When someone who has a very high regard for the interpretations of systematic logic encounters someone who is cautious about accepting this idea, often he will apply to the cautious person the term "Logophobia." This means that he is seen as having a "fear of logic." On the other hand when one who holds that Bible statements are the only authoritative source of information about spiritual things encounters one who advocates logic as an authority, he may well apply to him the term "Logomania," by which he means this person has an obsession with logic. The question in dispute is not whether logic can be useful in trying to understand the Bible. It can be. The question is not whether "valid reasoning" must be applied to the scriptures. It must be. The question in dispute is, "How much authority does logic have?" and "Are its conclusions absolutely reliable?"

Actually this question is specifically addressed in the New Testament and the divine answer stated clearly. But before we look at that passage let's consider some interesting background information that many may not be aware of.

It is incredible to suppose that today's religious thought and circumstance could be much affected by mental exercises which took place some 400 years before Christ. It is even more amazing when one realizes that they took place in a nation and empire which was completely alien to the God of the Bible. Yet these "principles of philosophy" created back then have continued to dominate human thought through the ages and have emerged in our time as an infallible system of interpretation in the minds of some leading brethren.

The average American today would not likely know who Aristotle was except that his is a name in history like Alexander, Caesar, and Charlemagne. But the chances are his minister does. It is likely that a good portion of his training for the ministry consisted of the studies in the principles advanced by Aristotle, generally know as "Philosophy."

Prior to the time of Christ four great world empires came on the scene, the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Grecian, and the Roman. Each of these was a unique civilization in its own way and each left its own peculiar mark upon the world. The third of these, the Greek empire, is the one that is especially significant here. The specialty of the Greeks was wisdom, a strong desire to know, to discover all that could be known about nature, the world, and the God, or gods, associated with it. The science of systematic reasoning takes its name from two Greek terms, philos (love) and sophia (wisdom) which together form the word philosophy, meaning love of wisdom.

Socrates of Athens (469 B.C.-399 B.C.) was the first of the Greek "wise men" to achieve enduring fame that has lasted through the centuries. Around 400 B.C. Plato, also of Athens, achieved fame as a philosopher. He developed the "Two Worlds" theory and taught that man is an immortal soul imprisoned in a body from whose dominion he is liberated through his knowledge of the good. One can see in this a kinship to the Biblical concept. But Aristotle, some fifty years later, is the one who put together the most complete and systematic process of reasoning and deduction, and his formulas have remained to form the basis of virtually every philosophic concept since, including the one which prevails in many churches of Christ today.

By the time of Christ and the apostles the Greek empire had fallen and the Romans had become the ruling power. But the Greek culture remained deeply established in the empire and the Greek language continued to be the basic unit of communication among common people. The books of the New Testament were written in this language, Koine Greek, for the most part.

So at the time the Gospel came into the world men had been trying for many years to discover, by processes of reasoning, many of the very things God's word came to reveal. On some things their conclusions were correct and the apostles did not hesitate, in their writings, to employ words from Greek mythology when the concept denoted by them was correct. On other things the philosophical conclusions were only partially correct and on still others they were totally wrong.

The Gospel was not anti-logic. It certainly was not opposed to reason. Paul was sent primarily to the "Gentiles,'' and in this capacity he often encountered Greek philosophy as well as Jewish concepts. The scriptures frequently report that he "reasoned" with them. When he encountered a point on which they were correct he made use of that to build on further understanding of other divine truths.

But Paul recognized that just as basic Jewish concepts hindered many of them from receiving the Gospel, even so the Greeks were hindered by their obsession with philosophy. To the Corinthians he observed that "in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God" and that "it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign and the Greeks seek after wisdom (sophian). But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block and unto the Greeks foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:21-23).

In other words Aristotelian Logic was not able to discover anything about God beyond what God had made known in His word. There was not an inherent hostility between the Gospel and philosophy, or logic, as long as the relative positions of the two were kept in proper prospective. Human reasoning could even be useful in one's growth toward a better understanding of what is revealed. But it was helpful only so long as the conclusions reached were confirmed by the word of God as accurate. A reliance on logic itself as certain to be accurate is a concept that can lead men astray to the point of losing their souls.

