Post by socalexile on Sept 15, 2018 18:00:00 GMT -6
This is something I found in an Amazon book review that is spot-on. I don't have the link for the review any longer, but this point comes from another source cited at the end:
Let us examine the logical implications of the Reformed maxim, "Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never alone." Which I believe is the argument of [redacted]. If this maxim is broken down to its simplest logical terms, it could be summarized, "If faith, then works." Can it logically be faith alone that saves if the faith that saves is never alone? Upon close inspection we can see that the syllogism cannot logically cohere.
The argument says that works are in no way a condition of justification, in that God does not take them into account in justification. However, they ARE a necessary result of justifying faith, and if they are absent it proves that the faith was not, in fact, justifying. To inquire into the validity of the logic, it is worthwhile to shift it away from metaphysical concepts like justification to a more concrete example. "If it rains, the streets will be wet." Now certainly we can assert that if it rains, the streets will be wet. However, can we analyze whether or not it rained by looking at whether the streets are wet? Gordon Clark breaks down the logical analysis for us: "A little consideration will show that there are two corresponding fallacies. First, asserting the consequent; second, denying the antecedent. 1."x" implies "y"--"y" is true, therefore "x" is true. 2. "x" implies "y"--"x" is false, therefore "y" is false (Gordon Clark, Logic, pages 94-95). The first fallacy is fairly easy to see in our analogy. Our analogy stated that if it rains, the streets will be wet, but the fallacy would be to say that if the streets are wet, then it has rained. There could be any number of reasons the streets are wet (i.e. a broken water main, street sweepers, watering trucks, etc.) that do not involve rain, so asserting the consequent is not allowed.
"Denying the antecedent" is just as fallacious. "If it rains ("x"), the streets will be wet ("y"). It did not rain ("x" is false) therefore the streets are not wet ("y" is false)." We can see that, because there are many reasons the streets could be wet that do not involve rain, we cannot say that a lack of rain leads to streets that are not wet.
Can we apply this analysis of logic to the practical syllogism, "Faith alone saves, but the faith that save is never alone?" The biblical texts give us several reasons to follow our logical analysis above. In which I will only analyze one. Jesus makes this startling statement in Matthew 7:21-23: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord' did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name, perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness." Certainly, these people demonstrated good works. They prophesied, cast out demons, and performed many miracles in Jesus name. By the standard of the practical syllogism we would say that their works proved that they indeed had faith. The opinion of Jesus seems at odds with this line of reasoning, in that their works proved nothing of their internal state. Jesus makes this point again in Matthew 23:27-28.
Finally, John's vision of the eternal fate of unregenerate humanity in Revelation 20:11-15 shows that the practical syllogism cannot make logical sense. Logically, then, the practical syllogism has been shown to fail the basic tests of logic. Upon close inspection we can see that making works a "necessary result" of justification is no different than making them a condition of it, which would change the gospel message into works righteousness. Using works as a gauge for faith commits either the logical error of "asserting the consequent" or "denying the antecedent." The biblical witness bears this out. Therefore, the practical syllogism, "Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never alone" has been shown to be completely untenable from a logical perspective as well as a biblical one.
This is from a book I highly recommend by Fred Chay,Ph.D. and John P.Correia, M.Div. called--The Faith that Saves.
The argument says that works are in no way a condition of justification, in that God does not take them into account in justification. However, they ARE a necessary result of justifying faith, and if they are absent it proves that the faith was not, in fact, justifying. To inquire into the validity of the logic, it is worthwhile to shift it away from metaphysical concepts like justification to a more concrete example. "If it rains, the streets will be wet." Now certainly we can assert that if it rains, the streets will be wet. However, can we analyze whether or not it rained by looking at whether the streets are wet? Gordon Clark breaks down the logical analysis for us: "A little consideration will show that there are two corresponding fallacies. First, asserting the consequent; second, denying the antecedent. 1."x" implies "y"--"y" is true, therefore "x" is true. 2. "x" implies "y"--"x" is false, therefore "y" is false (Gordon Clark, Logic, pages 94-95). The first fallacy is fairly easy to see in our analogy. Our analogy stated that if it rains, the streets will be wet, but the fallacy would be to say that if the streets are wet, then it has rained. There could be any number of reasons the streets are wet (i.e. a broken water main, street sweepers, watering trucks, etc.) that do not involve rain, so asserting the consequent is not allowed.
"Denying the antecedent" is just as fallacious. "If it rains ("x"), the streets will be wet ("y"). It did not rain ("x" is false) therefore the streets are not wet ("y" is false)." We can see that, because there are many reasons the streets could be wet that do not involve rain, we cannot say that a lack of rain leads to streets that are not wet.
Can we apply this analysis of logic to the practical syllogism, "Faith alone saves, but the faith that save is never alone?" The biblical texts give us several reasons to follow our logical analysis above. In which I will only analyze one. Jesus makes this startling statement in Matthew 7:21-23: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord' did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name, perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness." Certainly, these people demonstrated good works. They prophesied, cast out demons, and performed many miracles in Jesus name. By the standard of the practical syllogism we would say that their works proved that they indeed had faith. The opinion of Jesus seems at odds with this line of reasoning, in that their works proved nothing of their internal state. Jesus makes this point again in Matthew 23:27-28.
Finally, John's vision of the eternal fate of unregenerate humanity in Revelation 20:11-15 shows that the practical syllogism cannot make logical sense. Logically, then, the practical syllogism has been shown to fail the basic tests of logic. Upon close inspection we can see that making works a "necessary result" of justification is no different than making them a condition of it, which would change the gospel message into works righteousness. Using works as a gauge for faith commits either the logical error of "asserting the consequent" or "denying the antecedent." The biblical witness bears this out. Therefore, the practical syllogism, "Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never alone" has been shown to be completely untenable from a logical perspective as well as a biblical one.
This is from a book I highly recommend by Fred Chay,Ph.D. and John P.Correia, M.Div. called--The Faith that Saves.
