Let us briefly consider each of these facts, and the principles implied in them, and then understand how to apply them in finding the truth and keeping it in our hearts.

Our foundation in seeking truth is laid primarily in the fact that God defines truth, which establishes a single ultimate, objective standard by which to evaluate any information we receive in our search for truth. By this we may define Truth itself as that entire body of ideas and concepts which are aligned with and consistent with God. In addition to Scripture, we assume that Creation (Science), Logic and History are also legitimate sources of information as we seek to know the truth, because God is the Author of Logic, the Designer of Creation, and the perfect Observer and Interpreter of historical events. Therefore all four of these sources of truth must be consistent, fully aligned with a single ultimate Source.

To find these statements linked together tightly, logically, we need to find a relationship between A and C, believing in Jesus Christ and condemnation. If this relationship exists we may employ another logical principle: transitivity, to fully relate these truths.

Transitivity is a logical structure that extends equivalence: If we know that the statement If A then B is a true statement, and we also know that If B then C is true, then we may also conclude that the statement If A then C is a true statement. This conclusion is valid because it is based upon a logical law, often referred to in mathematics as The Transitive Law. The law is often stated using the concept of equality rather than simply conditional statements: If A=B and B=C then A=C.

A transitive structure contains a compound hypothesis with two logical components: A=B and B=C. If both component hypotheses are true and the entire conditional statement is valid and true then the conclusion is also true. If either component is false, then the statement is true by vacuous hypothesis just as in a simple conditional statement. This law holds true in logic just as it holds true in mathematics (being a pure application of logic).

What we need in order to establish a logical relationship between the two statements above is equality: A = not C. We need to find that the concepts A and not C are equal, that they have exactly the same truth values: that A is true if and only if not C is true. This is the same as saying that A is false when and only when not C is false. We can obtain an equivalence relation by expressing both a conditional statement involving both concepts and also either its converse or inverse. We could say both If A then not C and If not A then C (inverse). If both are true, then this is sufficient to conclude equality. Further, it is also necessary that both be true to conclude equality; if exactly one of the statements is untrue we may not conclude equality (since, as we may observe, if both statements are false ... then we can take the inverse of each and obtain equivalence).

In our work with the two biblical texts above the statement of equality would be as follows: "A man is a believer in Jesus Christ (A) if and only if (=) he is not condemned (not C)." It is not sufficient to have just "If not A then C," we actually need not A=C: when A is true C must be false, and when A is false C must be true. We need a statement and its converse or inverse in order to obtain equivalence. In other words, we need both "If A then not C" and "If not A then C." Is there such a text in the Bible?

Consider John 3:18a: "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already." Here, God makes a simple statement: "If a man believes on Christ (A) then he is not condemned (not C)." God then immediately also states the inverse: "If a man does not believe on Christ (not A) then he is condemned (C)." We now have what we sought: and God has conveniently placed both pieces together for completeness ... Logic is His language, and those who know this language will see Him using it consistently and repeatedly.

In making both statements God links them together as a definition: if one condition is true then the other condition must be true, and if one condition is false, the other condition must be false. Since we have both a statement and its inverse as true, and since we know that the contrapositive of any true statement is true, then all four logical constructions of these simple statements are all true. This is an "If-and-Only-If" relationship: "A man is condemned if and only if he does not believe on Jesus Christ." Also, "A man is a believer in Christ if and only if he is not condemned."

Now we have equivalence between 1 Peter 2:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:22: these statements are now seen to be tightly linked, formally -- mathematically: we find them to be one and the same in their affect upon us. "If a man is not condemned then he is a believer in Jesus Christ. If a man is a believer in Jesus Christ then he loves Jesus Christ. If a man does not love Jesus Christ then he is condemned and is not a believer." When I saw the contrapositive of 1 Peter 2:7a, it had the exact same affect upon me as 1 Cor 16:22 since I already knew John 3:18. In this manner we may use the principles of logic to deduce truth and fearlessly find that all truth is in complete and perfect harmony with all other truth. We compare Scripture with Scripture, as in this small step, and accept nothing less than perfect harmony among all the words and works of God. This is possible, if we are simply willing to do it, and it is a very good thing for us to do.

