CHAPTER 10
ULTIMATE LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS
In the early days of the Herald of Truth radio program, a lesson
was given concerning evolution. I appropriated that readymade
discourse for my use on a broadcast. In the broadcast I emphasized
that a person could not believe in evolution while believing in
God and the Bible at the same time. That seemed to me to be the
ultimate logical conclusion one would have to reach on the subject.
As soon as the lesson was completed, the announcer motioned for
me to come to him in the control room. With an expression of bewilderment,
he explained to me, "You said that a person cannot believe
in evolution and believe in God and the Bible at the same time.
I believe in evolution and I also believe in God and the Bible."
I was taken by surprise and cannot remember how I answered him.
Could I protest that it was impossible for him to hold those beliefs
while he confidently declared that he held them? Could I tell
him what he believed or did not believe? I could argue that, taken
to its ultimate logical conclusion, one could not believe in evolution
without denying God and the Bible.
From that experience I was impressed with a lesson that has been
reinforced many other times since: People often form beliefs without
reasoning to the ultimate logical conclusion. And I suspect that
none of us are exceptions. Let me give some specific illustrations.
Children born into, and growing up in, this world must be subjected
to pain, suffering, sorrow, and death. Because the road to life
is narrow and will be traveled by the few, most people will have
extended misery through eternity. A few will make it into eternal
bliss, but the chances are slim. With this in view, only a cruel,
fiendish sadist would bring a child into this world, gambling
that its soul would be among the few. Now, is that not an ultimate
logical conclusion which we are forced to reach? Yet, few of us
reach that conclusion. We stop short of it and go ahead and bring
children into the world. We just don't carry our reasoning to
the ultimate logical conclusion.
When we consider the doctrine of election and predestination,
we nonCalvinists quickly reach the ultimate logical conclusion
that, if individual election is true, there would be no need for
evangelism. In fact, it would be senseless and futile, for no
one could change the state of the elect or nonelect. So,
those who believe in election refrain from all evangelism, don't
they? Not at all, for many of them are the most aggressive and
diligent evangelists and missionaries. They do not reason to our
ultimate logical conclusion.
Millions of disciples believe that a child of God cannot sin so
as to lose his soul. In our refutations of the impossibility of
apostasy, we reason that the belief gives license to sin and undermines
any initiative to live a clean life. So, all of the Baptists are
licentious profligates, aren't they? Not really. They are known
for their firm stand on moral issues. Their lives are as clean
and dedicated as those who believe that they can sin so as to
be lost. They do not follow our reasoning to our ultimate logical
conclusion.
One may reason that the person who denies the wordforword
inspiration of the Scriptures or believes that the Bible accounts
have some errors denies the validity of the Bible. We reason that,
if one rejects a part, he must reject all, for the Bible stands
or falls as a unit. That seems to be an ultimate logical conclusion,
but many persons stop short of that conclusion.
There may be a vast difference in what is theoretical, logical,
and practical, for there are gaps in our knowledge, understanding,
and logic. No one can be truly consistent, and our own ultimate
logical conclusions are not always so ultimate or logical. We
can accept in faith without understanding ultimate logical conclusions.
Can that faith that lacks full understanding be effective in saving?
If not, who then can be saved? Faith may even be based on erroneous
ideas mixed with true ones and still be true faith if it leads
one to Jesus. Faith itself cannot save; Jesus saves. Only that
faith which leads us to accept and follow him is necessary.
Belief in the impossibility of apostasy, election, and many other
questionable doctrines is harmful only if it weakens the faith
or causes one to turn from holy living.
To reach "ultimate logical conclusions" and then reject
all those who d o not reach the same conclusions is to become
a judge with a sectarian spirit. Paul forbade those who reached
ultimate logical conclusions which differed concerning eating
meat, observing days, and practicing circumcision from binding
them on one another.
|