Sface;AND+THE+NEW...If it should be the case that the Bible both authorizes and forbids only by explicit teac h ing and not by implicit teaching at all, for any person no w living

•

a logical be1ng---one who r , --i.s the ab:1'...1ty to recogn1ze 1ele vant eviden c e and to jraw the c ;·nr:.:lusirin which 1 s implied by the evidence. Really, it , ,_, 1ust t nat simple' And oncE , an honest person learns • ,, .. se s1mr Le matters . 1t will b1:-j very difficult for any person to lead him a s tray in reg ~rd to what the Bible teaches about a particular doctrine.

Mothers, help your c HJ 'dren in t h i s all-important natter. As I stated just above, use simple illustrations; for e>ample, draw one circle inside of another ci r cle to help them t( understand the matter of 1G1.:lusion. Draw two circles not touching each other to ill . strate the matter of exclus i on , and so forth. Use your own imagination. You do not have to study a formal course in logi c in a university in order to teach these things to ynur children. I have already written a large numb 1r of articles as well as a number of books on the matter. It may be that this "extra" material can be of help to mothers in training their precious children to "p ove all things" and to "hold fast to that which is goo .

In closing, may I say again that I realize that this article is much too short to do all that needs to be done in regard to the matter und0r consideration. But I do rlead for all mothers to protect their little ones from those who seek to persuade them - , accept the false view that Biblical faith 1s nothing m_re than "a leap into the dark": that is, the acceptance of some doctrine as true when the Bible not only does not uphold it but actually does deny it.

Mothers, help your children to learn what the Bible teaches in regard to what they must do both to become Christians and to live the faithful ~hristian life (Mk. 16:16; Rev. 2:10; Heb. 12:14; II John :}- 11; et al.). Help your children to do as Jesus and His A i:,· stles d i d; namely, to both learn and teach the truth and t c learn how to confound (refute) false teachers by proving that the doctrine which they teach is false (see such passa g ~•s as Acts 9:20-22, II Tim. 4:1-5, and Gal. 1:6-9).

May the good Lord bless i n a special way every Christian mo~h 1r and her childr en . by Thomas B. Warren

~ ---- See various articles on this subject/in Gospel Advocate, _ _)J,- ~ F1 rm Found at 1 on, Spirit ua 1 Sword , et a 1 . and the following * books by Thomas B . Warre ,; : When Is ~Q "Example" Binding ?-

~ --~ Treatise On Biblical Hermeneutics, Logic And The Bible , Sface; Lectures On Church Cooperat i on And Orphan Homes, Keeping the Logic IQ Wedlock, Und e r Bondage To The Law Of Christ­--The Only Real Freedom; The Warren-Flew Debate On Atheism And Evo lution, The Warren-Ballard Debate On The Pla n Of Salvation.

rathe .1. L, 1a y prophesy." So, they were implic 1t , ... r ucted to desire sp 1r1tual gifts and, more specifically, th d _ .hey might prophesy. Are Christians living today instructed by the Bible to desire miraculous gifts, including the gift of prophecy (that is, to be mirac ul ously aided by the Holy Spirit to be able to infallibly p r each the gospel even wh~ one has not learned the gospel by personally studying it? Absolutely not! To know the truth on this matter, one must infer what the explicit statements of the Bible imply! There are many matters which could be mentioned to further illus trate this point; for example, the Bible nowhere explicitly states that the church of Christ was established on the first day of Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ. But it does implicitly teach such! And, so we emphasize: no one can learn the t~uth of the Bible without inferring what the explicit statements of the Bibl e imply!

The Bible teaches that what is taught implicitly by the Bible can be just as binding as that which is taught explicitly (e.g., see ·1att. 4:11; Mk. 16:15-16; I Car. 12:1-14:40; et al.). To sa v that a given proposition is implicitly taught by the Bible is to affirm that it is impossible for the explicit statements which are involved to be true and yet the proposition which is said to be implied to be false. In rearing their children to be goo d Bible students, parents should help their children to understand and value this vital truth. Mothers should help their children to see tha~, in studying the Hibl~, they should prove all things (show that th~ expiici~ stalements of the Bible ·imply what they accept, I Thess.5:21). Mothers must help their children to understand that they must infer only what the explicit statements of the Bible imply.

