CAN TWO TRUE STATEMENTS PROVE SOMETHING FALSE?

Bible and Logic — