Biblical Logical Fallacies?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jun 30, 2011
2,521
35
0
#1
If p, then q

P therefore q

If (idea x) is true, I can find scriptures to back that up

I find scriptures that back it up, therefore (idea x) is true


This is called the fallacy of affirming the consequent

if you do not prove it - you commit the fallacy of denying the antecedent


Don't we call this eisegesis - where we start at a premise, then we find scriptures to back said premise?
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,704
3,649
113
#2
but us deductive types struggle with exegesis. :(
 
Jun 30, 2011
2,521
35
0
#3
how much of the bickering we have is from a fallacy of reasoning

Bible study room talking about Babies are sinless - then taking 10-15 scriptures from various parts of scripture to show it's true

rather than the vast majority of the book of Romans, that makes a pretty clear cut case opposite of that idea


Bible as a whole
OT NT
Books
Chapter
Verse

in that order - my mind is on overdrive - i am sorry - with much knowledge and the pursuit of knowledge - this sore travail has God given the sons of men
 
Jun 30, 2011
2,521
35
0
#4
The Bible is a whole message, consistent

The Testaments both agree to the whole message of the Bible

The Books agree with the Testament it is under, which in turn agrees with the whole message of the Bible

The Chapters agree with the Book it is under, which in turn agrees with the Testament the book is in which agrees with the whole message of the bible

The Verse agrees with the chapter, which in turn agrees with the Book, which agrees with the Testament falling under the whole message of the Bible


i was going to try to get a picture but my stupid snag it too isn't working for some reason
 
Mar 15, 2014
325
1
0
#5
So Jesus said to the Jews who HAD believed in him,
"If you abide in MY WORD you are truly my disciples and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free." John 8:31-32

Jesus said that his words, the ones that he actually spoke are Supreme to be a disciple.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#6
The Bible is a whole message, consistent

The Testaments both agree to the whole message of the Bible

The Books agree with the Testament it is under, which in turn agrees with the whole message of the Bible

The Chapters agree with the Book it is under, which in turn agrees with the Testament the book is in which agrees with the whole message of the bible

The Verse agrees with the chapter, which in turn agrees with the Book, which agrees with the Testament falling under the whole message of the Bible


i was going to try to get a picture but my stupid snag it too isn't working for some reason
From my understanding of the Bible which is not great mind you, I'd say what you describe right here is what I found when reading it thus I deem it Logical.

Lol as for Logical Fallacies, that's an oxymoron lol. There's only Logic and Illogic.

Therefore I personally find the Bible Logical. However for overall Bible Discussion obviously long book of books written throughout history. Most verifiable ancient texts known ever.
 
Jun 30, 2011
2,521
35
0
#7
From my understanding of the Bible which is not great mind you, I'd say what you describe right here is what I found when reading it thus I deem it Logical.

Lol as for Logical Fallacies, that's an oxymoron lol. There's only Logic and Illogic.

Therefore I personally find the Bible Logical. However for overall Bible Discussion obviously long book of books written throughout history. Most verifiable ancient texts known ever.
Logical fallacies are very valid, and are not oxymoron

Fallacies are either sound, or valid - but not both - Logical arguments are both sound and valid. This is why it's so easy to think a logical fallacy is true
 
Jun 30, 2011
2,521
35
0
#8
So Jesus said to the Jews who HAD believed in him,
"If you abide in MY WORD you are truly my disciples and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free." John 8:31-32

Jesus said that his words, the ones that he actually spoke are Supreme to be a disciple.

You may want to read John 15 + 16 on that one
 
Jan 6, 2014
991
27
0
#9
The carnal mind can find fallacy and contradictions within the holy scripture. The carnal mind can consider the miracles bogus, and the teachings superstition.
It is only by the witness of the Holy Spirit that our minds are transformed and we can see the scripture as the holy message of God to the world.
 
Mar 12, 2014
6,433
29
0
#10
how much of the bickering we have is from a fallacy of reasoning

Bible study room talking about Babies are sinless - then taking 10-15 scriptures from various parts of scripture to show it's true

rather than the vast majority of the book of Romans, that makes a pretty clear cut case opposite of that idea


Bible as a whole
OT NT
Books
Chapter
Verse

in that order - my mind is on overdrive - i am sorry - with much knowledge and the pursuit of knowledge - this sore travail has God given the sons of men

The fallacy is: babies are born with Adam's sin.

Then verse(s) are taken out of context, twisted to fit the fallacy.

The fallacy is: faith only saves.

Then verse(s) are taken out of context, twisted to fit the fallacy.

This is what I see taking place on various bible forums.


You first post: Bible study room talking about Babies are sinless - then taking 10-15 scriptures from various parts of scripture to show it's true

Then you post: rather than the vast majority of the book of Romans, that makes a pretty clear cut case opposite of that idea

Paul did not contradict himself in the Roman epistle, so someone is taking verses out of context, twisting them to fit their preconceived idea.
 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#12
how much of the bickering we have is from a fallacy of reasoning

Bible study room talking about Babies are sinless - then taking 10-15 scriptures from various parts of scripture to show it's true

rather than the vast majority of the book of Romans, that makes a pretty clear cut case opposite of that idea
Nowhere does the Book of Romans state that babies are sinful or under condemnation for the sin of another. You just engaged in what you are trying to speak against in your OP.

Romans is not a text in isolation but is rather a presentation consistent with many references to the Old Testament.

An example...
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Many theologians will quote that verse as a proof text that no-one is in fact righteous and that this therefore substantiates the necessity that the literal righteousness of Jesus must be forensically imputed to the account of those who can never be righteous otherwise.

Yet Rom 3:10 is a reference to the sentiment expressed in...

Psa 14:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psa 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Psa 14:4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.
Psa 53:1 To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
Psa 53:2 God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.
Psa 53:3 Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

A sentiment presented within the context of those who "reject God." Romans 3:10 is also presented within the context of Paul comparing the Jews to the Gentiles that both bodies of people are guilty of iniquity before God. Paul is not categorically teaching that babies are born sinners or that all people are under condemnation save a foreign judicial imputation of the righteousness of another.



Likewise...
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


The above text is often used to prove that sin is literally passed down from parent to child and thus implies that babies are born sinners and therefore already guilty before God. Yet the text actually states that death is passed upon all men for all having sinned (not sinned "in Adam" as the Latin Vulgate erroneously states which is where Rom 5:12 was originally abused).

Rom 5:12 is not an isolated proof text but is written within a contextual framework of thought. Rom 5:12-14 cannot be separated from the sentiment of...

Rom 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Rom 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
Rom 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Death (to God) is passed onto all men when all men actually sin. Physical death is passed down from Adam not spiritual corruption. Likewise there is sentiment expressed in...

Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

One can do by "nature" do that which is in the law which is a direct contradiction to those who would use Rom 5:12 as a proof text that one is by nature evil to begin with.

Many theologians will also take this verse...

Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

...and use it as a proof text that babies are automatically born sinners due to the conduct of Adam.

The sentiment of Jesus Christ utterly contradicts such notions of automatic sinfulness and automatic righteousness. Jesus was an example for people to follow, an example of an individual who walked in the Spirit of God. An example that people could follow and by doing so escape the corruption of this world. More than that Jesus was a propitiatory offering presented to God on our behalf whereby our former rebellion (having come to repentance) can be washed away whereby we can have fellowship with God through Jesus.

What the wolves in sheeps clothing do is isolate and proof text select passages out of context in order to establish Jesus Christ as a substitute for personal obedience and conduct. Hence, in their minds, reconciliation to God through Jesus Christ is based on a "substitutional provision" as opposed to a "transformation of the heart." They have taken the "transformation of the heart" and appended as something that may or may not happen sometime in the future which effectively serves to deceive people who remain dead in their sins into believing they have been reconciled to God. A masterful deception if I ever saw one.
 
Last edited:
Oct 31, 2011
8,200
182
0
#13
The carnal mind can find fallacy and contradictions within the holy scripture. The carnal mind can consider the miracles bogus, and the teachings superstition.
It is only by the witness of the Holy Spirit that our minds are transformed and we can see the scripture as the holy message of God to the world.
It is so true that our mind must be renewed in Christ, transformed, to hear the messages of God that are in spirit and truth. They are also so logical that there is math in all of creation. But another key ingredient is the word, the words are the way the information is transferred to the HS. If we use just pieces of the word without first finding the overall scheme of God's universe and making each piece fit the whole, then we just get patches of knowledge.

That is why Paul is so misunderstood. Paul is very advanced, college level truth, but people who put him first just get mixed up. To get good grades in the college of Paul, you have to know basics first, all his truths fit in or you don't hear him correctly.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,704
3,649
113
#14
The fallacy is: babies are born with Adam's sin.

