The Logic of Acts 2:38

dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Mon May 28 00:02:52 EDT 2001




On Sun, 27 May 2001 18:31:17 -0400 "Harry W. Jones" <hjbluebird at aol.com>
writes:

> > Now the statement: if not (A and B), then not (C and D) translates 
> > into one of several possibilities:
> > 1.  If not (A and B), then not (C and D), or
> > 2.  If (A but not B), then (C but not D), or
> > 3.  If (not A and not B), then (not C and not D), or
> > 4.  If (not A but B), then (not C but D).
>
> Paul,
> 
> You seem to be saying that logically if(A but not B) then (C but not 
> D).  Is that correct?

No.  I am saying the statement "if A and B, then C and D" does not imply
"if not (A and B), then not (C and D)."  That is the logical error that
is so often being committed.  Secondly, I showed that "if (A but not B),
then (C but not D)" is just a variation of  "if not (A and B), then not
(C and D)," and as such is not a valid inference.

We simply cannot infer from "if a man repents and is baptized, then his
sins will be forgiven and he will receive the Holy Spirit" that "if a man
repents and is not baptized, then his sins are forgiven but he does not
receive the Holy Spirit."   It is logically incorrect, because a
conditional does not imply its negative.

Paul Dixon



More information about the B-Greek mailing list