As we said, the New Testament speaks directly to this point in one of the most emphatic warnings found anywhere. Although Paul frequently used each of the two Greek words sophos and philos, the only time he used them together in the full word philosophy was in Col. 2:8 where he cautions against serious danger therein: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ." It is remarkable that in spite of the clear warnings of scripture against this danger history records that between then and now every major apostasy was anchored in philosophy. Even before the last apostle died the first of these occurred. It is called "Gnosticism" from the Greek word "gnosis" meaning to know. It is generally believed that the apostle John wrote the book of 1 John in opposition to the Gnostics. These were the knowers, the earliest brotherhood philosophers.

Later the Roman Catholic Church developed and most of its dogmas were produced by philosophical procedures. Thomas Aquinas, in the 13th century, gathered up all of the traditions of medieval Catholicism and assembled them into syllogistic form. He is known historically as the man who "systematized" Catholic doctrine. His aim was to put these doctrines into a philosophical form and thus establish them as forever immutable.

In the 16th century the protestant reformation movement broke forth but after a couple of centuries it had fragmented into a hundred warring factions. Gross liberalism and theological modernism rose to the surface and was widely accepted as the balm to heal all hostility and end the fighting. But its tenets conflicted with too many statements of scripture and so once again the philosophers came forth to anchor it. Particularly the German philosophers of the late 19th and the early 20th centuries employed the principles of philosophy to establish a gospel which was void of anything specific.

The American Restoration movement was an attempt to restore proper respect for the Bible as the only infallible word and for several decades was very successful. But within this movement also there developed traditions and dogmas some of which were derived from the philosophical procedures, not from a "thus saith the Lord." In this century these have become increasingly hard to sustain and bind upon the people. So again the philosophers have come forth to do for these dogmas what Aquinas tried to do for Catholicism and what liberal theologians tried to do for modernism, to establish them as forever immutable, to prove by Aristotelian logic what cannot be proved by the Bible alone. Such publications as the "Guardian of Truth," the "Spiritual Sword," the "Firm Foundation" and others, pour forth a steady stream of dogmatic, divisive concepts, sustained by syllogisms, not by clear scripture statements.

The result has been division, strife, discord, hatred between brethren, and a very ugly spirit of self righteousness. Freedom of the individual to study the Bible for himself and to draw his own conclusions has been removed. These self appointed authorities have declared that we must answer to their interpretive system, to their ecclesiastical organizations. They say that they speak for God. But they do not even agree with each other.

The problem is not that logic or reasoning is used in study of the Bible. The problem is that it is enthroned or made an authority and that its conclusions are placed on a par with the word of God. The solution to the problem is available to every individual who will simply return to the concept of the apostles, that human reasoning is fine insofar as its conclusions are confirmed by the word of God, but that philosophy is capable of leading us astray to that point of losing our reward. A thus saith the Lord is the only infallible standard.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 26, 2003

Answers

.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 26, 2003.

You know, back then, Gnostics and Christians battled each other in public debates over theology. The Gnostics were defeated with two lethal weapons--logic and death. Those who could not convert were eventually killed off, so much for logic.

Today, it isn't the Bible Scriptures that are being argued over. We are debating over the man-made interpretations of "The Lord saith...". We use logic to make those interpretations, so it is only logical that we employ logic to refute those interpretations. Person doesn't much listen to another's intangible, abstract, or inspired faith, unless they already share that faith and do not need logic or reasoning to continue to keep the faith. It is when men are thrown into a exit-less room that reasoning and logic become the weapons against apostacy and heresy.

rod...

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 26, 2003.

Here is Prostesant "logic":

If the logic you are using fails you, you never had the "logic" in the first place.

The "truth" is not logical; it is the "truth".

When a man dies, he dies; that is logical, but his soul lives forever.

It is illogical for a man to "work" his way to Heaven, but he will be judged by those "works".

The King James Version is the true Bible; all the others are flawed, but not my version.

My church is the only true church, because when I read the Bible, I am infallible in my interpretations. So what if history has revealed many slaughters in wars over words used in the Bible, I am correct.

Man can read and understand the Bible; he doesn't need someone to tell him what he needs to understand. This is why we have so many conflicting interpretations, doctrines, and theologies in the world. It is only logical that such a problem should exist.

rod...

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 26, 2003.

Good logical thinking Rod.

In the days of aristotle you could have been a pilosopher.

These days you could be a GURU.

-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 26, 2003.

"A thus saith the Lord is the only infallible standard."

Wrong, David.

A THUS SAITH THE CHURCH ~ THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE ETERNAL MOST HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH ~ IS THE ONLY INFALLIBLE STANDARD.

St. Augustine (A.D. 354-430) testified, "I would not believe the Gospel itself, if the Authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so."