Then verse(s) are taken out of context, twisted to fit the fallacy.

The fallacy is: faith only saves.

Then verse(s) are taken out of context, twisted to fit the fallacy.

This is what I see taking place on various bible forums.


You first post: Bible study room talking about Babies are sinless - then taking 10-15 scriptures from various parts of scripture to show it's true

Then you post: rather than the vast majority of the book of Romans, that makes a pretty clear cut case opposite of that idea

Paul did not contradict himself in the Roman epistle, so someone is taking verses out of context, twisting them to fit their preconceived idea.
The fallacy is: babies are born without Adam's sin.


Then verse(s) are taken out of context, twisted to fit the fallacy.



The fallacy is: faith only does not save.



Then verse(s) are taken out of context, twisted to fit the fallacy.



This is what I see taking place on various bible forums.

ETC. ETC.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,704
3,649
113
#15
Irrefutable: Adam--Sin--Death.

Romans 5:12-14 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

To deny this is similar to denying that the fetus in the womb is truly human...one refuses to make the connection in face of clear proof.
 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#16
Irrefutable: Adam--Sin--Death.

Romans 5:12-14 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

To deny this is similar to denying that the fetus in the womb is truly human...one refuses to make the connection in face of clear proof.
The verses clearly mean what they say. What many do is assert that they say something they do not.

Before Adam and Eve sinned there was no sin in the world. Sin is a moral action premised upon the choice to disobey the lead of God whom gives light to all men. Thus it was through one man that sin entered the world, not that all men are "born sinners."

Now death was occasioned by this sin but Paul is clearly not alluding to physical death simply because he states that death is passed upon all men for all men have sinned (not because Adam sinned). This is even clearer when we compare these statements to the connection that Paul makes in Romans 7 between "sin," "law" and "death."

Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Rom 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
Rom 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

It is through "knowledge of wrong doing" that sin has the power to kill. A sin unto death is an act of rebellion to God.

A baby cannot be slain by sin taking occasion by the commandment because I baby does not have the capacity to reason right from wrong. A baby is not "born dead" nor is a baby "born a sinner." Sin is vice because it is rooted in the exercise of the will, it is a choice. If sin were automatic it would not be a vice but rather a malfunction.

God does not condemn people for being born with a malfunction. God condemns people for freely choosing to reject His counsel, counsel which is just and right.

There are many babies who physically die but they don't physically die from "sin taking occasion by the commandment and slaying them because they sinned." Such an idea defies human reason as well as the clear sentiment of all the Bible. Physical death is due to the curse of being denied access to the tree of life. God potentially could have allowed Adam and Eve to remain in the garden and live forever. God didn't choose that route and thus mortal man is forced to make a choice within a limited time frame.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

The death that reigned from Adam to Moses referenced in 5:14 is the same death Paul is speaking of in Rom 7:9 and 11. It is the same death Paul speaks of in Rom 6:23. The reason death reigned from Adam to Moses is because people could still sin. Adam's sin was related to a violation of a specific commandment (thou shalt not) and thus it was a case of "sin taking occasion via the law to kill" yet death still reigned because people could sin apart from the law, they could sin against the light of conscience. Paul expresses this sentiment in Romans 2 when he alludes to the Gentiles who didn't have the law...

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

God looks at the secrets of men or, in other words, the true condition of the heart. Thus a sin is not necessarily a direct violation of the law but can also be a violation of conscience.

Jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.


The only reason that people use Romans 5:12 as a proof text for Original Sin (ie. being born a sinner in that sin is hereditary) is due to the work of Augustine of Hippo in the Fourth Century and his use of the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible.

Rom 5:12 (Latin Vulgate)
[TABLE="class: BORDERED"]
[TR="class: LITEBACK"]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.[/TD]
[TD]propterea sicut per unum hominem in hunc mundum peccatum intravit et per peccatum mors et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit in quo omnes peccaverunt[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The Latin Vulgate renders the text as saying "in whom" (in quo) thus implying that all humanity was actually present inside Adam and were thus implicated in his guilt. Augustine took this translation and combined it with

Vulgate
Heb 7:9 And (as it may be said) even Levi who received tithes paid tithes in Abraham:
Heb 7:10 For he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchisedech met him.

