Archive | Disjunctive Syllogisms RSS feed for this section

Language Clarity or Confusion? The Protestant Reformation

10 Oct
October 2017 has arrived and along with it another century’s culminating celebration of the birth of the Protestant Reformation.  Books, articles, conferences, and tours have focused on educating and further reforming our generation of believers who are 500 years closer to Jesus’ return.
My favorite British podcast, ‘Unbelievable’ hosted by Justin Brierley recently featured a polite conversation between a nominal Protestant-turned-believing Catholic and a religiously-raised Catholic who embraced historical and Biblical Protestantism.  Speaking with restraint, both sincerely believe their church’s doctrine and did indeed explain their beliefs with clarity.
My curiosity mounted as I waited to learn what compelled the current Catholic to hold to what appears to me as false teaching.  At first, he ticked off what my reformed denomination holds is true:
  • We are saved by grace alone, through Christ alone
  • Jesus alone saves; our works don’t earn us salvation
  • Salvation is a gift of God, even the faith to believe God is a gift
So far…..so good. But then came the ‘hic’, the point of diversion:
  •     We must ‘cooperate’ with God’s grace.
Voilà!  Here is one place where historic, Biblical Protestantism parts company with Rome and her teachings.  What in the heck does ‘cooperate’ mean and how is that a gift or good news?
I imagine a spectrum, a continuing line of required effort.  On one end the energy to be expended is minimal:  “Don’t hinder,  interfere with or try to block God’s work”
Moving along the COOPERATION line I picture the next bit of advice: “Actively work with God!”
Passing that polite but not yet desperate midpoint, the pleas for greater exertion and more good works grow insistent: “If you don’t join in, God won’t be able to succeed in placing you in His eternal presence!”
Really?  Does the Catholic Church actually think we dependent, derivative, created beings have the power to thwart Almighty God’s purpose?
Cooperating with God’s grace sounds nice, non-threatening and civilized.  But as a concept that Catholic leaders use to teach and encourage their followers, it misleads millions about God.
Words matter.  Especially about eternal issues.  Either God saves us and our forever destination depends solely on Him as the Bible teaches OR we have a key role to play in the outcome. This is how the issue must be framed.  By the way, this hypothetical proposition is called a Disjunctive Proposition.  In the way I believe this argument must be framed, either the first disjunct is true or the 2nd one.  They both cannot be true.
Whatever degree of human effort the Catholic Church teaches is necessary for salvation, this idea that one must ‘cooperate with God’s grace’ continues to mislead generations toward eternal separation from God.  Words can be cruel albeit comforting in their confusion.  And the Bible teaches that God will judge teachers harshly who have twisted His word.
Since words matter and can have eternal consequences, let us as logic lovers be careful in how we use God’s gift of language.

The logic of assurance of faith

9 Mar

If you are a Christian, do you struggle with knowing for sure that all the promises of Christ are actually for you?  That you will be eternally with God when you die?  That you won’t have to face judgment, followed by sentencing for your crimes against the Creator and Sustainer God of the universe?

Assurance of salvation

There’s actually a logical way, I think, to know for sure whether you are IN Christ and under no condemnation from God the Father or excluded from Christ’s saving work on your behalf.

As I was thinking about this topic the other morning (prompted by reading from Puritan William Gurnall’s work on the armor of God) I mused about the state of our spiritual health before my husband and I actually became Christians.

Until the age of 22, we had NO doubt that we were Christian.  The topic never came up.  We were baptized, confirmed members of the Episcopal Church.  That denomination’s current (or at least de facto) doctrine teaches that all those who are baptized are in fact Christians. End of discussion. Period.

But once we heard the ‘bad news’ of our natural state (“all have sinned and fall short of God’s standard….and deserve death” – combo of Romans 3:23 and Romans 6:23), we grasped with haste the ‘good news’ of Jesus’ atonement and fulfilling of the Law on behalf of those who will receive it by faith.

That’s when occasional doubts about our actual salvation began to jab at our assurance of pardon and peace. Those fears bothered us! The very fact of our DIS-stress over our eternal future is likely a healthy clue and evidence to the saving faith we actually possess.

But over the years, I’ve come to see how clear thinking and a logical hypothetical true statement can bolster my confidence that what Jesus has done actually DOES apply to me.

Ephesians 2:8 teaches Christians that only by a GIFT have we been saved from God’s rightful wrath. (For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God)

Gift of faith

By a gift, not by baptism, or confirmation or any work done by a religious person or us!

When I start to second-guess myself, I am tempted to imagine or hypothesize….

  • What if I believe this fact (that I’ve received the Gift) TODAY, but tomorrow I DON’T believe?  How do I know that I TRULY believe?  Maybe I’m fooling myself?

But with the temptation, the Holy Spirit reminds me of  Gospel logic so I can plug that hole in the dike holding back false fears and guarding that precious gift faith.

Here’s my pre-supposition based on Paul’s teaching in Acts:

“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” Acts 16:31

The Bible defines this kind of faith or  ‘belief’ as relying on/counting on/ trusting in.

