Establishing Doctrine
Very few Bible
students would ever have the time to independently research
every possible topic in the Bible for themselves. It would be a
life‑long task which would leave you no time to go live what you
learn! So most Christians have relied on Bible teachers,
pastors, TV evangelists, and denominational "statements of
belief" as their source of most if not all of their understanding on many topics. But there is a pitfall in
so much reliance purely on what
others say.
Occasionally we come across a scripture that is
puzzling. It doesn't seem to fit what we have "always heard"
about the topic. At
that point there is a strong temptation to ignore our common
sense and our "gut feelings" and assume we must just be confused.
Trying to sort things out on our own would take time and effort
that many are just not willing to invest. And besides, few
people want to be considered "non‑conformists." In fact,
in some denominations, questioning of doctrinal teachings may be
grounds for expelling the questioner from church membership. In
the more authoritarian sects, this "disfellowshipment" may even
be followed with "shunning," in which even the individual's
closest friends--perhaps even family members--refuse to talk to the offender ever again.
So
it is not all that common for most people to pursue doctrinal doubts very far.
If you
find that some of the material on this website leaves you
questioning whether what you've "always heard about Hell" is
biblically accurate, if you are willing to risk being a non-conformist,
and if you are willing to do some research of your own, then read on
for some tips on how to use sound reasoning to sort
through the topic.
Straw Man
You may have
wondered what the scarecrow at the top of this page has to do
with establishing doctrine! He is a visual representation of the
term "straw man." This term is used in the field of
the study of sound reasoning
to represent a common "fallacy" (a kind of "false or
faulty reasoning") that is used by many people. (The Straw Man
Fallacy is discussed later in this article.) He is thus offered
as a reminder that understanding the Bible isn't just a matter
of memorizing favorite verses. It is a matter of examining all
the information on a given topic that is presented in its pages,
and using sound reasoning to come to conclusions on how they all
fit together. We don't want to live our lives based on
fallacies, but on sound understanding.
There are many
kinds of fallacies that are commonly used by Bible students and
teachers. This has nothing to do with the sincerity of the
student or teacher. They may be fully intending to reason
carefully from the Bible to come to what they believe. But totally
sound reasoning skills are not something that people are born
with. Sound reasoning must be learned, by a combination of
evaluating personal experiences throughout life, and being
taught by those who have mastered the necessary skills
themselves. Unfortunately, it is possible to go through twelve
years of grade school and high school, and even four years of
college, and yet never to have been instructed in how logical
thinking actually works.
The goal
of this article is to introduce some very basic principles of
logic, some guidelines to sound reasoning, that you can apply to
your study of the Bible.
Elementary, My
Dear Watson
The stories of
Sherlock Holmes provide a perfect example of the methods of
careful reasoning. Holmes was an expert at pulling together
tidbits of seemingly unrelated facts and information and
applying the skills of logic to them in order to solve a
mystery. The same is true of the heroes of contemporary popular
crime investigation TV series, such as Monk, Law and Order
Criminal Intent or CSI.
Once Holmes had
solved the crime, his amazed companion, Dr. Watson, would
typically ask how he did it. His answer? "Elementary, my dear
Watson. I deduced ... "--and then he would launch into a
description of his logical thinking processes. The same methods
that Holmes used can be applied to coming to conclusions about a
topic in the Bible that may seem, at first, to be just random
bits of facts and information that cannot paint a clear picture.
Two
Steps to Sound Reasoning
There are two
primary steps to approaching the study of a doctrine in the Bible,
just as there are in solving a crime.
Step One:
The student suspends all pre‑conceived notions he
may have about the topic, and embarks on a systematic
examination of all of the texts which might be related to it.
Concordances, topical
Bibles, and other reference works will be helpful in this
process.
As he acquires
information, he begins to attempt to organize it into
assumptions that can be used to form a systematic statement of
belief about the topic. As each new scripture is considered, he
may have to adjust some assumptions he was beginning to make in
the light of new evidence. This method is called inductive
reasoning. (Someone can be "inducted" into the army. That means
"taken into." Inductive reasoning has the emphasis of beginning
the process of decision‑making with "taking in" information.)
This type of
reasoning can be simplified this way:
1. I have made
X number of observations about this topic.
2. In all of
these instances, the results are the same.
THEREFORE I
feel justified in making the assumption that, if I continued
making observations, the results would continue to be the
same.
In other words,
the goal of all this information-gathering is ultimately to settle on one or more assumptions that seem to be strongly
supported by the evidence gathered.
A simple
example of this process as it relates to Bible study might be
the following:
1. I have
examined a dozen passages in the New Testament that include the
Greek word pneuma.