-----------

Logical errors can certainly appear in many forms. Treating the converse or inverse as logically equivalent to the original conditional statement results in error. Similarly, abuse of transitivity, attempting to claim the transitive law without having both conditions in the compound conditional hypotheses as true, results in logical error. This is equivalent to applying a biblical principle outside of its immediate context or misrepresenting it in some way.

This device generally employs a common or subtle error to obtain another error using transitivity. The deceiver wishes to prove something false, "If A then C," and so starts with something we will likely accept, If A then B , since he suspects we will accept a related error, If B then C. If he is correct about our acceptance of If A then B, and we do happen to be deceived by error If B then C, we also end up with another error, If A then C, due to the transitive law ... and it is very difficult for us to resist this. The only correct way out of this trap is to question our error, If B then C, admit we were wrong about it, and reject both errors, If B then C and If A then C. This is much more difficult to do than merely rejecting If A then C, especially if If B then C is a widely held or deeply held belief, or a very subtle point that we have overlooked.

Rather than dealing with such a difficulty honestly, and to avoid being convinced by the second lie being offered, most people will actually reject the concept of Logic altogether. This is certainly dishonest, yet much more convenient than humbling ourselves ... and thus the frequent choice to avoid the enemy's attempt to deceive. However, this step gives the enemy an even greater victory in our lives: if we elect to make this move toward pride and dishonesty, we open wide the door of our lives to satanic invasion, and a lying spirit will certainly find welcome in our midst to infest our hearts, deepen our deception, and corrupt and molest all those with whom we interact. This is actually quite a triumph for our enemy, must more devastating than the initially attempted deception.

However, if we are willing to be honest, and find ourselves reluctant to accept the second error, If A then C, because it plainly violates known truth, and we also are humble during this encounter, we can turn the trap against our enemy. We merely recognize the fact that two truths cannot produce an error with the transitive law, so if the transitive law produced an error, one of the hypotheses is necessarily false. We inspect both of these conditional hypotheses carefully, figure out which one is false, and proceed to reject both If B then C and If A then C. This delivers us from a lie that held us captive, we both grow from this... and confound our enemy: he came to bind us further but set us free instead.

Let us take our example in 1 John 1:9, where a deceived one says, "If I confess all my sin then I will go to heaven ... I don't need to be "saved" like you say ... the Bible even says so!" What have we here?

First, we go back the text and read it very carefully. What John wrote is this (emphasis mine): "if we confess our sins..." Who is this "we?" We is evidently a group of people that included John. Which group is this? Clearly, John was a sinful person. He was also a believer in Jesus Christ. He was also an Apostle. This special "we" group could therefore be all sinful people, it could be all believers in Jesus Christ, it could be restricted only to the Apostles ... for that matter, it could be restricted to Jewish men whose first name starts with "J" and who lived between 3211 BC and 1321 AD ... it could be ANY group of people that includes John the Apostle. Regardless, the statement "If I confess my sins, God is faithful and just to forgive me" will be true for anyone included in this " we" group.

In making his claim, our deceived friend has made subtle use of the transitive law: he has claimed that he is included in the "we." This is one of the two hypotheses in his transitive statement: "If I am in we and I confess my sins then I will be forgiven." Both conditional hypotheses must be true for the entire statement to be true. Evidently, the second hypothesis and the conclusion are solid, taken directly from the text of 1 John 1:9; we can only find hope of reconciliation with the rest of God's word in rejecting the first hypothesis, which is indeed extremely subtle -- we would not likely have noticed this in a casual reading of the text. Now, we must show that I is not equivalent to we ... and we will likely be accused of splitting hairs when we do...

We know from other portions of God's Word that a believer can be assured of the fact that God has graciously forgiven them of all sin. Such passages as Acts 13:39, "And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses," make this quite clear. It is also evidently true that a believer will tend to confess his sin, rather than hide it and go on in rebellion. We initially conclude that the "we" in 1^st John is believers. We are challenged whether it is necessarily true that ANYONE who confesses their sin is immediately forgiven, even an unbeliever, as our deceived friend would have us believe?