THE PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF TRUTH IS THE CHURCH ~ THE MOST HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH ~ NOT THE BIBLE.

More Protestant "logic" :

Let's make all literal verses in the Bible symbolic; and let's make all the symbolic verses literal. Who cares?

Any protestant can custom-tailor the Bible to his/her personal idiosyncrasies by simply manipulating biblical interpretation.

It is OK to tear pages off the Bible; don't worry. If you're timid, you may scrap verses here and there.

If all else fails, just start a new "church." Better to be one's own pope. Try to add televangelism; you'll get more money.

The higher you jump and the louder to shout, the more you will appear to be worshipping.

Shrieking and Convulsing are highly commendable.

The show must go on. Break a leg!

The more eloquent and oratorical your prayer is, the louder "Amen!" you will get.

Gibberish is way better than intelligible language.

Let's not let this worship service go by without an anti-Catholic remark.

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 26, 2003.

True Leonard Nimoy was/is Jewish, but I think he played a Catholic in the t.v. series "Star Trek"; it seems only logical to think that.

rod...

...

...

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 26, 2003.

"The result has been division, strife, discord, hatred between brethren, and a very ugly spirit of self righteousness."

What could possibly cause such a thing?

What could it possibly mean to have such symptoms?

What could possibly remedy this problem?

Who should be blamed for all of that confusion?

Satan?

Logic tells me that if so much division, etc, is prevailing in the churches, then Satan is surely winning?

What does this tell you?

So, any man can read the Bible and find the truth, huh?

If that were true, then why:"The result has been division, strife, discord, hatred between brethren, and a very ugly spirit of self righteousness."????????

..........................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 01, 2003.

All Assemblies of God are united. All Southern Baptists are united. rod, you need to seriously check if Rome is united. What better way to confuse a man than to make him think the oldest church is the true church. Jesus Christ is not a church!!!!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 01, 2003.

"Sola Scriptura" Test #1

Please give one answer to the question below.

1. I read the book.

a. The above statement reveals that the book has been read.

b. The above statement reveals that the person is in the act of reading the book.

c. The above statement reveals that the person is reading and has read the book.

d. The above statement reveals that the person is involved in an ongoing routine of using the book as a reference or resource .

.....................................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 01, 2003.

---

What are you talking about? There you go again using your confusing "logic".

Here is what it says:

Such publications as the "Guardian of Truth," the "Spiritual Sword," the "Firm Foundation" and others, pour forth a steady stream of dogmatic, divisive concepts, sustained by syllogisms, not by clear scripture statements.

The result has been division, strife, discord, hatred between brethren, and a very ugly spirit of self righteousness. Freedom of the individual to study the Bible for himself and to draw his own conclusions has been removed. These self appointed authorities have declared that we must answer to their interpretive system, to their ecclesiastical organizations. They say that they speak for God. But they do not even agree with each other.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 01, 2003.

---

---

Logic Test #1

I read the book.

a. A person has a book.

b. The person can read.

c. The resource is a particular book. d. The person knows about the information in that book.

e. The person may also be a resource because of the above observation being true.

f. There are more questions to ask: Who is "I"? What is in the book? Why does this person have knowledge of the book? Why are we told about the person and the book and the action?

........................................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 01, 2003.

..........

Logic Test #1

I read the book.

a. A person has a book.

b. The person can read.

c. The resource is a particular book.

d. The person knows about the information in that book.

e. The person may also be a resource because of the above observation being true.

f. There are more questions to ask:

Who is "I"?
What is in the book?
Why does this person have knowledge of the book?
Why are we told about the person and the book and the action?

..................................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 01, 2003.

David. Why is it that I am always:

STOOD
MIS

???

..............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 01, 2003.

"d. The person knows about the information in that book."

There is a difference being knowing what a book contains and accually reading the book!

"Who is "I"?"

We do not know who "I" is because he has not been revealed, but thank God for keeping his promise and preserving his Word so we can know what he wants us to know.

"What is in the book?"

Also, we cannot know because if has not been revealed. Everything we need to know about God is IN the Bible. You cannot even tell me what information we need to know about God that is not in the bible.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 01, 2003.

All Assemblies of God are united. All Southern Baptists are united.

Not true. They used to be Baptists, then the big split. The Pentecostals split; hello Assemblies of God. Southern Baptists vs. Calvary Baptists (South and the North are still at it). And, go find out why they split. That will freak you out some.