Premise 1: Either I am relying on my own merit and works to be righteous enough to please God OR I’m relying on Jesus’ work for me to please God

Premise 2: I’m not relying on myself to please God

Conclusion: Therefore, I’m relying on Jesus’ work offered to me to please God

It’s as simple as that.  I have to keep asking myself this fundamental question:

  • Maria, who are you trusting in, you or Jesus.

That’s usually enough to quiet the doubts.  What about you?

 

 

 

 

 

Logical Gal and how disjunctive syllogisms help us

16 Oct

Either our government will find a solution for the budget impasse or our country will fall apart.

Our government is working hard to find a solution 

Therefore, it is unlikely that our country will fall apart

Voilà – a proper disjunctive (either/or) syllogism. (Whether it’s true or not, that’s ANOTHER question!)

This way of framing choices is very useful.  Sometimes, however, there are more than 2 options.  And when someone forces you to make a choice, between the two, it is RIGHT to balk and suggest others if they appear to you.

Moms do this frequently, when they are trying to get a child to do something he or she does NOT want to do:

” You can clean your room before going to bed tonight or before going out to play tomorrow morning”

A logical child might say, “Mom, that’s a false dilemma.  How about if I pay my brother to clean my room?  Would that satisfy you?”  Poor Mom!  She had better bone up on logic.

As important as parenting is,  let me direct us to a more serious subject – fear and faith.  The last two days as I’ve been following my Bible reading plan, I’ve come across the same verse in two gospels.  Both Mark 5:36 and Luke 8:50 record Jesus encouraging someone with this logic:  Do not fear, only trust and rely on God. 

The Greek word ‘believe’  or Pisteou (Strong’s 4100)  can be translated this way:  to trust, to believe, to rely on, to put faith in, to entrust, to lean on

The two options are a proper disjunctive – we can either fear circumstances, people, our propensity to make the same mistakes over and over….OR…we can commit our concerns, situations and problems  to God and rely on Him for His help, wisdom, grace, presence, protection and solution.  We can’t do a little of each – simultaneously fearing and trusting. Just think about it:  if we are relying on someone or something, then we are looking to them/it.  And if we are consumed with fear, we are NOT looking at our source of rescue.

Picture a toddler clinging for dear life to MOM.  She is NOT confused about the one she is trusting, clinging to, relying on.

I’ve been helped in a real way these past couple of days as I’ve reminded myself of the fact that there are ONLY TWO CHOICES.  Who wouldn’t want to rely on the God of the Universe who actually promises to supply our needs.  I’m also reminded of God’s  words to us  as spoken through James, half-brother of Jesus, “You have not because you ask not.” 

Using the either/or to argue to a conclusion

5 Aug

“Either you are pro-choice or you are anti-women” 

We ran into this statement as an example of how we need to frame an attribute/predicate as either A or non-A to determine more easily if a pair of statements were truly contradictory.

Framing a contradiction into an either/or hypothetical proposition is one way to argue. We call this a Disjunctive Proposition.

Today we are FIRST going to form a valid or correct argument and then we’ll look at the truth of the major proposition.

Consider the ‘formula’ where P and Q are different statements, called ‘disjuncts’.  On the left is the model syllogism; in the middle and on the right are two samples.

Either P or Q                   Either blue or red            Either she had a boy or a girl

Not  P                               Not blue                             She didn’t have a boy

Therefore, Q                   Tf, red                                 Tf, she had a girl

These arguments work; that is they are valid BECAUSE the major proposition that contains the disjunctive statement tells us that one of the 2 disjuncts is true. (we have to accept this as a given;  we’re NOT going to argue about the truth of that major premise YET.)   So if one disjunct (P or Q) is NOT true, then the other HAS to be true.

What happens, though, if in the 2nd premise, I AFFIRM one of the disjuncts? Can this kind of syllogism work the other way?  It would look like this:

           Either Susie travels to the UK or to France

          Susie travels to France (I’m AFFIRMING one of the 2 disjuncts)

          TF, she does not travel to the UK

No….this set up is INVALID for I have actually assumed MORE than the information given.  It could very well be that her journey takes her to BOTH France and the UK.  All we know from the major premise is that she AT LEAST travels to one of the 2 places.  It does NOT claim that if Susie travels to one, she does NOT then travel to the other.

Certainty exists ONLY if the minor premise (the proposition that denies or affirms one of the disjuncts) denies one of the disjuncts since we have as a given that ONE has to be so.

Either I had a salad for lunch or some soup.

I did not have soup

Tf, I had salad

Back to our original Disjunctive propositions:  Either you are pro-choice or you are anti-women.  Once we have determined that the syllogism is set up correctly, that it is valid, THEN we look at the truth of the major premise.

If you remember what we looked at last Friday, we talked about true dilemmas and the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.  So, is our disjunctive proposition a False Dilemma?

If you are willing, comment with your thoughts about how you would determine the truth or falsity of that proposition.  A lot is riding on your answer!