2. In each of
those passages the King James Bible translators used the
English word "ghost" to translate it.
THEREFORE I
feel justified in making the assumption that in all cases where
pneuma is used, it will be translated as "ghost."
Obviously, in
most cases one never tests "all" of the possible input on any
given topic, whether in the world or in the Bible. And only if
"all" could be examined would "absolute certainty" be available.
Many topics would have virtually unlimited bits of information
available about them. Because of this, the conclusions of
inductive reasoning are usually referred to as either "strong"
or "weak," rather than true or false. In the specific instance
mentioned above about the word pneuma, the person doing
the reasoning would be in error, and has not done enough
examining. The reality is that the KJV translators did not
consistently use the word ghost to translate pneuma. In
many instances they used "spirit," and in some "mind" or "life."
The reasoning in this case was very weak because the sample was
far too small.
In other words,
a conclusion based on an extensive sampling is usually stronger
than one based on a very limited sample. However, "extensive"
need not mean "huge." Statisticians use this method all of the
time when they predict, on a limited sample of the population of
an area, what the reactions of the whole population will be.
Depending on the topic, a huge sample is often not needed to get
some pretty accurate predictive figures for a larger group,
whether the topic is presidential candidates or preferences for
a certain type of food! (This may say something about the herd
instincts of humans ...)
Although the
conclusions made from inductive reasoning are not fool-proof,
they are a useful start to understanding the Bible. Unfortunately,
many Bible students stop at this stage of settling on some
inductive conclusions. For sound reasoning to
be complete, it is necessary to go on to the second step.
Step Two: In this method, you
start with
one of those
assumptions you are already fairly convinced about. As you
continue to examine
scriptures, you attempt to find a way to explain each scripture related to
the topic which you come
across to "fit" that assumption. IF the assumption is true, and
IF the new fact you are examining can be harmonized with it,
THEN you will be able to come to a reasonable conclusion. This
is part of a method called deductive reasoning.
But what if that original assumption
was partially or wholly in error? This is one of the purposes of
deductive reasoning, to "test" the assumptions that you have
come to. If it becomes clear to you that you would have to
really twist the meaning of some passage almost beyond
recognition to get it to fit your assumption, then you may need
to rethink your assumption.
CATegorical Logic
Here is a
simple application of this principle of the two steps, which a
small child uses to make sense of his world:
In his short
lifetime, little toddler Tommy has seen four cats in his
neighborhood. They all happen to be gray striped Tabby Cats.
Mommy has pointed them out to him numerous times, saying "Look
at the kitty!" So Tommy, using inductive reasoning,
begins to make the assumption that "kitty" is a word for a small
furry animal with four feet and whiskers that has gray stripes.
The reasoning
Tommy used can be simplified this way:
1. I have seen
six furry animals with whiskers and grey stripes.
2. Mommy has
told me that these animals are kitties.
THEREFORE I
feel justified in making the assumption that all kitties have
grey stripes.
But one day new
neighbors move in next door. And they have a calico cat! Inside
Tommy's head, a childlike version of deductive reasoning
clicks in when he sees the new cat:
1. All kitties
are grey striped.
2. This new
animal is not grey striped.
THEREFORE: This
new animal is not a kitty.
Pointing to the
calico cat, Tommy may thus ask Mommy, "Whazzat?" Imagine his
confusion when Mommy says, "That's our new neighbors' kitty."
If Tommy is
going to make sense of his world in the most effective way for a
toddler, he will have to go back to square one and rethink his
assumption about the characteristics of kitties.
This is a very
simple illustration of the two basic steps of reasoning. But
don't let the simplicity fool you. These same exact methods can
be used with much more complex issues, and they will work just
as effectively, including for coming to conclusions about doctrinal
topics in the Bible.
Many Steps to
UNSound Reasoning
Unfortunately,
the two steps above can also lead to the beginnings of UNsound
reasoning as well. Very early in the process of each type of
reasoning, it is possible to introduce many side-steps of
logical fallacies.
In inductive
reasoning, the most common types of fallacies involve
drawing conclusions when one really doesn't have enough
information, or the proper information, upon which to make a
strong case. Perhaps the most common of this general type of
fallacy is called the "Hasty Generalization." A more
informal label for this same fallacy is "Jumping to
Conclusions." See the article Jumping to
Conclusions for more information on this particular type of
fallacy, and how it specifically relates to the establishment of
the doctrine of an ever-burning Hell.
The kind of
fallacies made during the process of deductive reasoning
are much more complex and numerous. See the article
The Logical Fallacies for
more information on the standard fallacies of both inductive and
deductive reasoning that are recognized widely among students of
sound logic.