("freak"--not in reference to abnormalities, but a simple 70's slang for: to disturb the mind, confuse, upset, wonder.)

..................................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 01, 2003.

All Assemblies of God are united. All Southern Baptists are united. All Northern Baptists are united. All United Pentecosals are united.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 01, 2003.

"I" can only refer to one person.

DON'T
ANALYZE The above doesn't mean to not analyze. It means for you to not over analyze.

...............................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 01, 2003.

And yes, the only Word of God is his written Word. Even with Moses, He wrote the 10 commandments down. And how to we know this? From his revealed written Word. He did not say,"Moses, here are the 10 commandments. Remember them and go tell your people." No! He wrote them down.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 01, 2003.

DON'T
ANALYZE

................................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 01, 2003.

"The above doesn't mean to not analyze. It means for you to not over analyze."

How can this be if the statement says,"Don't analyze". Who's right, you or the statement? You say the statement means "to not over analyze" but the statement clearly says "Don't Analyze". It does not say,"Do not over analyze"

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 01, 2003.

I believe it was God Who wrote them down. Moses dropped them a few times.

.............................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 01, 2003.

That's what I wrote. I just refered to God as "he"

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 01, 2003.

Ah! my point exactly, David. You are a victim of "Sola Scriptura". The "DON'T ANALYZE" puzzle is a case in point.

You read it as a form of scripture, it is not. It is a puzzle. The word "DON'T" is over the word "ANALYZE". So, the puzzle's meaning is a message for the reader "Don't Over Analyze". The "Sola Scriptura" follower may never see that coming. The logical person will look at something from every angle possible to him. He uses logic in order to get understanding. He then determines what he can believe or reject. "Sola Scriptura" makes the follower limited in his ability to get the full meaning. This is one reason he rejects Tradition

tradiTRUTHtion

...........................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 01, 2003.

.God is universal and timeless. The most mentally deficient and most highly proficient believer will have understanding of God's Word. The Bible is inspired and therefore will be universal to all people. God does not trick us, as you've put it, but He does reach all people. A genius and a moron can sit in the same room and may both have faith in God.

..................................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 01, 2003.

Oldie, but.....well.....logical.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 23, 2004.

I agree that this system of logic and pholosophy has governed our world and is still in existance sowing the seeds of discord, strife and chaos and we all know who it is that came to steal, kill and destroy. I found this very informative and reliable. Keep informing the lost in this world made up of various forms of weapons to destroy. Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Thank you once again for your food...God has shined His light upon you. Peace to you, continue your work.

-- ms. springer, mary (msspringeris@bellsouth.net), October 09, 2004.

fROM THE bIBLE.

Proverbs 4

1. Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding.

2. For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law.

3. For I was my father's son, tender and only beloved in the sight of my mother.

4. He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live.

5. Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.

6. Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee.

7. Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

8. Exalt her, and she shall promote thee: she shall bring thee to honour, when thou dost embrace her.

9. She shall give to thine head an ornament of grace: a crown of glory shall she deliver to thee.

10. Hear, O my son, and receive my sayings; and the years of thy life shall be many.

11. I have taught thee in the way of wisdom; I have led thee in right paths.

12. When thou goest, thy steps shall not be straitened; and when thou runnest, thou shalt not stumble.

13. Take fast hold of instruction; let her not go: keep her; for she is thy life.

Logic can be used or misused. Logic is improtant, but we must use Logic that is consistant with observation, reason, and free iquery of the facts, otherwise, we will merley be usign Logic to arrive at a preordaiend decision, this is called rationalisation.

Logic, when applied to an atemt to undertsand, opens up new revenues, but when applie to provign a posiiton for the ske pf proving a position, is corrupt indeed, therefore logic must be tempered with virtue, and a willigness to learn truth, wherever this may lead.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 09, 2004.

Zarove wrote, "Logic, when applied to an atemt to undertsand, opens up new revenues, but when applie to provign a posiiton for the ske pf proving a position, is corrupt indeed, therefore logic must be tempered with virtue, and a willigness to learn truth, wherever this may lead."

The problem with most people is they do "not" want to learn the truth.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 09, 2004.

Thus they use Logic in a corript way to support their proposition, and their logic becomes nothign more htan a self contained series of rationalisations. Noedntheless it fits the definition of Logic.That said, Logic is not relaly the problem, merley its appluication and the meathods used in said Logic.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 09, 2004.

Zarove,

Exactly! The truth does not change.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 09, 2004.