Chapter Six
The Eternal Laws of Logic

This chapter will give you an overview of the methods we employ to think and speak with sound logic. Please understand, space does not allow me to give you detailed instruction in formal and informal logic. Besides, there is no need for Pastor Lannom to reinvent the wheel -- Gordon Clark has written a peerless textbook on formal logic, and I will supply you with the information you need to purchase it. I hope many of you who are reading this will make a commitment to dig deeper into the vitally important study of logic. I cannot overemphasize the importance of being able to think and speak clearly and logically.

For the purpose of this book, I’d like to devote just a few pages to an introduction to the most important laws of logic, and then I will introduce you to the construction of solid, logical reasoning and speech. I want you to become a man or woman who is able to win over unbelieving friends and coworkers with your clear, irrefutable, biblical reasoning!

The Origins of Formal Logic

The recognition and formalization of the academic discipline of logic is widely credited to the pagan Greek philosopher Aristotle. This is why, when the formal laws of logic are discussed, you may hear the phrase “Aristotelian logic.” You might protest that since Aristotle was an unbeliever whose mind was not informed by the Holy Spirit and shaped by the infallible truth of God’s Word, how can we possibly trust his work? Dr. John Robbins has given a marvelous answer to this objection: If God can cause a jackass to speak and utter words of divine prophecy, then certainly He can use an unbeliever to accurately observe and record the laws of logic! Recall that “All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ.” It is important to note that God did not create wisdom and knowledge; God is wisdom and knowledge! God does not employ wisdom in order to think well; His thoughts are wisdom. The laws of logic are merely a reflection of the essence of His Being. They are intrinsic to His nature. Aristotle is the man whom God sovereignly ordained to observe and record these laws, that God’s people might have them available for use in deducing truth from God’s Word.

More than three hundred years before the birth of Christ, Aristotle used to watch his teacher Plato play the “yes-or-no” game with his students. The players would select a particular subject for debate, and then one player would ask his opponent a series of questions which could be answered with a simple “yes” or “no.” If the interrogator could skillfully use a series of questions to force his opponent to admit that the position he had staked out was incorrect, he won the game. The “yes-or-no” game had been played for close to a century, but it was Aristotle who realized that no one had ever written down the rules of the game. Aristotle observed that these rules were implicit in successful play, and went on to write several books on the rules of “yes-or-no.” These books formed the basis for what we today call the science of logic.

It is important to restate this disclaimer: it would be completely inaccurate to call Aristotle “the father of Logic.” Aristotle did not create the science of logic; rather, he recognized its existence. Logic has always existed in the eternal mind of God, and all the laws of logic are inherent in the Word of God. When you have finished this chapter, you will be able to see the wonderful, crystal clear logic that pervades the entirety of Scripture. Logic has always existed in the Being of the Holy Trinity; Aristotle’s contribution was to observe and recognize the laws of logic, and write them down. I am going to explain the three most important laws of logic to you now.

The First Law of Logic: The Law of Contradiction

I introduced you to this first and most fundamental law of logic a few pages earlier. This first law is the most important because the second two laws really can be deduced from this one. Recall that Aristotle formally expressed the law of contradiction in this way: “The same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect.” This law can also be expressed by saying, “A” can not be “both A” and “not-A.” You can plug anything into this formula you like. A dog can not both be “a dog” and “not a dog.” A thing can not be both itself and not itself. A line cannot be both curved and not curved at the same time. Different portions of the line may be both curved and straight, but it cannot be both curved and straight at the same time and in the same respect. We saw that the law of contradiction applies to words. In order for a word to mean something, it must also not mean something. “Straight” can not mean “curved,” or even “slightly curved.” If a word does not have a clear, distinctive meaning that separates it from other words, then all language becomes utterly meaningless. If a word means everything, then it also means nothing! If I use the word “dog” to describe anything I see on this planet--be it animal, vegetable, or mineral--then the word “dog” loses all distinction, and becomes meaningless. It could mean anything, and therefore it means nothing.

