseling as an opportunity to foster Godliness and obedience, ambition drives many to "conquer" their "opposition" and to display their own intellectual powers. Many apologists, instead of focusing attention on the Word of God and the doctrines of Godliness, use Logic, philosophy, and Humanistic principles of argumentation as a sword, and in replacing the Sword of the Spirit, they reduce apologetics to intellectual war-games. I have been literally told that Logic is an intellectual weapon used "to silence the errant party" as though through intimidation. "If we are able to destroy our opponent with irrefutable arguments and the laws of Logic he will cower before us. He'll think twice before bringing such flimsy arguments before us!"

137. Intellectual intimidation is neither valuable nor permitted (Romans 12:16). Whereas Scripture in its broader perspective treats people as people who need to obey the Word of God, Logicians neglect this Biblical perspective, and tend to treat people as arguments.

138. Our standard is to be the Scriptures, not profane philosophy (2 Timothy 2:16; I Corinthians 2:1; 3:18-19). We must not allow secular philosophers to separate obedience from our apologetics.

"In teaching we are always to have regard to usefulness so that all that is not conducive to Godliness may be excluded. There is no doubt that the sophists in their ranting about things of no worth boasted of them as highly worthy and useful to know, but Paul does not admit any usefulness except in building up faith and a holy life."

Logic vs. Law in Apologetics

140. A noted Reconstructionist, in asserting that a Christian apologist must take a course in Logic, attempted to demonstrate that one could not confute the gainsayers without a knowledge of Logic. As a former seminary professor, he undoubtedly knew how important Logic was if one was to successfully compete with the schoolmen.

141. He presented to me an argument which he said could not be dealt with in a Biblical way without the use of Logic. Here is his argument:

We are justified by works (James 2:24).
We are not justified by works (Romans 3-4).
We are justified by works or Jesus married Mary Magdalene ("where the use of the word 'or' demands that at least one side of the disjunct be true").
-----------------------------------------
Therefore Jesus married Mary Magdalene.

143. Now suppose this were a Humanist professor, and you knew no Logic. Could you deal effectively with his assertion that he had proved with deductive certainty that Jesus married Mary Magdalene?

144. We should mention is that "to deal effectively" with the professor means "to deal Biblically," not "to exercise your omnipotence and actually convert him through a display of your intellectual prowess."

145. As we have seen, not all arguments should be answered; rather than waste our time, we should "avoid moronic questions." The applicability of this principle to the professor's problem did not register with the professor himself. A Christian with a measure of sanctified sense combined perhaps with a personal knowledge of the person issuing such an argument may be persuaded to drop this dispute like a hot potato. Some unbelievers (and far too many Christians) would love to get you locked into hours of intricate but unproductive disputation over the laws of Logic or jargon of modern philosophy. Ignoring such an argument is far wiser than attempting to refute his Logic or straighten out his understanding of modern philosophy. Answering his Logic with more Logic would be less productive (Proverbs 26:4).

146. But still, because the work of the Law is written on his heart, he knows when his arguments are foolish violations of that Law. We should point out to him that he knows better than to be so stupid as he is (Proverbs 26:5). There are at least two ways to do this.

147. In most every theological dispute, the argument can be brought directly to the bar of Scripture for a decision. It may well be that the argument in question contains for its premises a statement directly contradicted by Scripture, and if so, this should be the deciding factor. The professor's argument turned on a misinterpretation of Scripture which attempted to force the Word to contradict Himself.

148. If the average Christian is unable to discern the unScriptural premises the principle to avoid moronic questions again directs us. We are to spend our time only with those questions that produce Godliness.

149. But we need not throw the professor out with the argument. It is necessary to probe beyond this "Mary Magdalene" jibberish, and if we do, we might pose a few questions of our own. What is the significance of this teaching? Why is this argument important to you? It may well be that the professor (that is, the hypothetical role played by the Reconstructionist professor) has devised this argument concerning Mary and Jesus in an effort to justify his living in sin with another woman. Once this fact is known the argument itself (Logical or not) becomes quite irrelevant, and the spotlight of Scripture should be focused on his lawless behavior and the lusts of his heart.

150. It may well be that we could have refuted the professor's argument with a simple twist of the Logical wrist, distributing his middle or affirming his antecedent. He would have been "silenced." But he may have had (as we speculated) a much larger problem begging to be confronted. Had we become involved in his Logical smokescreen we might have intimidated him into retreat, but we would still be living in sin, and would only go home to formulate some other, more clever justification for his sin. At some point he might become more clever than we, and an opportunity to increase Godliness will have been lost.