If truth is consistent then we only need one counterexample to show that this conclusion is false: Judas Iscariot confessed his sin and was apparently not forgiven and cleansed from all unrighteousness. The wicked often confess their sin and call out to God when things get rough for them, but God will not always hear them: "Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me." (Pr 1:28) Also, "They cried, but there was none to save them: even unto the LORD, but he answered them not." (Ps 18:41)

Finally, to be conclusive we return to John 3:18. Those who do not believe on the Son are condemned whether they confess their sin or not. Since it is evidently possible to confess sin without believing on Jesus Christ ... as an atheist caught in adultery might in order to win her husband back. We clearly have our proof: not everyone who confesses sin is forgiven of their sin, confession does not necessarily cause forgiveness. John's "we" is restricted to believers in Jesus Christ and does not apply to our deceived friend who wishes to work his way to heaven: this principle of forgiveness applies only to believers in Jesus Christ. What (God through) John is doing is encouraging the saint burdened with the guilt of sin, not offering a formula for one to be forgiven apart from faith in Christ. The deception came very subtly, assuming that the "we" includes all people ... evidently, it does not.

-----------

Notice further in valid logical development, as in the above example, that a conditional statement need not necessarily convey a cause-and-effect relationship between an hypothesis and a conclusion. Assuming that a simple conditional If-Then statement implies a cause-and-effect relationship is a third type of logical error. Conditional statements do not imply such causal relationships. Saying, "If it rains then we go to the store" does not necessarily imply that the raining causes us to go to the store, it merely establishes the fact of our going, the consistent relationship between the first condition being true and the second.

If we wish to convey a causal relationship we must go beyond a simple conditional If-Then statement and explicitly state a causal relationship, "We go to the store because it rains... the rain makes us go shopping." For instance, one cannot claim that the act of a believer confessing a sin causes God to forgive that sin based on 1 John 1:9 since a causal relationship between confession and forgiveness is not explicitly stated there.

Notice however in John 3:18b that God does not merely create a definition for us, a strict relationship between eternal life and believing on Jesus Christ; in this text God also explicitly defines a cause and effect relationship: unbelief in Jesus Christ causes condemnation... unbelief results in condemnation. "...he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:18b) Since faith is the absence or negation of unbelief, and since salvation is the absence or negation of condemnation, then we also have (by inversion of John 3:18b), "faith in Jesus Christ causes salvation," ... a logically equivalent statement due to the fact that we have a definition in John 3:18, and a truth that is also clearly stated by God elsewhere in the Bible: "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Romans 5:1)

-----------

Another type of logical error lies in the use of Illustration. One wishes to show, "If A then B" and so creates an illustration in order to persuade another that the principle is valid. While an illustration can be very effective in clarifying a concept, one cannot validate a concept merely by illustrating it.

Perhaps one wishes to teach that salvation depends entirely upon the free will of the sinner, and that God has already done everything He can to save the sinner. One may illustrate the point by considering a man offering someone else a free gift. The gift is paid for and presented freely. Yet, if the intended recipient rejects the gift and walks away, the gift does not benefit them since they never receive it. The gift is then wasted.

The illustration is used to attempt to convince us of a falsehood: that salvation depends upon the free will of the sinner to receive it. Since God evidently offers salvation as a gift, and since we have an illustration of someone rejecting a gift that can be rejected in the context of free will, it is evidently "demonstrated" that salvation is entirely dependent on the free will of the sinner. In effect we have three statements, supposedly linked by transitivity, "If salvation is a gift, then it is freely offered. If a gift is freely offered, then it depends upon the free will of the soul to receive it. Thus if salvation is a gift, then it depends entirely upon the free will of the soul to receive it." This is an, "If A then B, and If B then C, so If A then C," construction.

The problem with such illustrations is that they assume the truthfulness of what they are illustrating, they cannot demonstrate this truthfulness. The illustration above assumes the second statement, the "If B then C," and gives a real-life example to illustrate it. However, no proof is offered that this second statement is true ... its validity is merely assumed. We typically do not notice this type of deception because our attention is artificially focused by the presenter on the conditions where the statement happens to be true ... we are not encouraged to evaluate the statement fully but we are encouraged to accept it simply because it may be true: perhaps in this case we do not notice that there are indeed gifts which cannot be rejected ... as when one cancels a debt.