This example should help you understand the point. If words had no distinctive meaning, then a book could be written a great deal more quickly than it has taken to write this one! I could just  select one word--any word will do--and repeat it 90,000 times: Word word word word word, word word word word word! You come to my book-signing, and pick up a copy of my new book, appropriately titled, Word Word Word. You glance inside, and with growing amazement flip through the pages, only to discover the one word repeated over and over again! You turn to me indignantly, waving the copy of my new book a few inches under my nose.

“What is the meaning of this?” you demand.

I look back at you with wide-eyed innocence. “You mean you can’t understand it?” I ask solicitously. “Well, it’s very simple. The title of my book is Words Mean Things, and the first sentence reads, ‘If a word means everything, then it also means nothing!’ I understand it perfectly.” My voice takes on a patronizing tone. “I guess you just haven’t learned the new, twenty-first century literary style yet!”

It’s a silly story, but it makes the point quite well. Without the law of contradiction, there is no distinction, and without distinction, there is no meaning. A thing can not be both “A” and “not-A” at the same time and in the same respect.

It is only in the juxtaposition of opposites that clarity is born. Negative knowledge is essential to understanding. It is important to know what something is, but also what it is not. Negatives and positives are inseparable in human thought. When you posit one thing, you are negating something else. A dog is not a cat. A circle is not a square. A liar is not an honest man. Negatives and positives are inextricably related. Another way of stating this concept is that falsehood implies the existence of truth, denials imply affirmations, ignorance implies knowledge, and irrationality implies rationality. This is the essence of logical thought.

For example, when we examine the true meaning of the doctrine of justification later in this book, we will spend time looking at the contradistinctions of what justification is, and also what it is not. When Martin Luther was developing these ideas, he noted that justification is a legal act, not a moral one. He said that justification is an imputation of the righteousness of Christ, not an impartation of righteousness. It cannot be both! There must be distinctions which provide meaning to the word, or the word has no meaning.

The Bible has Contradistinctions ... But no Contradictions!

There are no contradictions in the Word of God. James asked, “Does a spring send forth fresh water and bitter from the same opening? Can a fig tree, my brethren, bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Thus no spring can yield both salt water and fresh.” The Bible constantly distinguishes good from evil, truth from falsehood, wisdom from foolishness, and so on. In each instance, the law of contradiction comes into play. A thing can not be both good and evil at the same time and in the same respect. It can not be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. A man is not both wise and foolish at the same time and in the same respect. If this were possible, then the Scriptures, and indeed all spoken and written language, would be utterly meaningless. Meaning demands distinction. Understanding requires discrimination.

Since there are no contradictions throughout the entire body of Scripture, then God’s people should speak in a way that does not bring forth contradictions. James was appalled at “the unruly evil ... (and) deadly poison” of the speech of mankind. “With it we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be so.” Paul warned Timothy, “O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babble and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge.” There is no knowledge when there are contradictions! There can be no learning. There is only meaninglessness — idle babble. Our speech must be a model of consistency and clear logic if we are to truly proclaim Christ to a lost and dying world.

The Second Law of Logic: The Law of Identity

The law of identity is quite simply stated: “A thing is itself.” The formula to express this is phrased, “A” is A.  One of the greatest examples of this law is expressed in the conversation between Moses and God at the beginning of the book of Exodus:

This is the first time in the Bible when anyone ever asked God what His name is! God’s answer: “I AM WHO I AM.” This is the perfect example of the law of identity. God is who He is! We will never come to the knowledge of who God is apart from His self-disclosure, which is provided in--and only in--God’s Word.

David was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write Psalm 19, which begins, “The heavens declare the glory of God.” This, of course, is God’s truth. The child of God looks at the heavens and marvels at the intricate majesty of creation, and his or her heart races with love and awe and admiration for the Creator. It is important to remember, though, that the unbeliever has no such surge of emotion, and no such progression of thought. Carl Sagan spent his life studying the heavens, and did not see God there at all. The same could be said for scores of other unbelieving scientists, both living and dead. It is only the man or woman who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit who sees the heavens and the earth as God’s creation. It is only through God’s revelation, the Bible, that we actually come to know who He is and what His nature is. Creation doesn’t tell us about God; God tells us about creation. In the Bible, God tells us who He is and what He has done. He divulges His identity. I AM WHO I AM!