151. Another illustration of intellectual apologetics versus Law-centered apologetics, for those who might feel that seminary professors are unrealistic examples, might come from a popular Logic text. In this example, the errant Peter is being shepherded by Paul:

Peter argues, "All weapons ought to be abolished. All propaganda ought to be abolished too. You can seen that propaganda is a weapon."

153. The text is trying to be fairly life-like, although I've never heard anyone trying to argue this point, much less in this manner. How would you counsel Peter? Here is how the Logician admonishes his brother:

"Paul takes out a sheet of paper and works out the argument, as follows:

S = propaganda
P = weapons
M = things that ought to be abolished. Thus,
All P is M
All S is M
-----------------------------------
so, All S is P

Paul says, "Your argument, Peter, is simply another example of the undistributed middle as found and diagrammed on p. 142."

155. This situation was not handled theonomically, that is, according to God's Law. This is not the way the Bible teaches us to avoid error or counsel others.

156. First, Peter has an important point about propaganda that should not be ignored (Philippians 4:8 + Deuteronomy 27:18b). Spreading falsehood and manipulating others is an obvious evil, as we have tried to affirm in this paper. Something should be done about it, and Peter should be encouraged in his sensitivity to this social problem.

157. Second, Peter's use of words is imprecise, and our Word-based faith tells us to be very careful with our words (Matthew 12:36-37; James 5:12). Peter's use of the word "weapon" is somewhat sloppy.

158. Third, this may be the cause of his making statements that could contradict Scripture. 2 Corinthians 10:4-6 + Ephesians 6:11-17 would suggest that not all "weapons" should be abolished.

159. Or, finally, Peter's argument could be rooted in an ignorance of Biblical Law as it pertains to the State. Peter's problem may be that he is a statist, i.e., someone who advocates more power for the civil magistrate that it is authorized to have by the Law of God. These kind of gut reactions are not refuted by Logic. Logic might silence their outward manifestations, in which case Peter would go back and formulate another argument for State power, but the problem still remains. Peter does not understand that God has given in His Word, both the Old and New Testaments, a complete blueprint for a Godly, just, and prosperous society, and that this blueprint does not call for an expansion of the powers of the State to confiscate arms held by Families not to license to freedom to speak (Acts 5:28-19; but see Deuteronomy 19:18-19). If we wish to avoid Peter's error then we should learn the Law of the Lord. If we wish to increase Godliness in Peter's life, as well as assist him in avoiding similar errors in the future, we should teach him, not Logic, but the Law-Word of God.

Conclusions

1. The Bible is a totally sufficient ethical guide for the Christian. The unbeliever should accept it as well.

2. The teachings of that secular science known as Logic are not needed by the Christian. All good teachings of Logic are taught by the Bible in a richer and more personal way. Those good teachings of the Bible that are taught by Logic are abstracted and all too quickly become a hindrance to the Christian counselor.

3. Pastors who were trained in seminaries or universities need to discard their education to the extent that it teaches that the Bible is not enough to live and defend the faith. Unless the Pastors conditioned in these Humanistic institutions are "deprogrammed" they will continue to appeal to the intellectuals of Humanism, even in their sermons, and the force of God's Law will be diluted.

4. Christian parents, in their obedience to Deuteronomy 6:6-9, need not worry about missing the public school curriculum if they faithfully teach the Word of God.

164. A Theonomic apologetic, one rooted in God's Law, recognizes the importance of Ethics in apologetics. Armed with God's Word, we avoid the "wisdom of the world" and its ivory-tower rationalizations of lawlessness; we go to the root issue of obedience to the Law-Word of God.

For the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

198. The word "Theonomy" means "God's Law." The current "Christian Reconstruction" movement seeks to bring every area of life under the dominion of Christ as He speaks in the Scriptures. It is not a piecemeal effort, but a quest for a unified "world-and-life view" where all things -- the State, the economy, education, the Family -- operate in terms of God's Law.



The Christmas Conspiracy

Virtue

Vine & Fig Tree

Paradigm Shift

Theocracy


Vine & Fig Tree
12314 Palm Dr. #107
Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240
[e-mail to V&FT]
[V&FT Home Page]