One can illustrate most anything and create an evidently compelling case for most any concept using Deceptive Illustration, especially if one appeals to deep cultural norms or cherished sentiments. Those who are disposed to accept certain concepts as true for whatever reason will find it VERY difficult to sort through such illustrations and will often be further convinced and deceived by them.

One must carefully distinguish between the use of an illustration to clarify a concept, and the use of an illustration to validate or prove a concept. The former is a correct, logical and legitimate use of an illustration; the latter is not. It is in this sense that a parable in the mouth of a fool is very dangerous. Such parables do not generally "walk on all fours..." there is something twisted about them that is not necessarily always apparent.

Christ Jesus certainly uses illustrations. He uses them to clarify concepts, not to validate concepts. He illustrates salvation using the concept of human birth (in John 3... flatly contradicting the "free-will" notion "proved" in the "free-gift" illustration), not to prove a point ... that salvation is independent of the will, but to clarify a concept ... that salvation, like the birth process, is an entry into an entirely new existence that cannot be understood or appreciated in merely the natural realm.

-----------

Another common deception that violates Logic is to attack truth using Guilt By Association . One says of polygamy, "That's what Mormons believe!" implying that if a Mormon believes something, then it must be false, dangerous, or incorrect ... an illogical deduction. Another says, "Well, even the Pharisees had the Bible memorized, and they are the ones that killed Jesus!" implying that memorizing the Bible is not a valuable thing to do. Still another says, "Satan is the accuser of the brethren, and we certainly don't want to be anything like him!" implying that it is always unrighteous to bring attention to the fact that a brother or a sister is walking in sin. One wishes to reject the authority of the husband and so will inevitably relate some heinous domestic crime, or attempt to link the concept with a terribly wicked practice or person. One wishes to invalidate both Logic and the Bible as valid tools in the quest for truth ... and says with disdain, "You can prove anything from the Bible!" implying that false teachers who wrest the Word of God are using Logic in a legitimate and consistent manner to do so and thus discrediting those who appeal to Logic and Scripture as a basis of reason.

The fact that wicked men leverage a particular truth for evil purposes is irrelevant in evaluating that truth. Likewise, associating a truth with some wicked behavior or a belief system is deceptive, unless this truth necessarily implies such wickedness. Further, one cannot prove non-truth from truth ... though one can certainly deceive with false reasoning and twist the truth into a lie. The apparent intended effect in such a maneuver is simply embarrassment or intimidation rather than genuine persuasion. Similarly, subjecting another to open blatant scorn, mockery or anger due to their position has a similar intended effect, tending to intimidate one into stepping down from a position by means of abuse or the threat of abuse. Guilt by Association is fundamentally then a tactic of intimidation. Perceiving this move on the part of our enemy should alarm and sober us. We should be prepared to handle this maneuver without compromising the truth ... and never, ever use such a device ourselves.

Further, besides appealing to, "who believes what," another twist to the Guilt by Association tactic is pointing out some sin in the life of a person proclaiming the truth. This is likewise deceptive ... for while a person's sinful life can legitimately bring a question as to the person's moral integrity, sin in the preacher -- or holiness for that matter -- has no bearing whatsoever upon the truth that is proclaimed. Unless a particular behavior or concept cannot be legitimately detached from wickedness by definition (e.g. adultery, blasphemy, fornication), then not making the attempt to consider the presented concept in an objective and reasonable manner is dishonest.

Likewise, we should evaluate truth independently of the supposed holiness of the one that brings it to our attention, never taking any mortal as the final authority on any matter of truth regardless of how holy they appear to be, and never rejecting a concept they hold merely due to how unholy they appear to be. Concepts must be evaluated upon the standard and definition of Truth itself, and not upon the general beliefs and practices of those who promote them. The tendency of all men to make this logical error implies that it is critical for those who proclaim truth to live godly lives, and likewise motivates Satan to both tempt God's servants to wickedness, to proclaim truth through those who are openly ungodly,  and to spread lies by ministers who appear to be righteous and holy ... Satan himself even poses as an "angel of light" when this suits his sinister purpose. (2 Cor 11:14-15)

Guilt by Association is also intrinsic to the use of extreme illustrations that hide the underlying principles involved, confusing the relevant topic with other similar topics, mixing and confounding principles with possible underlying motives and desires and appealing to strong cultural norms. The feminist, to validate abortion, describes a pregnancy from incest, a seriously handicapped baby, and appeals to common compassion in the context of consequences far beyond the victim's control. A humanist wishes to propose a calibration of human life and asks a young child who they would save if they could only save one member of their family. Such illustrations often depend upon extreme situations where following relevant godly principles imply great inconvenience, or are not even offered as possible alternatives, and where accepting falsehood generates convenience, pleasure or gain. This device preys upon our inability to discern between good and evil in the midst of sentiment and prejudice apart from God's revelation. Such "parables" can powerfully direct us into ways that are contrary to God's Law.

-----------

When defending a proposition it is also common for folk to use the Bandwagon technique: to appeal to certain others who believe a certain way or to a large group which believes a certain way. This is the opposite of guilt by association -- claiming that no one else believes a certain thing, or that only a very few do, or that everyone else believes a certain way; such conditions have little or no bearing upon the truth itself. As Napoleon said so eloquently, "If a million people do a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

However, in the context of discerning spiritual truth, it is reasonable to consider that Christians will generally agree on principles of righteousness because of the nature of spiritual life and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as their Teacher. God has told us that His church is "the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Tim 3:15) If we propose a truth that has no foundation or acceptance with other Christians, particularly with very mature believers, it is likely that we have made an error. Standing alone should cause us to reconsider our position very soberly.

Even so, there will be times when one must stand entirely alone. Paul did so at times. (2 Tim 4:16) The church is quite imperfect and is easily misled by false teachers. It is also true that the enemy has sown tares among the wheat in abundance; false brethren in the church may easily outnumber the true, especially when the church is weak and corrupt. Identifying the Church of living God has not generally been very easy. When God raises up someone to bring her back into His light, He will often use an Elijah, one standing entirely alone against his opposition. So when we find ourselves standing alone, this does not mean that we are necessarily wrong (Gal 2:11-21), but we should be humble enough to verify and establish our position most thoroughly, as well as we are able, and remain even more open to legitimate correction from others than we might be otherwise.

-----------

History and Science are also both valid sources of truth. The validity of both forms of information is presented in the Bible: rejection of established historical witness and compellingly miraculous events (which appeal to us based on scientific norms) is legitimate grounds for condemnation. Further, if a significant body of informed righteous people believe some fact is true, this can be taken as reasonable historical evidence (so long as it is consistent with other forms of revealed Truth). This fact forms the basis of our judicial system when determining guilt in a crime. However, these sources of truth are most often of a secondary legitimacy in establishing spiritual truth since it is generally difficult to obtain this type of scientific and historical data first hand, making one generally dependent on other sinners to provide this information in hopes that they will provide it fully and accurately.

Clearly, all secondhand data are subject to human interpretation, filtering, and even blatant deception and must therefore be verified by multiple, independent, objective (unbiased) sources in order to weigh heavily in determining Truth. Failure to observe this weakness in both historical and scientific data is cause for much deception since such data is most vulnerable to subtle abuse. Especially when there is an ulterior motive involved, much scientific and historical data is filtered and corrupted by those who represent it to others; therefore the veracity of such a witness cannot generally be trusted intrinsically.

Even so, those who want to believe something will generally find rich comfort in such filtered and twisted data and draw great confidence and consolation in it -- even if they are aware of the deception involved in obtaining it! Like the Pharisees of old who paid for the soldiers' silence, quieting those trembling warriors who were guarding the tomb of Jesus on the resurrection dawn, such men simply deceive themselves. We find this principle at work in evolution, humanism, materialism and feminism. Such tendencies to both offer and accept false data do not excuse or protect those that do so, but are wicked in and of themselves, indicating an unwillingness to receive and obey the truth.
 

-----------

God is not only the Author of all truth, the perfection of God says something about the nature of Truth itself.

First, we see that Truth is perfect because God is perfect by definition. He is The Truth (John 14:6) and He came to earth for the express purpose of bearing witness to the truth. (John 18:37) If Truth may in fact not be consistent with itself, if some truth may be contradictory with other truth, then it is impossible to define the concept of Truth in any meaningful way, or to be "of the truth." (John 18:37).

God defines Truth in His very nature: He cannot become better or worse, implying He cannot change over time. That which motivates, pleases, and angers Him at any one time will always do so. What He says in one era will be perfectly consistent with what He says in any other. This implies a general consistency of Truth over time. What was once true will always be true, and what was once false will always be false. What was once inherently good will always be inherently good, and that which is evil always will be.

Since God is uncreated and eternal and perfect He retains integrity and is perfectly consistent. If He were subject to change, evolution, or even growth there would be no valid standard upon which to establish truth and we could never know truth. The fact that God commands us to seek and know truth is rooted in His own nature. Contradictions and inconsistencies between the Bible, mathematics, logic, history and creation (nature) are therefore intolerable since God is the consistent Author of all of these sources of truth.

The definition of truth implies that any logical deduction from any truth must also be true, any valid induction from truth will also be valid, any historical fact must be consistent with Scripture and science, and all scientific data must be consistent with both history and Scripture. If a particular biblical text is used to present a truth which implies a contradiction with any other truth in any realm, one may be sure that the text is misunderstood. Similarly, if any historical or scientific data are proposed which clearly contradicts the written Word of God, one may be certain that there is some error in its content and/or in the conclusions drawn from it. Further, concerning reason itself, whenever one constructs an argument or uses a logical approach to validate or establish any point of truth, one must ensure that the same reasoning may not be consistently applied to deduce or induce from known truth something else known to be false. Any reasoning that ever implies contradiction between two known truths is illogical by definition.

We will often hear, "You can prove anything with the Bible!" implying that it is pointless to try to use the Bible to discern truth. The fact that the Bible is often twisted and misapplied by false teachers does not imply that they have proved anything from the Bible. The basic premise in such a statement is that God has not provided us a means of establishing truth using Scripture ... that He arbitrarily contradicts Himself and that our fallen notion of Logic cannot be used to protect one's self from any proposed deception. These assumptions violate both the nature of God and the examples and pattern He has given us in His Word.

God rests His case before us based on formal proof: "To whom also He shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." (Acts 1:3) Paul, once he was converted, "increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ." (Acts 9:22) Paul used the Word of God and logic to prove the divinity and reality of Jesus Christ. God helped him to do so. God tells us that science never opposes Truth: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." (1 Timothy 6:20) The text of 1 Corinthians 15 is a masterful argument for the resurrection of the dead based on simple deductive logic. God uses inductive logic to show that ministers of the Word of God should reap material benefit for their service using an obscure point in the levitical law: "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope." In John 8 we see how Jesus Christ used simple deductive logic to prove to the Pharisees that they were children of the devil. God's Word is filled with logic and with His encouragements to us to use it ... we have never seen Him violate basic principles of Logic, nor does He ever commend anyone for doing so.

God appeals to reason and logic throughout His Word, and always encourages the believer to test any spiritual influence that presents a revelation or a directive using every means at his disposal. He says, "Come now and let us reason together." (Is 1:18) He questions us, "Doth not even nature itself teach you?" (1 Cor 11:14) He commands us, "Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men." (1 Corinthians 14:20) He says to the lost, "That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us." (Acts 17:27) Even Peter, correctly challenged the Holy Spirit when directed by Him against his own misapprehension of truth. (Acts 10) Peter was not reprimanded for his response ... he was rather gently corrected and comforted by the Holy Spirit and taught additional truth based clearly on the Scripture and its logical implications. When enlightened by the Spirit of God, the truth made perfect sense to Peter and he promptly obeyed what he had been taught.

Logic and reason are not the problem with error abounding in the Church and in the world. Fallen Man cannot discern truth because he will not do so, not because the Scripture and Logic are imperfect or incomplete in themselves to lead Man to truth.

-----------

In addition to the fact that the nature of God implies that there are no contradictions in His revelation, the fact that God is perfect implies that God is also good. This implies something about the nature of all truth and reveals much to us of our true beliefs as we react to it.

Often, one dismisses truth with Lying: claiming that the truth is false or evil. One generally makes this claim simply because one thinks a particular concept is bad ... doesn't like it, conveniently assuming that following a truth will harm people and therefore casting it aside. Instead of acknowledging our own sinfulness as the cause of our distaste for truth, instead we claim that truth itself is evil. This is an attack upon the God that proclaimed truth as much as it is an attack upon truth itself.