May all mothers realize that they can help their children to understand these matters by the use of simple illustrations from ordinary things of life. For example, let it be supposed that a mother has five apples, a bowl, and a cabinet (in the kitchen). She tells her little boy, "All of the apples are in the bowl" (statement no. 1). She asks if he understands, and the boy answers, .,, :es." She thE~n tells him, "The bowl is in the cabinet''(statement no. 2) . She then asks the bo _if he understa-nds tJlEt sec.and, s t atement. After the boy says

· t at e oes, the mother ~s him 1f the statement, "All of the apples are in the cabinet," is true. The boy says," Yes.·• Surely it is the c~se that if the :boy i~ at least, say, _four or five •years of age, he will no doti .:)t reply, "All of the a·pples are in the cabinet." If a ch_.ld asks his mother, "Where is my tricycle?" and the mot iter replies, "Your tricycle is both in the _garage _ and in .he street," the child will not believe her. Why not? Becaus,:. even little children know tnaf. two contradictory staternen r:s cannot both be true! I myself have actually tried such tests on a number of small c hildren, and I have found that ~ ave no trouble in arriving at the correct answer to such problems. Not even a child will accept contradiction. Yet many "scholars" will accept such! Mothers, guard your ch~ldren from grievous error! God created man as a logical being---a being with the ability to recognize relevant evidence and ~o draw the conclusion which is warranted by the evidence. God demands of all people that they draw only such conclusions s are warranted by the evidence.

Why is this the case? Simply because God created man as

J

3

I ury e Lhdt no woman allow herself to be so misl e, ; JS

to say, "Logic is too complicated for me and my children; I wil l not study it any further." I t is simply not true that logic is too complicated! No mother should abandon training her children "to prove a ll things." Every person who is reading this article is not only a practicing logician but is a good logician! God gave logical ability to Adam and Eve, and this ability has come down to all of us who do not have some sort of brain deficiency. I urge every reader to consider this fact: it is a terrible mistake for any person to reject the right use of logic in the study of the Bible.

"But what," one may ask, "is logic anyway?" Logic is the science of valid reasoning. It is not mere wishing that a certain doctrine is true. Logic is not mere thinking. It is not mere wrangling. Logic has to do with inference­--that is, it involves the inferring of the proposition which is implied by explicit statem e nts. It involves ~he inferring of what is implied by the premises (which comprise the evidence of an argument). It raises the question, "Do the premises of this argument imply the conclusion of this argument?" (I Thess. 5:21; Acts 2:22-36; et al.).

There are many people who seldom, if ever, say such things as, _"Let me explain to you why this argument (wnich is sound) proves tha~ Proposition A is true." But people do this (o ~ at lea::;t ' try) qn an alm o st constant basis. This is the c~se even when they have never studied a formal course in logic. (Note: even some first-graders are now studying logic in school.)

Please note: no one can a correctly interpret the Bible without inferring what the explicit statements of the Bible imply.

Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. Biblical hermeneutics is the science of correctly interpreting the explicit statements of the Bible. Yet many today are foolishly claiming that only such beliefs and practices as are explicitly st~ted in the Bible can be binding on men---that is, in either authorizing what men _ must or can do or forbidding what men are not to do in religion. Fortunately, this doctrine is false. The Bible rejects it. If this doctrine were true, it would follow that the Bible sa:}Snothing at all to any person now living on the earth. This.is the case because there is not one person living on earth today to whom there is specific reference (that is, by name) made in the entire Bible. But the Bible does imply that all men and women now on earth are amenable to the g ospel (Mk. 16: 15-16) .

If it should be the case that the Bible both authorizes and forbids only by explicit teac h ing and not by implicit teaching at all, for any person no w living to come to know that the Bible either authorizes him or forbids him to do a certain thing, it would be necessary for that person to find his own name explicitly state d in connection with an explicit statement in regard to the belief or action under consideration. Since no one livin g today can do such a thing, it is obvious that the "no logic" doctrine is patently

false. In I Corinthians 14:1, the Christians at Corinth

were instructed to ''desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but

)

2

Ue <-1 • , 1 n an adequate way with the subject of h~.!l meneutics---especi ally in the face of the problem of such theories as the so-called "new hermeneutic"---is beyond the scope of this article. But, I sincer e ly hope that something will be said here that will be of si gnifi cant value to every woman who reads it.

I want to make clear that the so-called "new hermeneutic" is not really new. Some forty years ago while I was doing graduate study, some professors began to discuss what they called the "new hermeneutic." Since I had already studied considerably in the field of philosophy (including philosophy of religion, logic, history of philosophy and /<i / J., e, religion, epistemology [theory of krrow.i_!@qe]), I quickly C- now-=:;~ 1 recognized that the so-called "new hermeneutic" was really nothing more than the same old theories of ancient, medieval, and modern erroneous philosophies being presented in new ("up-to-date") terminology. It might be noted that usually it seems to take the liberal-minded people a number of years to catch up with and espouse the tenets of various false philosophies (many of which date back to what was written centuries earlier).

The so-called "new hermeneutic" (differing slight ly with various exponents) usually involves various treatments of these main topics: (1) agnosticism , (2) subjectivism, (3) , pluralism, (4)"uriity-in •-divers ity ," (-5) misology, et

; ·t 1 I , al. . , \ ( , 't · . \ .• I.

Agnosticism is the doctrine that the gaining of knowledge is simply beyond the capability of any and every human being. Given this doctrine, no one could ever know that God exists, that the Bible is the word of God, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that Christ addressed the gospel to all capable people (Mk. 16:15-16; et al.)

Subjectivism affirms that there is no such thing as the truth (cf. John 8:32; Mk. 16:15-16; Rom. 1:15-17; et al.). It affirms that there is no such thing as a body of objective truth which continues to involve exactly what it has always involved regardless of what various people conclude after they have studied the matter. Given this theory, each person's "it seems to me 11· ' is about the best any one can do with "the truth," for, according to this view, "truth" is subjective (created by the person who is doing the thinking about a given matter). Mothers must strive to help their children not to acccept this philosophy.

"Unity-in -diversity" affirms that religious people ought to recognize that all other religious people are to be extended fellowship without any regard for the fact that the particular doctrines which they espouse are contradictory of one another and of the Bible. This is actually nothing other than a special kind of rejection of the gospel of Christ.

"Misology" (sometimes referred to as "logophobia") is the fear of or the rejection of logic. Logic is the science of valid reasoning. It is absol utely crucial to one's understanding the Bible. However, misologists cla i m that logic ts nothing but a "human invention" which has no acceptable place in religion at all. A detailed discussion of these various matters is beyond the scope of this article. More space will be allotted to the crucial role of the science of valid reasoning (logic) than to any of the others.

J

WOMEN AND "THE NEW HERMENEUTIC" Thomas B. Warren, Consulting Editor

In spite of what followed the first sin of Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:16), it is an exalted privilege for a woman to be so "fashioned" by God that she can give birth to children. What an exalted privilege and awesome responsibility it is for a woman to have so much of the training of her children to be put into her hands. (Of course, both father and mother have the responsibility of bringing up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord---this involves the total training of the child: involving body, mind, and spirit, Eph. 6:4). It is my own conviction that "fathers," in Ephesians 6:4, is used in a figurative sense to refer to both fathers and mothers in their respective responsibilities in the rearing of their children.)

Both parents have awesome responsibilities in the bringing up of their children "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." It is clear that God planned things so that the woman---at least under usual, ordinary circumstances---would spend more time with the children than would the father. Thus, the mother is usually in a situation in which she has more time to teach and train the children than does the father. The mother usually can be with the father during at least most of the time he is wit h their children.

· I have sqid t9e ~ orego J ng in ~rder to emphasize the unus tual opport ·uni ty which m'others have to · teach 'the Bible to their children. This is not for one moment to suggest that the responsibility of the father---in the training of the children---is not an awesome one, for it is! It is an awesome responsibility for fathers!

Further, it is not the purpose of this article to deal with all of the wonderful things which mothers may do while their children are still very young. This article is concerned with the great work which mothers can do in teaching their children how to correctly interpret the Bible. (What greater thing could a mother do?) The task of correctly interpreting the • Bible is usually referred to as "Biblical hermeneutics." Women have an obligation to give serious consideration to this matter both as individual persons and as mothers who are to be teachers of their childre .

It must be noted, as we consider the role of women in responding to the presently so-called "new · Hermeneutic," that the Bible has been written by men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit (II Tim. 3:16-17; II Pet. 1:20-21; et al.) Since God neither lies nor does any other foolish thing, the men who wrote the Bible were guided by the Holy Spirit to write the Bible so that every responsible human being could understand it. No one can be saved without both knowing an d obeying God's truth (John 8:32; Gal. 1:6-9; II Thess. 1:7-9). What a travesty it would have been for God to have given to people a book which they---in order to be saved---must love, study understand and obey, and 77 yet that book to be one which 1 written in such fashion ---- =::;;, w4~ · · as to be beyond the ability of uman beings to be able to • ~ , I _-.,L ~~4- ,.,... learn what it teaches. But, in spite of the fact that many ~~

people claim that no one can ever learn ( and thus know) Y'Y'~ - }

what the Bible teaches, Jesus taught that people can know (!/V\fl,~ the truth (John 8:32). ~ fr,

p..J,-)