Returning to the doctrine of justification, we apply the law of identity to say that justification is a legal, forensic crediting of Christ’s righteousness to us, that takes place outside of us and in the mind of God. This is what justification is. The word univocal applies beautifully to this second law of logic. Univocal (“You niv ih cull”) means “one meaning.” A word has a single, specific meaning. “A” is A. Univocal is the opposite of equivocal (“ee quiv uh cull”), which is ambiguous language that may well have more than one meaning. We’re all familiar with the old phrase: “He speaks with forked tongue,” i.e., “He uses words that mean one thing to me, but another thing to him. He equivocates.”

Two verses from Ephesians highlight the meaning of univocal. Paul wrote to the Ephesians that “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” There is only One who can be called Lord: the Lord Jesus Christ. There is only one faith that will lead to eternal life: faith in the atoning death, burial, and subsequent resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the one hope to which we were called by the Holy Spirit, who is the only Spirit that is of God. And “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” There is only one God and Father of all. The true identity and significance of these names and terms are univocal. There is only one meaning. Therefore, if anyone preaches “another Jesus... a different spirit... or a different gospel,” then they are using equivocation. They are “deceiving spirits” preaching “doctrines of demons,” using words which sound wholesome and spiritual, but actually conceal the great, univocal truth of salvation: “Christ crucified, ... Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” He is “the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through (Him).” And, as the apostle Paul proclaimed, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!”

In the book of Nehemiah, we see where the people of Israel gathered to hear the reading of the Word of God. Ezra read the Book of the Law to the people, and the priests and Levites were there to help the people understand what they were hearing. “So they read distinctly from the book, in the Law of God; and they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading.” They gave the people the clear, univocal meaning of the Word of God.

To learn anything, we must get to a definition of what it is: its identity. I need the precise, univocal meaning of that thing in order to know what it is. You can see how the law of contradiction would help here, in that I can also come to an understanding of what that same thing is not. Identity describes exactly what something is. It provides me with a line of demarcation. I know what it is — identity — and I know what it isn’t — contradiction.

The Holy Spirit inspired the apostle John to “write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” God wants us to have knowledge. We can only have knowledge if we have a clear understanding of the great doctrines of our faith. That knowledge only comes through the proper understanding of the univocal meaning and implications of what these doctrines say. Strength and power — in the church body and in my own personal life — can only come through certainty.

The Third Law of Logic: The Law of Excluded Middle

The law of excluded middle is really a combination of the first two. A thing is either itself (identity) or not itself (contradiction), but it can not be somewhere in between. The line is either curved or straight at the same time and in the same respect. It cannot be both. The formula is expressed Either “A” or “not-A.”There is no middle ground. The light is either “on” or it is “off.” A woman is either pregnant or she is not pregnant. She isn’t “a little bit pregnant.” The Holy Spirit utilized this law often in the writing of Scripture. Paul, for example, utilized the law of excluded middle beautifully in the book of Romans. In chapter eleven, he wrote: “At this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.” We are either elected by God’s grace, or we are elected according to our good works. Since we are elected by grace, our good works are not even in the slightest degree the basis for our salvation! If we were saved by our good works, then salvation would no longer be by grace. We are not saved by “grace-and-works,” but by grace alone. There is no middle ground. Similarly, Jesus said, “You cannot serve both God and money.” Our devotion is either to God, or it is to mammon. You do not give your ultimate devotion to “God-and-mammon.” Again, there is no middle ground. Only one commands your ultimate loyalty.

The law of the excluded middle highlights one of the great disagreements between the Protestant and Roman Catholic churches. The Catholic Church teaches that justification is a process. There is an impartation of grace, according to the Roman church. The believer is infused with a tiny seed of grace, and then he or she must cooperate with the process of justification. At the end, there is a declaration that the Catholic has been made righteous. This runs counter to the historical teaching of the Protestant church, which teaches that the believer is fully and freely justified at the moment of salvation. He is immediately declared legally righteous in God’s sight. The Protestant position is faithful to Paul’s teaching to the Romans. The Catholic position is not, and it is also a violation of the third law of logic. The Roman church seeks to plant herself firmly on non-existent ground, the ground of “grace-and-works,” which is the excluded middle. The Roman church’s teaching on justification is a logical impossibility!