Thus it can be easily seen how Augustine drew his conclusion that a sin nature itself is something inherited in the flesh body from parent to child. Augustine concluded that a change in the nature of Adam wrought a perpetual change in all his descendent automatically. Theologians have since developed all this with various views which they assign fancy theological words like Traducianism upon which theories like Federal Head and Natural Head evolve.

The Latin Vulgate translation is wrong. The Greek text translates to "for that" or "because all" which implies individual responsibility as opposed to the denial of personal responsibility for sinfulness which both the Federal and Natural views necessitate.


Why is all this important?


How one views sin is key in regards to how one approaches repentance.

If one approaches God as a victim of a sin disease then by necessity they must believe that their sinfulness is their natural state which, firstly, they are not ultimately responsible for and, secondly, they cannot forsake.

If one approaches God as a criminal who through the free exercise of the will became a sinner then they, firstly, acknowledge full responsibility and, secondly, they can forsake their criminal behaviour.

The first approach has given birth to a false substitutionary gospel message where people perceive they can continue as workers of iniquity (because they cannot help it) and this reconciliation to God is premised on a purely judicial legal transaction. Thus the true condition of the heart is tossed out as the central issue between man and God.

The second approach allows a sinner to approach God in full truth and coming clean. Repentance in this second approach involves a complete forsaking of rebellion to God and a full yielding to the divine influence of God in the heart. The result of this is a total transformation of the heart and thus a real cleansing of sin.

Psa 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
Psa 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Approaching God via the death of Christ is not meant to be a substitution for righteous conduct and a pure heart. Approaching God via the death of Christ is meant to produce a pure heart out of which flows true righteousness.
 
Last edited:
Jun 30, 2011
2,521
35
0
#17
also - people will say that - John 3:16 refers to All, but then when Romans says ALL have sinned -- they don't believe it
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,704
3,649
113
#18
Skinski,

Even without a commandment (as you attempt to illustrate from Rom 7) people died from Adam to Moses due to sin. Sin is not a disease we catch but we are born with it.

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
 
Jun 30, 2011
2,521
35
0
#19
Irrefutable: Adam--Sin--Death.

Romans 5:12-14 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

To deny this is similar to denying that the fetus in the womb is truly human...one refuses to make the connection in face of clear proof.
and does it connect with the whole of Scirpture - Genesis says that when Adam ate - they died spiritually, and will one day die physically - Genesis 5 - if you look what happens to them - they died, they died etc
 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#20
Skinski,

Even without a commandment (as you attempt to illustrate from Rom 7) people died from Adam to Moses due to sin. Sin is not a disease we catch but we are born with it.

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
People physically died from Adam to Moses because they did not have access to the Tree of Life.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Clearly Adam could have lived forever if God left him with that access otherwise verse 22 would not be there. Adam spiritually died the day he ate of the fruit but did not physically die.

If you are "born with sin" and it is "not a physical disease" then what is it? Is sin some ethereal substance?

The Bible says this in regards to sin...

Jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Is a baby born with that? Is a baby born with "knowing to do good and not doing it"?

The Bible also says this...

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Is a baby born transgressing the law and because of this the baby can die?

Is it not reasonable to conclude that sin is an act of moral agency where one willfully chooses to do wrong with knowledge? That is what the Bible supports from beginning to end.

If you are "born with sin" then you are not responsible are you? Sin is a birth defect instead of a crime.



I notice you quote Psalm 51:5 which in context states...

Psa 51:2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
Psa 51:3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
Psa 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Psa 51:6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
Psa 51:7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
Psa 51:8 Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.

That is David crying out in repentance using flowery language and hyperbole. It is not David making a doctrinal statement that all men are "born sinners." In fact David does not say that He was "born with sin in him," instead he says he "was conceived in iniquity or sin." I was born in a hospital not born with a hospital in me. See the difference?

David is most likely alluding to the sinful state of Israel and that he was born into it. He is using hyperbole. Does hyssop really clean us from sin? Did God really break his bones?

Neither the Jews nor the early church used Psalm 51:5 as a proof text for Original Sin? Why is that?

In fact they didn't teach Original Sin, why was that?

People only believe in Original Sin because that is what is generally preached to them thousands and thousands of times and thus they believe it without question.

Original Sin is contradictory and nonsensical. Human reason has to be thrown out the window in order to accept it after a critical examination.

Sin is moral. Babies are amoral knowing neither good nor evil. Sin is not a malfunction or birth defect.
 
Last edited: