Logic and Fallacies

[Revmitchell]

Can A person Keep the law and live? Have salvation thru the law itself?
Some hear see us as NOT being sinners by birth, but by choice, so could ANY ever get saved by keeping the Law?

The logical conclusion for that line of thinking would mean the answer should be yes.
If a person is born without sin, and does not sin until he acts, then he should be able to freely choose to not sin. Therefore he could keep the Law and be saved, if the Law is able to save.

Scripture is against this.
1. Man is born a sinner. (Psalms and Romans)
2. Man does not have free will. He cannot choose to not sin. He is a slave to it. (Romans)
3. The Law is unable to save, because man cannot keep it. It is an obsolete and imperfect covenant (because man cannot keep it and the sacrifices offered no eternal atonement) and God made a new and better one. (Hebrews)

Here we see an example of both an inductive fallacy and a formal fallacy.

It is an inductive fallacy because there is no real support or data to prove the claim. There is only an assumption based on a personal view of logic.

1.There is no scriptural support to prove man being born with sin

2. It is only assumed if 1. is true then man should be able to choose to never sin. But this assumption leaves out other possibilities that are equally reasonable whether true or not.

3. It fail to define free will and assumes there is only one single broad understanding of it.

It is a formal fallacy because of unstated assumptions and broad generalization.

We cannot reasonably hold everyone who does not hold to original sin under the same umbrella. This is a mistake reformed folks make very often. Much like trying to single everyone out into two single camps either Calvinist or Arminian. These are also fallacies created in order to prove everyone else who does not fall into the reformed camp wrong.


Now I started this thread not to pick on any single post but in response to the notion that the biggest problem on this board is a lack of logic. Honestly no one should be against logic or critical thinking. But logic can be taken to unreasonable levels that itself creates fallacies and sidesteps the Holy Ghost.

We need to be careful when we think we have figured out just how everyone else is wrong. Lest we fall into our own trap and error. (Not that the people quoted have such an agenda)

 

[mont974x4]

I see a lot of people post that others are posting fallacies. However, they rarely address the real issues and do nothing to actually further discussion.


"It's a (insert name) fallacy".


I say...so what?! If your unable or unwilling to address the subject of the discussion and instead choose to just go around pointing out fallacies then you do nothing but make yourself look like a smarmy school teacher and is a waste of time.

If you don't like the assumptions being made then make your case, share your view, or otherwise engage in as reasonable a dialogue as possible.

 

[Revmitchell]

I see a lot of people post that others are posting fallacies. However, they rarely address the real issues and do nothing to actually further discussion.


"It's a (insert name) fallacy".


I say...so what?! If your unable or unwilling to address the subject of the discussion and instead choose to just go around pointing out fallacies then you do nothing but make yourself look like a smarmy school teacher and is a waste of time.

If you don't like the assumptions being made then make your case, share your view, or otherwise engage in as reasonable a dialogue as possible.

Did you read the last couple of sentences? Honestly I was not trying to offend you or even pick on your posting specifically. I just non discriminantly picked a couple of recent posts to make a bigger point.

 

[mont974x4]

Brother, I did read it. I am sorry I did not specify in my earlier post. I had been thinking about that (what I posted) for a couple of days now. I read threads and someone does a drive by fallacy accusation with no comment and no addressing the issue of the actual thread and, honestly, I was annoyed.

I'm sorry.

 

[Revmitchell]

Brother, I did read it. I am sorry I did not specify in my earlier post. I had been thinking about that (what I posted) for a couple of days now. I read threads and someone does a drive by fallacy accusation with no comment and no addressing the issue of the actual thread and, honestly, I was annoyed.

I'm sorry.

Yea, but someone thinks that the biggest problem on the board is a lack of logic. My point is that logic can be just as abused and often is as anything else. To point it out as the largest problem on the board is one a fallacy itself. It seems some place a higher value on logic than they do any reliance on the HG.

 

[mont974x4]

I see.
Do you think this applies?

2Ti 3:6 For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses,
2Ti 3:7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[Yeshua1]

Here we see an example of both an inductive fallacy and a formal fallacy.

It is an inductive fallacy because there is no real support or data to prove the claim. There is only an assumption based on a personal view of logic.

1.There is no scriptural support to prove man being born with sin

2. It is only assumed if 1. is true then man should be able to choose to never sin. But this assumption leaves out other possibilities that are equally reasonable whether true or not.