When we hear the “wise men” of this age speak, or read the writings of contemporary “scholars,” we must immediately ask ourselves if the author of the idea is violating any of the three laws of logic. Has the speaker really defined what he or she is talking about? Has he established a univocal meaning to the terms he is using? For example, many modern “intellectuals” claim that a human being reasons by moving through the steps of sensation to perception to concept to principles. Yet they never explain how it is that we move from sensation to perception. When listening to these men and women speak, I often wonder, “Are you saying there is a process involved in moving from sensation to perception? If there is, then explain what it is!” There is no meaning in what these people say, because they provide no definition of what they are saying - or what they are not saying. When we speak, we must always seek to incorporate the three laws of logic into our definition of terms. Explain what the term means (identity); what it does not mean (contradiction); and identify the “either-or” (excluded middle).

What is Propositional Truth?

One of the greatest tools that you can ever learn in your life is the ability to consciously construct logical arguments. (Gordon Clark pointed out that “Many people use the word argument when they mean altercation. An altercation is a brawl. An argument is a series of reasons which one uses to prove the truth of what one wishes to assert.” ) We see God drawing necessary conclusions time and time again all throughout Scripture. These logical tools of conversation are the way that God thinks. As I said before, logic is godly thinking!

To logically construct an argument you must understand the meaning of a proposition. The basis for all truth is the proposition. All sixty-six books of the Bible are filled with propositional truth. A proposition is simply a declarative sentence, a sentence that makes a definite statement. It might be a very simple statement: “The ball is red” is a declarative statement. There is a subject (“the ball”), a predicate (“red”)which makes an assertion about the subject, and a copula, (“is”), which is the verb that links the subject and the predicate. The predicate either denies or affirms something about the subject. (The ball is red. A shed is not a skyscraper.) Either way, the sentence is giving us information. Knowledge can only come through propositions. Questions (“Is the ball red?”), commands (“Go to the shed!”), and exclamations (“Oh no!”), do not impart knowledge. Therefore, truth can only be communicated through a proposition, i.e., a declarative sentence. In other words, if we were to utter a single word--for example, “star”--that solitary word “star” does not communicate truth, because we are not making any kind of a declarative statement about the star.

Truth is not communicated through a lone, inanimate object or word. Gordon Clark insisted that “Only propositions have the quality of truth.” I want you to really lock this important truth into your mind. A star does not declare propositional truth. God’s creation is not propositional revelation. As marvelous as creation is, it is still not God’s written revelation! It is His handiwork, but the only way that we know that it is His handiwork is because God’s Word tells us so.

Constructing a Syllogism

One of the strongest logical arguments we can employ using propositional sentences is the syllogism.  The syllogism teaches us to direct our thinking, to aim our thoughts and speech as if we were pointing a high-powered searchlight on truth. A syllogism is an inference (a conclusion) which is constructed by two premises and three terms. The terms are arranged in such a way that one term from each premise appears in the conclusion, and a third term appears in both premises but does not appear in the conclusion. I realize this sounds complicated, but the following example should immediately crystallize this definition for you.
All men are mortal (Major premise).
Socrates is a man (Minor premise).
Therefore Socrates is mortal (Conclusion).

As you can see, there are two premises. “All men are mortal” is the major premise, and “Socrates is a man” is the minor premise. There are three terms employed: “mortal,” “man,” and “Socrates.” “Mortal” is the major term; “Man” is the middle term; and “Socrates” is the minor term. In a proper syllogism, one term from each of the premises appears in the conclusion: in the example, these are “mortal” and “Socrates.” A valid syllogism also employs one term in both premises which does not appear in the conclusion. In this case, “man,” the middle term, does not appear in the conclusion.

In the major premise, “men” is the subject of the sentence; “are” is the copula, and “mortal” is the predicate. This premise is predicating that men are mortal. The minor premise predicates that Socrates is a man, and the conclusion predicates that Socrates, therefore, must be mortal.

The major term is the one which appears as the predicate of  the conclusion. The minor term is the one which becomes the subject of the conclusion. The middle term is the one which appears in both premises, but will not appear in the conclusion. The major premise is the one that contains the major term, and, likewise, the minor premise is the one that includes the minor term.

