Logical review of “all” claims

One who says, “All translations have errors,” suggests at least three things:

1. I know all of the translations.
2. I have checked all of the translations.
3. I am qualified to pronounce judgement on all the translations/errors.

This logic works on pretty much anything we claim to know “all” about.

“The ‘American Baptist Association’ is the best association in the world.” (‘’ substitute whichever you are claiming is best, or you have heard claim is the best)

1. I know all the associations in the world.
2. I have reviewed all the associations all in the world.
3. I am qualified to pronounce judgement on all the associations in the world.

This last one is an example I was given many years ago, the illustration actually being explained by a leading minister who labored in the American Baptist Association.

---

Note: I thought I had posted this explanation before, but have been unable to find it. This logic applies to man, but not to the God of the Bible, since he does know all about everything.

That’s easy for you to say

“That’s easy for you to say” is a common rejoinder used by a person who is getting advice to suggest that the person who is giving advice is not affected by the advice. For example, someone might say, “You really need to get out more and get more exercise.” The person receiving the advice replies, “That’s easy for you to say. You live alone; you have no kids; you’ve got to plenty time to do what you wish.”

There seems to be a certain logic in the retort, and it often can be true that what is said is easier for the advice giver than for the advice getter. However, what is often missed is this – even though the advice may be “easier” for the giver to give than the getter to get, that does not mean that the advice is bad advice or not true. Just because the above adviser has plenty of time on her hands, it does not mean that the receiver does not need to get out and get more exercise.

Often in the realm of teaching biblical truth, the teacher receives the rejoinder “That’s easy for you to say.” In preaching it is not uncommon for me to say, “That is easier said than done.” In other words, just because it is “easy” to preach the truth does not mean it is “easy” to obey that truth. That is a recognition of something but at the same time not saying the truth is not the truth.

When we have just received advice or truth that is “easier for the other person to say,” let us not just cast it off for that reason. Even though it is not easy to hear or do, it nevertheless may be the truth. Search the scriptures, whether or not the things that are easy for someone else to say are so. They just may be.

Fire and Ice

“I had rather be a fool on fire than a scholar on ice.”

It is claimed that Pentecostal scholar Gordon Fee heard someone make this statement, and afterward determined to be neither “a fool on fire” nor “a scholar on ice,” but rather “a scholar on fire.” I have read several people refer to this and mention how the person making the statement had created a false dilemma. That is true. We might twiddle with the idea and come up with “a fool on fire,” “a scholar on ice,” “a scholar on fire,” “a fool on ice” – as well as a lukewarm fool, and a lukewarm scholar. Maybe others.

That said, I suspect the person who made the statement was thinking of what he knew and had experienced. I know a few scholars on fire (not sure about Fee; not personally familiar with him, but would diverge widely is disagreement with pentecostal views). However, I know many more “scholars on ice.” We in modern times, I think, have a tendency to lose the warmth and fervency of our “first love” as we become more educated. We may become more complacent. Perhaps some it is the spirit of the age.  We are supposed to grow in grace and knowledge of the truth – so knowing more truth should not inherently make us colder. Perhaps some of it is being lifted up with pride. If so, “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time” (1 Peter 5:6).

The implications of universal statements

The implications of universal superlative statements.

When I was a young preacher, I heard James A. Kirkland analyze the statement, “The American Baptist Association is the best/greatest association in the world.” (At the time, Brother Kirkland was a well-known leader in that association. That is the gist of how he said it, but over 40 years later, it may not be exact.)

Brother Kirkland said that making such a statement such as this implies three things, that the speaker:

• (1) knows every association in the world
• (2) has studied every association in the world
• (3) is qualified to determine which association is the best in the world

This principle applies beyond the illustration he gave. I have kept this in mind as a good way to analyze our thoughts and statements. When I or someone else says something like this, how much validity does it hold? Little, I’m afraid. This came to mind again a few weeks ago when I heard a sycophant of certain popular internet personality say that person has taught more people about the words in the King James Bible than anyone else ever did. I “suppose” he did not know everyone who has ever lived (since 1611), has not studied them all, and most likely would not be qualified to make that assessment if he had.

Let’s all be careful of ginning up too much excitement on magnificent matters of which we know much less than what we present it to be.

The Jesus Trilemma

A “trilemma” is a difficult choice from three alternatives. The “Jesus trilemma” is an apologetic argument defending the divinity of Jesus by postulating the unreasonableness of the alternatives. It is most often associated with British lay theologian Clive Staples “C. S.” Lewis, who is doubtless responsible for its popularity and notoriety. It is, nevertheless, something with deeper roots. It is simple and reasonable enough that some earlier Christian thinkers may have arrived at it independently of others who postulated a similar logical equation. This trilemma is often found designated as the “Lunatic, Liar, or Lord” argument, or the “Mad, Bad, or God” argument.

In Mere Christianity (1952, pp. 55-56) C. S. Lewis (1898–1963) wrote:

“A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. … Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.” 