3. It fail to define free will and assumes there is only one single broad understanding of it.

It is a formal fallacy because of unstated assumptions and broad generalization.

We cannot reasonably hold everyone who does not hold to original sin under the same umbrella. This is a mistake reformed folks make very often. Much like trying to single everyone out into two single camps either Calvinist or Arminian. These are also fallacies created in order to prove everyone else who does not fall into the reformed camp wrong.


Now I started this thread not to pick on any single post but in response to the notion that the biggest problem on this board is a lack of logic. Honestly no one should be against logic or critical thinking. But logic can be taken to unreasonable levels that itself creates fallacies and sidesteps the Holy Ghost.

We need to be careful when we think we have figured out just how everyone else is wrong. Lest we fall into our own trap and error. (Not that the people quoted have such an agenda)

main problem in this entire discussion is that we can assume some truthsd to be self evident, as the Bible clearly staes that we are ALl sinners by birth, confirmed by choice!

And the obligation to prove/expalin freew ill nnot on thsoe holding to biblical truths, as bible again clearly states that we do not have 'free will" as adam had when he chose wrongly!

 

[Revmitchell]

main problem in this entire discussion is that we can assume some truthsd [sic] to be self evident,

No,sir we cannot if we are going to have a reasonable discussions and then call another position something other than truth. The idea that you hold the truth and others do not therefore you do not have to substantiate your claim is not credible and never promotes reasonable discussion.

as the Bible clearly staes [sic] that we are ALl [sic] sinners by birth, confirmed by choice!

inductive fallacy

And the obligation to prove/expalin freew ill nnot on thsoe [sic] holding to biblical truths, as bible again clearly states that we do not have 'free will" as adam had when he chose wrongly!

unsubstantiated, begs the question, inductive fallacy

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Yea, but someone thinks that the biggest problem on the board is a lack of logic. My point is that logic can be just as abused and often is as anything else. To point it out as the largest problem on the board is one a fallacy itself. It seems some place a higher value on logic than they do any reliance on the HG.

Reliance on the HG?!

You don't think THAT is assuming? Rather 'logic' - human, fallible 'logic', for me!

 

[Yeshua1]

No,sir we cannot if we are going to have a reasonable discussions and then call another position something other than truth. The idea that you hold the truth and others do not therefore you do not have to substantiate your claim is not credible and never promotes reasonable discussion.



inductive fallacy



unsubstantiated, begs the question, inductive fallacy

If we are not born as sinners, why did jesus have to die in our place to atone for the wrath of God that abides upon us?

And IF we can freely chose toaccept/reject christ, why do we even need the Holy spriit to work to save us?

 

[Revmitchell]

If we are not born as sinners, why did jesus[sic] have to die in our place to atone for the wrath of God that abides upon us?

I did not say we were not.

And IF we can freely chose toaccept/[sic]reject christ,[sic] why do we even need the Holy spriit[sic] to work to save us?

Here we have a verbal fallacy. This statement assumes there is only one single definition of "freely choose". I do not believe in the definition of freely choose as you appear to here.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

If we are not born as sinners, why did jesus have to die in our place to atone for the wrath of God that abides upon us?

And IF we can freely chose toaccept/reject christ, why do we even need the Holy spriit to work to save us?

So sane and reasonable conclusions for me, the typo's don't even bother me ...

 

[Yeshua1]

I did not say we were not.



Here we have a verbal fallacy. This statement assumes there is only one single definition of "freely choose". I do not believe in the definition of freely choose as you appear to here.

Do you agree that we are all sinners, and unless the Lord reveals Jesus to us, to "open our eyes", we would not come to Him naturally?


BOTH calvinists/Arminians affirm that!



That is what I meant by "some see us able to freely choose still!"

 

[Revmitchell]

Do you agree that we are all sinners, and unless the Lord reveals Jesus to us, to "open our eyes", we would not come to Him naturally?


BOTH calvinists/Arminians affirm that!

I do

That is what I meant by "some see us able to freely choose still!"

I would have to see their argument.

 

[Yeshua1]

I do




I would have to see their argument.

Check the ones that deny original /Imputed Sin, for they would see us as basically same as Adam was before the fall, able to freely chose jesus or freely reject Him!