Our example can also be expressed in terms of a formula, which helps to further clarify the syllogism. Let’s assign a letter of the alphabet to each of our terms: a = mortal; b=man; c=Socrates.
                                                All (ba). (All men are mortal.)
                                                All (cb).(Socrates is a man.)
                                                All (ca). (Therefore, Socrates is mortal.)

The example I have given you is irrefutable logic in its simplest from. If the premises are true, which in this case they are, it is logically impossible to demonstrate that the conclusion is false. Dr. Clark clearly stated that “No syllogism can be valid if the conclusion contains an idea not already given in the premises.” If you introduce any term in the conclusion that has not already been given in either the major or minor premise, you have automatically invalidated your argument! This is called “asserting the consequent,” and it is a violation of all the laws of logical thought. Such a syllogism might read:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is a genius.

The syllogism immediately falls apart. The term “genius” did not appear in either premise. Therefore there is nothing in the argument which validates the claim that Socrates is a genius.

We must train ourselves to identify the way a speaker constructs his or her arguments, because if the speaker introduces an idea in the conclusion that was not contained in the premises, the argument is invalid! Of course, it is even more important that I am able to recognize valid thinking in myself! It is crucial that I am able to construct valid arguments when I am speaking with unbelievers. We have seen how Paul used the power of reason to win thousands of converts in the days of the early church. The fact that we may never see the same results as Paul is immaterial. Results depend entirely upon the will of God and the activity of the Holy Spirit. However, we have been commanded to “Contend earnestly for the faith,” andto “Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.” We are to be gentle and winsome in our instruction, but we should reason correctly! Our conclusions must be necessary. It is absolutely crucial that we are able to identify the inevitable conclusions of reasoning--both the reasoning of the mind of God and of the mind of man. Our contentions and defenses will be rendered impotent if a clear-thinking unbeliever is able to dispassionately dissect our assertions with logic. Sometimes our theology is scrambled not by the enemies outside the walls of the church--but by our brethren within.

Arguments for God’s Existence, and Their Illegitimacy in Theology

The great patron saint of the Roman state church, Thomas Aquinas, asserted several arguments for the existence of God that are still repeated by far too many theologians today. None of Thomas’ arguments (called “Thomistic” arguments) had anything to do with biblical revelation. All of these so-called apologia (defenses of the faith) concerned evidences gathered by means of man’s observation and experimentation, unaided by Scripture. Thomas’ source of truth was sensation, not revelation. Therefore, his theories are anti-God and anti-Christian in their construction. They are in their very nature a rebellion against revealed truth. Man turns his back on the Word of God, and determines that he will find his own god his own way, through his own experience and “wisdom.”

“Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, ‘Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.’ But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” These religious leaders, much like the religious leaders of today, had been listening to the words of God (As the second member of the Trinity, Jesus was God incarnate and spoke nothing other than what the Father told Him to say ) for quite some time. But these skeptics weren’t satisfied with the revelation of God’s Word. Instead, they wanted “a sign” -- evidence that they could see and touch and experience.

It is sin to start with a pagan foundation, and then construct a Christian structure on it. God is not the conclusion of an argument! We don’t reason our way TO God, we reason FROM God! If you start at any point other than God, you’ll never get to the God of Scripture.

The Thomistic arguments are cosmological, teleological, and anthropological. The cosmological argument states that every effect must have a First Cause. Since nature cannot create itself, there must be a First Cause for nature, i.e. God. The syllogism would read:Every effect must have a cause.
Nature can’t cause itself to exist.
Therefore God created nature.

You can see that the syllogism is a logical fallacy, because a new term (God) has been introduced in the conclusion. Even worse, this syllogism is blasphemous, because it makes God the conclusion (and a fallacious conclusion, at that!) rather than the major premise of the argument. In other words, this false syllogism works toward the so-called truth of God, rather from the axiom of God’s truth. The argument further disintegrates when you ask the question, “How do you know the God of the Bible is the First Cause? Perhaps the earth goddess Sophia is the first cause? Perhaps there is some impersonal force that cares nothing for humankind that created nature?” The cosmological argument offers no logically valid response to these objections.

The teleological argument looks at the intricacy of nature and reasons that only an intelligent Designer could create such a complex work. The teleological argument quickly seizes on Psalm 19:1, and echoes that “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork” to both believers and unbelievers alike. Therefore, the God of the Bible must exist, because creation needs a Creator. The syllogism is:
All complexity must have an intelligent designer.
Creation is very complex.
Therefore God is the intelligent designer of creation.

Once again,  the syllogism is a logical fallacy, because a new term (“God”) has been introduced in the conclusion. And this second syllogism is just as blasphemous as the first, because it again makes God the conclusion, rather than the major premise of the argument! The same arguments against the cosmological argument apply here. “How do you know that the God of the Bible is the intelligent designer? Perhaps Mother Earth is the creator of all things. Is this god you speak of a moral god? Is it the same god who sends floods and hurricanes and tornadoes? Perhaps the intelligent designer is sheer nuclear energy, with no personality at all.” You cannot assert the God of Scriptures from the evidence of intelligent design. Creation does not supply us with details concerning the character of the Creator. Only Scripture reveals the nature of God. Probably the best result you could expect is that an unbeliever might possibly absorb the teleological argument and respond, by saying, “OK, you’re right. I believe there must be a god of creation.” But the unbeliever is not positing the God of the Bible. He is asserting a god with a little “g.” Your arguments have done nothing to steer him away from eternal damnation. In fact, you have obscured the real issue by focusing his attention away from the only infallible object of saving faith, which is the propositional truth of God’s Word.

The anthropological argument is, in my opinion, even shakier than the first two, because, as the name suggests, it introduces man into the equation. This line of reasoning suggests that there are certain qualities in man that unmistakably point to the existence of a First Man. To a certain extent, this reasoning incorporates the ideas of a First Cause and an Intelligent Designer, and adds the new notion that the spirit of a man--qualities like love, mercy, justice, and intelligence--can only have been granted to him by the Being who already possesses these attributes. The syllogism might be:
Man has had certain intangible qualitites since his existence.
God also has these intangible qualities.
Therefore God has created man with these qualities.

Once again, the syllogism introduces a new term--“created”--into the conclusion, thereby invalidating it. However, this syllogism is also fallacious because it violates the second law of logic: the law of identity. The minor premise asserts that “God has these qualities.” The “God” of the minor premise is merely the mysterious First Cause, the Intelligent Designer that we met in the earlier syllogisms. However, the conclusion is positing the God of Scripture, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who made man in His image. This is clear equivocation: the same term--“God”--is endowed with two different meanings. You have two “Gods,” and Scripture is clear and unambiguous on the clear and univocal fact of one God: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!”

While it is true that man possesses admirable qualities, it is equally true that these qualities are virtually undetectable in many men and women. Would anyone care to use Charles Manson or Joseph Stalin as an argument for the existence of a just and holy God? Even setting these admittedly extreme examples aside, one could well ask that if man’s justice and mercy reflect the character of his Creator, then does man’s bigotry, selfishness, lying, and rage also reflect the nature of his Creator? To even suggest such things is to utter vile blasphemy.

Another argument, originally formulated by Anselm, is the ontological argument. This argument posits that since all men have some sort of “God-consciousness,” and all societies have formulated some pattern of faith which contains an ultimate Existence, then that Existence must truly exist. If it did not, man would not have been able to conceive of such a thing. If you have noticed that we seem to be wandering further and further away from rational, biblical thinking, you are absolutely correct. This argument is a real “doozy,” as my dad used to say. The tortured logic might be expressed thus:
All men believe there is a supreme being.
God is the ultimate conception of a supreme being.
Therefore God is the supreme being.

Again, we see the equivocation of terms here. The minor premise posits a nebulous “God #1", a “supreme being.” The conclusion introduces “God #2,” the God of Scripture. According to this line of reasoning, the God of Scripture is essentially given His existence by the belief of man, rather than man being given his existence by God! This purportedly “theistic” line of thought closely mirrors the secular humanist view of God, which states that God is dead because man (in his more highly evolved state of consciousness) no longer believes that God exists! This argument bespeaks an arrogance that eclipses even that of Satan. Satan acknowledges the existence of God; he just hopes to “ascend above the heights of the clouds ... (and) be like the Most High.” Satan encourages men and women to “be like God, knowing good and evil.” The ontological argument goes one breathtaking step even beyond these thoughts, and asserts that God exists because man believes it to be so!