Valid and True
One aspect of
the nature of reasoning that misleads many people is the
distinction between the terms "valid conclusion" and "true
statement." Although in informal speech these terms are often
used interchangeably, actually they do not mean the same thing
at all. An argument can be valid, and yet lead to a conclusion
that is not a true statement. And a conclusion can be a
statement of truth, even though the reasoning that led to it is
not valid! Read on for an explanation of these strange
possibilities.
In the process
of laying out a complex argument to persuade others to accept a
broad conclusion, a series is created of what are called
syllogisms.
A syllogism
is
a three-part statement
that offers two premises
and then declares a conclusion based on
them.
An example of a
common type of syllogism:
Premise 1:
Water becomes frozen at temperatures of 32 degrees Fahrenheit
and lower.
Premise 2: The
temperature inside this refrigerator's freezer is lower than 32
degrees F.
Conclusion:
THEREFORE: If I place water inside this freezer, it will become
frozen.
If the
conclusion is truly forced by the relationship between
the two premises, the conclusion is said to be valid.
But is a valid conclusion always a true statement?
Consider this syllogism:
Premise 1:
Automobiles require gasoline for their engines to run.
Premise 2:
This is an automobile.
Conclusion:
THEREFORE: It will need gasoline to run.
The conclusion
is valid--it is forced by the relationship between the two
premises. But is it true? What if what you are looking at is an
electric-powered automobile? In that case, this valid
argument leads to a false statement. So what
went wrong?
What went wrong
is that, for a valid conclusion the be the truth,
both of the premises must actually be true also. If one or both
of them has a flaw in it, if there are certain conditions in
which it doesn't really represent the truth or the whole truth,
then the valid conclusion will not necessarily be a statement of
truth.
Moving on to an
opposite situation, how could a conclusion that is a true
statement come from one or more premises that are untrue?
Consider this syllogism.
Premise 1:
Some boys with red hair like to play baseball.
Premise 2:
Jeremy has red hair.
Conclusion:
THEREFORE: Jeremy likes to play baseball.
No, the
conclusion in this case is not "forced" by the premises. The
first premise only says "some" boys with red hair, not "all"
boys. So it is entirely possible that Jeremy doesn't like to
play baseball. But what if he does like to play it? In
that case, the conclusion would end up being a true statement
... but the reasoning that was used to attempt to come to it was
not valid.
Some people use
this kind of reasoning when studying the Bible. Their reasoning
is flawed, but once in a while they "accidentally stumble into"
truth. Unfortunately, they may not realize that their continued
use of patterns of reasoning that are not valid will likely lead
them into more and more error.
The most
sensible way to approach Bible study is to want to use sound
logic all the time, and establish what we understand by valid
reasoning processes, rather than rely on occasionally stumbling
into truth.
Informal
Fallacies
In addition to
the kind of fallacies that creep in when doing the sort of
step-by-step thinking offered above (often referred to as
"formal fallacies"), there is a large collection of what are
termed "informal fallacies" which are common in everyday
communication. Few people really take the time to lay out their
arguments for or against some topic in terms of the type of
logical syllogisms mentioned above. You can often go back and
evaluate some of their arguments by plugging their reasoning
into such three-part statements. But in general many of the
"in-between steps" of reasoning are left unspoken. And these
often lead to informal fallacies.
One of the most
common of these is the Straw Man Fallacy. Here is a brief
description of this fallacy, and an example of the fallacy at
work, from
http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/Strawman.html:
Straw Man occurs when
an opponent takes the
original argument of his/her adversary
and then offers a close
imitation, or straw man, version of the original
argument;
"knocks down" the straw
man version of the argument (because the straw man, as
its name implies, is a much easier target to hit, undermine,
etc.)
-- and thereby gives the
appearance of having successfully
countered/overcome/answered the original argument.
...
Consider the way in which the
writer of the following example shifts the original
objections to pot-smoking into an ostensibly less noxious
set of behaviors:
Observers, ranging from
psychiatrists to parents, have noticed that people who
smoke several joints a day often lack motivation to
work, study, exercise, or indeed to do much more than
sit around and listen to music.
According to these
observers, then, sitting around and listening to music
are regarded as if they are behaviorally meaningless.
But what's wrong with sitting in a cool room on a hot
summer's day, listening to Tchaikovsky after smoking a
joint?
In this
example, the position of the "observers" is that habitual
marijuana smoking can lead to a lack of motivation to do the
normal activities necessary to a successful life. If this ends
up being true, this is a serious argument against the habitual
use of pot. The writer, who evidently wants to minimize the
seriousness of this problem, distorts this position. He
implies that the primary complaint against pot-smoking is that
it leads to people listening to music! It would not be
unreasonable to conclude that he has done so because he has no
real answer for the reality that habitual pot-smoking can so
seriously affect motivation.