In 1936, Chinese Christian church leader Watchman Nee (1903-1972) in The Normal Christian Faith wrote:

“How can Jesus of Nazareth claim to be God? Before going on, we have to pause for a moment to seriously consider the matter. It is not a light thing to claim to be God. A person who makes such a claim falls into one of three categories. He must belong to one of these three categories; he cannot belong to all three. First, if he claims to be God and yet in fact is not, he has to be a madman or a lunatic. Second, if he is neither God nor a lunatic, he has to be a liar, deceiving others by his lie. Third, if he is neither of these, he must be God. You can only choose one of the three possibilities. If you do not believe that he is God, you have to consider him a madman. If you cannot take him for either of the two, you have to take him for a liar. There is no need for us to prove if Jesus of Nazareth is God or not. All we have to do is find out if He is a lunatic or a liar. If He is neither, He must be the Son of God. These are our three choices. There is no fourth.” (The Normal Christian Faith, Chapter 3, Section 3)

Scottish Free Church preacher John Duncan (1796-1870), in Colloquia Peripatetica (2nd edition. Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas, 1870, p. 107) wrote:

“Christ either deceived mankind by conscious fraud, or he was himself deluded and self-deceived, or he was Divine. There is no getting out of this trilemma. It is inexorable.”

American Congregationalist preacher Mark Hopkins (1802-1887) in Lectures on the Evidences of Christianity: Before the Lowell Institute, January 1844 (1846, p. 255), wrote:

“...either that those claims [by Jesus of who he was and what he would do, rlv] were well-founded, or of a hopeless insanity. No wonder those who did not believe said of him, ‘He hath a devil, and is mad: why hear ye him?’...No impostor of common sense could have had the folly to prefer such claims.”

The trilemma is based on accepting the New Testament as an inspired source that portrays Jesus accurately. I find that those who question the logic of the trilemma also question the accuracy of the New Testament record.

God is either the I AM or He is not at all.

Psalm 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Tithing and Levirate Marriage

Tithing[1] existed before the Law,[2] in the law,[3] is mentioned in the New Testament,[4] and neither Jesus nor the New Testament writers ever negate it.

Levirate marriage[5] existed before the Law,[6] in the law,[7] is mentioned in the New Testament,[8] and neither Jesus nor the New Testament writers ever negate it.

Why do preachers and teachers use this type of argument to support continuation of the tithe, but not for levirate marriage?

---

[1] Tithing is giving a tenth of one’s increase.

[2] Genesis 14:18-20

[3] Numbers 18:20-24

[4] Matthew 23:23

[5] Levirate marriage is marriage in which the brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his brother’s widow, when the deceased brother has no children.

[6] Genesis 38:1-30

[7] Deuteronomy 25:5-10

[8] Matthew 22:23-33

A question of understanding

According to Fox17 in West Michigan, there is a Zeeland pastor under fire for comparing gays to axe murderers. They report, "A pastor from First Baptist Church of Zeeland is making waves online following a recent sermon he gave where he compared being gay to being an axe murderer."

Here is what the pastor said:

“For instance, on a completely other playing field, if tomorrow I woke up because I’ve got this internal compass that’s telling me what truth is, tomorrow if I wake up say… well I think I’m an axe murderer and now I’m an axe murderer, would you be happy with that? Would you agree, would you want me to follow that internal compass?”

The reporting is poorly done and reactions are either angry, not well thought out or deliberately slanderous -- probably some mix of all three. Perhaps the pastor's analogy is not well chosen, but the point is not that homosexuals are ax murderers (or that they are even compared to them). People seem unable to follow an explanation used to illustrate a singular point. The point is about how we arrive at truth. He points out that none of us would find it acceptable to let our "internal compass" guide us to the "truth" that being an ax murderer is acceptable. Yet in many other cases our "internal compass" is exactly how we acceptably arrive at truth. It doesn't have to be about homosexuality. It could be the husband who wakes up one morning and "discovers" he no longer loves his wife and wants to divorce her and abandon his children. Should he follow his internal compass? Regardless of what you think is right or wrong, the discussion is about how we arrive at that point. For Christians, it is biblical instruction that should settle the matter and trump how we feel. First Baptist of Zeeland puts it this way in their media release: "In regard to human sexuality, God’s word is clear. God, through His design and clear prescription in his holy Word, instituted marriage between one man and one woman...Sexual behavior outside of monogamous marriage is contrary to God’s design and is therefore sin." Their point is not that homosexuals are ax murderers, but that people don't have a right to follow their inner compasses on already determined morality. Again, if you don't agree on the morality or the authority behind it -- so be it. But switch off the spin machine and deal with the point. 

The entire sermon may be listened to at First Baptist Church Sermons. The one under debate in the report is the March 1 sermon on "Marriage and Sexuality." 

A little logic

"No sermon, no confession of faith, no book on theology can restrict itself to the precise wording of the Bible. If the Bible says that Shechem is north of Jerusalem, and if it says that Beersheba is south of Jerusalem, we can conclude that Beersheba is south of Shechem, even if the Bible does not say so." -- Gordon Clark, Predestination, p. 111

"If the Scripture implies something, that something must be accepted. If a college student in a Logic class complains about the age-old syllogism -- All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal -- and remarks, 'I agree that all men are mortal and that Socrates is a man, but you can't force on me that mere human logic implies that Socrates is mortal,' the professor must reply, If you do not grasp the implication, you cannot understand anything, for nothing is clearer." -- Gordon Clark, Predestination, p. 123