While most self-respecting theologians disdain the ontological argument, a great many of them employ the Thomistic, evidentialist approach, which essentially claims that God must exist because of the evidence that points to Him. The common thread that runs through all these arguments is that God becomes the conclusion of the argument.  Rather than standing on the truth that “All Scripture is God-breathed,” evidentialists, like the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day, look for a “sign” that will prove the existence of God. They are violating the clear proscription of the First Commandment: “You shall have no other gods before Me.” They make gods out of their observations and sensations -- out of man’s depraved reasoning -- rather than relying on God’s revelation. They reason from twigs to the Trinity. We will never arrive at the God of the Bible unless we start our reasoning with the God of the Bible!

Godly Thinking Begins With God’s Word

If we are going to reason clearly, cogently, and correctly, the only way for us to think is with the axiom of Christianity as our logical foundation: The Bible Alone is the Word of God. Genesis 1:1 — “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” — is not an argument attempting to prove the existence of God. It is a statement of irrefutable fact, a declaration of eternal truth. “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” Paul wrote. Saving faith in Jesus Christ is not attained by witnessing certain evidences about God. Salvation comes through faith. The apostles told the Philippian jailer, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” That saving faith comes through hearing the Word of God. The heavens do not declare propositional truth. The earth does not proclaim the great doctrines of eternal life. Our reasoning must always have the Bible as its center and circumference.

Christianity is a complete system of thought, one that is arranged in logical, necessary

sequences of propositions. These propositions, being a comprehensive system, all mutually support one another and derive their meaning and significance from the whole. This grand and glorious system of thought is the only comprehensive, coherent, and consistent system of truth in existence, and God has graciously revealed it to man in the pages of Scripture. Socrates said that one can never know a line is crooked unless you put a straight line beside it. God’s Word is the plumb line of all truth, and every other system of thought is merely “the profane and idle babble and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge.”

The Logic of Jesus

Scripture shows us an abundance of occasions where Jesus used the techniques of the trained logician in his dialogues with the people of Israel. Of course, these were not “techniques” that Jesus had learned. Jesus’ consistent implementation of logical arguments--and the fact that the Holy Spirit was so faithful to preserve them in Scripture--is proof positive that logical thinking is God-thinking! To utilize logic is to utilize divine reasoning.

For example, in Matthew 10:28-31, Jesus used the afortiori (“ah for shee or ee”) argument. This is also known as appealing from the lesser to the greater. Jesus reassured His disciples:

Although the book of Romans had not yet been written, the Jews in the temple knew the truth that government was God’s vehicle for punishing evildoers. This knowledge is contained in Genesis 9:6, which ordains that “Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed.”

However, if Jesus had concluded His discourse by commanding obedience to Caesar, that would have been to promote evil, because His statement would have put government in the place of God. Here the divine wisdom of God is displayed, in the second half of His response: “and (render) to God the things that are God’s.’” Here Jesus is saying quite clearly that Caesar is not God. As we have seen, and as His listeners well knew, civil government is a vehicle of God’s justice. So it is not incompatible to obey government and to obey God. But government is not God! God is God. The law of identity, as well as the words of Scripture, tells us that God is God, and there is no other. According to the same law of identity, Caesar is who he is. Caesar’s authority is delegated to him by God. Therefore, there are things that belong to Caesar, and are owed him. But there are also things which belong exclusively to God. And these, too, are owed to Him.

All these things were implicit in these unforgettable words that Jesus spoke into the hush that had fallen over the temple. The men who believed they had hooked Jesus on the horns of a dilemma suddenly found themselves speechless. “When they had heard these words, they marveled, and left Him and went their way.” The Jews marveled because Jesus had brought them back to God’s truth, and He did it logically, quickly and incisively. He spoke with the wisdom of God, and His antagonists were left with nothing to say. Satan had sent his best thinkers up against the Logos of God. They gleefully moved their pieces across the chessboard to trap Jesus. Suddenly, their triumph turned to craven timidity when Jesus put them in checkmate by asking one question and uttering one sentence. The servants of Satan packed up their chessboard and crept out into the darkness. The living Word, the divine Wisdom and Logic of God, remained in the temple and continued to teach the people about “the way and the truth and the life.”