Fallacies and Biblical Doctrines
There are many
types of fallacies that students of the Bible can be misled by,
both in their own reasoning, and in accepting the reasoning of
others. Some of these are related to the process of inductive
reasoning, some may be related to deductive reasoning.
It is one goal
of the collection of articles on this website to introduce
enough questions about some of the common assumptions about the
nature of Hell and the Afterlife to persuade readers that it
might be appropriate to go back and more carefully examine the
inductive method that was used to arrive at those assumptions.
This examination may reveal some logical fallacies that were
made during the process.
It is also a goal
of the articles on this website to examine some of the deductive reasoning
commonly used in religious circles regarding the doctrines of Hell and the Afterlife, to see where
other fallacies may have been introduced.
And finally, it
is a goal to evaluate many of the informal fallacies that are
used in support of the doctrine. Some of these informal
fallacies are used to attack any attempt to disagree with the
doctrine of an ever-burning Hell where the unsaved are tortured
for eternity.
Proof-texting
One of the most
common methods used by Bible teachers who wish to indoctrinate
their students with their own specific beliefs is labeled "proof-texting." An excellent definition of that term and an
overview of its use is in an article at
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14435.htm
Excerpts:
Facing the Proof Text Method
by Henry Neufeld
By proof-texting I
mean the use of individual scripture texts to produce
apparent support for a doctrinal position without adequate
regard for the contexts of the individual texts which may
indicate differences and nuances. I do not include the
use of texts for illustration or the use of texts which are
properly taken in context and limited appropriately in what
one tries to prove from them. In particular, I'm referring
to the creation of entire doctrines which one demands that
others believe or commands which one then demands that
others obey, taken from a tissue of the words of texts but
ignoring the meaning of those texts in their original
contexts.
...I suggest that the use of
proof-texts is a manifestation of laziness and the desire to
get something for nothing. People do not wish to spend the
time firmly grounding their understanding in what various
Bible writers actually teach. They would much rather have a
short list of texts that support precisely what they have
decided to believe anyhow. Thus, the use of proof-texts
tends toward hypocrisy. To the uninformed, the purveyor of
proof-texts can appear to be wonderfully informed and a deep
scholar of the Bible. In fact, the result of reliance on
proof-texts is a moral certainty and overbearing arrogance
that is not supported by one's study or learning.
Proof-texting can easily lead to
several types of Logical Fallacies. One of these is the fallacy
of "Hasty Generalization" or "Jumping to Conclusions"
mentioned above.
The Bottom Line
Whatever you may currently
believe about the nature of Hell and the Afterlife, you have
nothing to lose by examining the soundness of the reasoning by
which you have come to those beliefs. If they are truly based on
the "whole counsel of scripture," they will only be established
more firmly by examining the reasoning behind them. If they
cannot stand up to a process of shining the light of logic on
them, then why would you want to keep them?
God built into the
mind of man the ability to use the sound principles of logic
that can be applied to the realities of His creation. We have
nothing to fear from using this ability.
It is the abuse of the
principles of logic,
whether by the secular world or by
religious teachers,
that we should want to expose and avoid.
This site contains a collection
of articles, on the topic of Hell and the Afterlife, that may
each be used independently for research purposes. But it also is
designed as a systematic, sequential overview of the whole
topic, which can be read like a book.
For those who would like to take
advantage of this perspective of the content, the articles are
arranged in the
Reading Guide as they would appear as chapters in a book, along
with a few reference chapters at the end such as would appear in
a book Appendix.
Use the
links below to go to the next article, previous article, or
first article
in the Reading Guide sequence.
←
→
Previous
Next
←←
Back to Beginning
PLEASE
NOTE:
No single short article can comprehensively cover
any aspect of the topic of Hell. If you have
questions or concerns regarding the material in this
article, be sure to first read through the site
FAQ before writing to the
author. It may already specifically address the very
points you are wondering about.
Unless otherwise
noted, all biblical references in this and other articles on the
Is It True What They Say About Hell? website are from the
New International Version (NIV).
All of the articles on this
Is it true what they say about Hell? website were written by Pam Dewey, with
the support and sponsorship of Common Ground Christian
Ministries. For more of Pam's inspirational and educational
writings, visit her Oasis
website.
All website content
© 2007, Pam
Dewey and Common Ground Christian Ministries
All rights reserved. Material may
be copied for personal use of the site visitor. For permission
to copy for any other purposes, please contact the author at
oasis7@gmail.com