The first deception recorded in the Bible relates to this principle. Satan's claim to Eve in the Garden of Eden was not that God had not really said what He did, but that He could not be trusted ... that He was imperfect. Eve had personally experienced the witness of Adam concerning what God had actually said concerning the forbidden fruit, and for Satan to challenge this would likely have angered Eve rather than entice her. Instead, Satan challenged the basic character of God, appealing to Eve's innate sense of perfection and implying that God fell short of it. What Satan did was to state that there was something good that God was withholding from Eve and that He was less than perfect in doing so. Satan effectively stated that God was selfish, stingy, and fearful, blatantly lying about His character and disposition. Eve believed that lie and experienced the fatal consequences.

This type of deception surfaces more often than we would like to admit. Certain principles are simply avoided because one finds them distasteful and predicts that they will bring great harm if followed. Principles of giving to others generously, turning the other cheek when we have wronged someone, wifely subjection in the home, womanly subjection in the church, spiritual community, fasting, mourning over sin, "Davidic worship," and deliberate spiritual self-affliction are commonly viewed in this way. Many may acknowledge that these things are in the Bible but simply ignore them and go on their way. This behavior implies a belief that God is not good, and that He intends to harm us in giving us these principles.

For example, one very conservative evangelical minister proposed during a marriage conference that the "Old Testament" concept of a wife being subject to her husband's authority ... like a good soldier is subject to proper military rank ... "just won't work today." He flatly stated that he did not like the concept, found it distasteful, publicly scorned anyone that accepted such a notion, and went on his way. He gave no other justification for his position other than that he did not like the concept and did not expect it to work. Evidently, he had never actually tried to live by this concept and had never met any godly couple who had done so. No one challenged him, apparently, and his message is being disseminated rather widely with unqualified support from very earnest marital counselors to assist those seeking to improve their marriages.

Does the fact that proclaiming such a principle to an adulterous, ignorant, wicked generation will likely bring great distress and trouble to us mean that it is wrong? Do we simply discard a principle merely because we do not LIKE it?? Apparently so.

Further, certain falsehoods are accepted via Pragmatism simply due to the fact that they achieve a desired result: they do work. Faith-Promise giving programs raise money for the church ... enabling the church staff to live according to a comfortable budget while members pray in their daily bread over a budget that cannot work by definition. Taking regular public offerings from the church increases income for church staff and promotes ever-hungry ministries ... even though there is NO evidence in the New Testament that such a thing was EVER done on a regular basis in the church. Praying to Mary evidently works as well (though, I admit, I have never tried it and do not intend to) and is practiced by many for this reason alone. For that matter, it is certainly also obvious that the occult "works." Clearly, the fact that a certain behavior achieves a desirable result does not make it according to truth, any more than a behavior that brings an undesirable result is necessarily false.
 

-----------

" A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver." (Pr 25:11) The truth is valuable. It is valuable enough to secure with utmost diligence. When Truth is apprehended and expressed in words or in deeds, it is indeed a beautiful thing.

There is a common sense of the dignity of a thought well posed, of an argument well-constructed. This is a thing of beauty, a thing of wisdom, a thing of elegance. Seek to follow the principles of wisdom, speaking according to wisdom and listening according to truth.

Most about us do not value truth and will not share in any love of it. Become familiar with the enemy's tactics and arm yourself against them. Be diligent that you do not serve the enemy by promoting falsehood and error yourself, or even by promoting truth in an unreasonable or illogical manner. Refuse to accept contradiction in your faith, and seek the face of God for consistency and harmony in all that you believe and teach.

God's Word is provided for us to search out truth and actually find it. Logic is our language of interpretation ... and it is a language of the Holy Spirit -- created by God for us and for God. The fundamental nature of God is what gives truth its value, and Logic its timeless precision.

In our quest for truth we will certainly find that most everyone will violate the principles given here ... even including ourselves from time to time. God is certainly gracious, in spite of our ignorance, to work in and with any of us who are seeking truth, and even with those who resist the fundamental tools He has given us, though it is clear that such ignorance stifles and undermines the health of our entire spiritual experience.