Use and Abuse of Logic in Theological Discussions (Series Part One)

Logic is employed in multiple degrees and usefulness when discussing biblical texts and theology (whether explicitly or implied).  I've used some words in the past that may have caused confusion.  You may have even read them in books and wondered what they are saying (or meant to say).  I am also concerned that you know how to recognize logical fallacies when you hear or read them through sermons, classes, lectures or in writing (electronic or paper).  Evaluating the opinions and views of others is especially important during an election year.  You can easily also apply the below fallacies to debates and political rhetoric.

From here I will list several (definitely not exhaustive) informal logical fallacies often employed via the above listed sources (preaching, teaching, writing, etc...).  These are some of the more common fallacies employed and at first glance they may preach, teach, or in article sound good and convincing but upon further glance the arguments or positions are nothing more than fallacies of formal or informal logic.  At a later date I may add full length articles on each fallacy identifying specific books, sermons, and authors who employ these fallacies on a regular basis.

Quick note (but not entirely), formal logic employs structured formulas.  For example:  All dogs are mammals.  All poodles are dogs.  Therefore, all poodles are mammals.  Since these sentences must meet certain forms and rules adhering to subject (s), predicate (p), and middle (m) terms they are considered formal.  They can be identified by their form and/or structure. The arguments validity and/or reliability is another subject.

Informal arguments must be evaluated based on their content (not the form "All S are P").  So what people say and/or write (their content) is critical in determining whether they are committing an informal fallacy.

Don't forget these positions are not actually the right alternatives and certainly not the only available positions.  These are examples to show why they fit into the category of informal "fallacy."  Consider the following (including illustrations of how they are used in preaching, teaching, and writing):

First, we will consider the either/or fallacy.  Put simply the presenter gives only two available alternative options and the listener must chose from only these two options.  If you don't believe position/doctrine A then you must believe the only available alternative position B.  Consider some examples (to make them easier to read I will use "if...then" statements):

If you are not a Dispensationalist then you must be the only other option a Covenant Theologian.
If you are not a Calvinist then you must be the only other option an Arminian.
If you don't believe God is absolutely sovereign then you must believe in free will.
If you don't believe in a plurality of elders then you must believe in congregational polity.
If you don't believe in Calvinistic Monergism then you must believe in Arminian Synergism.

Again, I'm not saying the above arguments are Biblically accurate.  I am only making the point to show how this fallacy is used.  They allow for no third option painting only two available options.  Usually presented in a manner that their option is the only orthodox or even acceptable option .

Second, we will consider the definition fallacy.  I am deliberately placing this fallacy after the either/or fallacy because it is so easy for a preacher, teacher or writer to employee these to help promote or justify their exegetical position or theological view(s).  The definition fallacy is primarily a way to define the term/position with all the proper caveats and exceptions so as to make other options sound or look incorrect or less than appealing.  What is then the standard for evaluating everyone else's position/views?  Their own definition.  This is especially why it is important to define exactly what someone means before labeling someone a certain way (not a helpful option).  Consider the polarizing terms such as legalist, antinomian, synergism, or new evangelical.

Third, building off the definition fallacy, we will consider the ad hominem fallacy.  In essence this fallacy attacks the person instead of their argument.  This is the normal name calling or character attack argument.  Using this name calling invokes a definition of the term employed primarily by the speaker/writer. You've heard the terms before (we will readdress this one below under equivocation).  Names like Calvinist, Arminian, Legalist, Synergist, Arminian, Fundamentalist, Liberal, Conservative, and Evangelical.  It makes it much easier to call people names and try to discredit them instead of ever actually exegetical interacting with their theological or exegetical position.  Sad thing is that the more super-charged the name the worse it appears.

Fourth, we will consider the straw man fallacy.  This one is quite simple.  Present the position you want to attack in extreme terms so that it is easier to refute.  Consider this slant: No Calvinists are evangelistic, Calvinism kills evangelism, or Calvinism leads to antinomianism.  Notice how heightened these statements are in attacking a particular theological system.  How about Bible-believing Fundamentalism being a group of KJV-only, Hell, fire, and brimstone Bible thumpers.  Does this mean that evangelicals don't believe in a literal hell or could hold to a KJV-only position?  Of course not.  But this makes the point.  The more extreme I can paint another person's position the less appealing it becomes.  It also makes it easier to attack, especially the more universal language employed then you can point out some exception to discredit the position (All Evangelical Arminians believe in prevenient grace).

Fourth, we will consider the genetic fallacy.  I will deliberately follow the straw man fallacy with this one.  The genetic fallacy put bluntly is to point to the source (origin) of the argument, not the argument itself.  If I can attack the source of an argument without actually interacting with the argument and showing why it is wrong, then I have committed the genetic fallacy.  Position A is wrong because it originated with organization or person B.  Not necessarily the association with B but position A found its source in organization/person B, therefore it must be wrong.

Fifth, the Red Herring fallacy.  Basically this is a means of introducing irrelevant information into an argument (not necessary for the argument), but it functions to distract from the real argument.  The person then reacts or responds to the unnecessary information never actually refuting the original argument.

Lastly, we will consider the equivocation fallacy.  This is very similar to several above fallacies.  Equivocation is using a single term/thought in multiple different ways within a single argument, article, sermon, etc....

Consider the following illustration combining many of the above fallacies.  See if you can catch them all (remember the terms and how they appear or are used).

All Fundamentalists are just a bunch of legalists.  So the only other safe and intelligent option is to be a conservative and balanced evangelical.  The Gospel Coalition has many evangelical adherents so it must be the right and educated alternative.  Of course, since evangelicals are not legalists then they must be antinomians.  Again, many liberals are also educated, so we should view education and evangelicals with suspicion.  Tree-huggers are concerned about conserving the environment.  Aren't Christians supposed to liberal givers?

So did you catch any of them?  There are quite a few fallacies in that one paragraph.

I will follow up this article with a listing of resources to help anyone and everyone on these issues of formal and informal logic.  Please train your heart and mind to read, listen and write with Christian discernment.  I pray this and the following helps will help you (it definitely has helped me over the years).

Hope this helps provide some tools to be a logically informed listener and reader.
Listen and read with a discerning eye and ear.