“Go and do likewise ...”

The three laws of logic are the ways in which God thinks. Logic is nothing less than the triune God thinking His thoughts. God’s thoughts are eternal reason. God bears no resemblance to a child which acquires knowledge over a period of time. All the truths of wisdom and knowledge have been with Christ for eternity, and we saw earlier that He is“the true Light which gives light to every man.” Every human being’s mind, being made in the image of God, is constructed to function on the eternal principles of contradiction, identity, and the excluded middle. To think any other way is irrationality, insanity, and blatant rebellion against the wisdom of God.

There is no such thing as a tabula rasa mind. That is, man’s mind is not a blank slate. The mind of man is structured with all the laws of logic and language at conception. “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” There is a self that exists at the instant of  conception. David confessed, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Scripture teaches that it is a sinful and depraved self; nevertheless the image of God is there, though marred and distorted by sin. The unborn or newborn child is not a blank slate, as some modern psychologists and behaviorists would have us believe — the child is the image of God. The image of omniscience is not a blank slate! In reality, an unstructured blank slate is no mind at all. The intellectual equipment we possess to understand anything is completely attributable to our divinely endowed a priori mind. In other words, we are born with a mind that already has all the intellectual theories inherent within. These theories form the cognitive framework which enable us to understand the different ideas in God’s creation.

Jesus said, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Jesus did not say that we would “feel” the truth or “experience” the truth. It is knowledge and logic, the formation of necessary inferences, drawn from the truth that is contained in God’s Word, that set us free. We are free to make valid conclusions. We are free to gently instruct unbelievers, because we are free from the confusion that is created by invalid argumentation. Ultimately, godly thinking sets us free from death! Paul invoked the law of excluded middle in Galatians 1:7-9 when he asserted that there is only one gospel which leads to salvation. If we are led astray by faulty reasoning and place our trust in another Jesus or a different gospel, the necessary conclusion for our lives is that we will be eternally condemned. Our reasoning and our beliefs have eternal consequences.

The Bible declares to us the whole counsel of God in order that we can think well, speak well, and live well. “For with You is the fountain of life,” David wrote. “In Your light we see light.” It is in God’s Word that we see light and find the living water of life, “through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.” When you have the correct understanding of the truth of Scriptures, and develop the ability to make logical, necessary inferences from the Scriptures, then you are truly free to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength,” as Jesus commanded. I love God with my mind. I trust and believe in God with my mind. I don’t rely on my sensations and experiences. I believe and understand; I rightly divide the propositional truth of God’s Word.

This is why I have poured myself into the disciplines of logic, and it is my prayer that you will determine to do this also. It is God’s promise that you will be blessed by it! The Holy Spirit of God inspired these words:
My son, if you receive my words,
and treasure my commands within you,
So that you incline your ear to wisdom,
and apply your heart to understanding;
Yes, if you cry out for discernment,
and lift up your voice for understanding,
If you seek her as silver,
and search for her as for hidden treasures;
Then you will understand the fear of the Lord,
and find the knowledge of God.
For the Lord gives wisdom;
from His mouth come knowledge and understanding;
He stores up sound wisdom for the upright;
he is a shield to those who walk uprightly;
He guards the paths of justice,
and preserves the way of His saints.
Then you will understand righteousness and justice,
Equity and every good path.
When wisdom enters your heart,
and knowledge is pleasant to your soul,
Discretion will preserve you;
understanding will keep you ...
The tools you have learned in this chapter will be a tremendous help to you in understanding the rest of this book. You will see how the invaluable laws of logic will enable you to build a solid theological house. Just as Paul linked the words truth and reason together when proclaiming the gospel to Festus, I have tried to link these two words together in the early chapters of this book. We have seen our axiom for truth — the Bible — and we have now learned how we may begin to deduce reliable truth from the axiom. Truth and reason are the foundation for your theological house. Now we will begin work on the first floor, and the glorious and vitally important doctrine on which all others rest is the sovereignty of God, which I will address in the next two chapters. May God richly bless your labors as you “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”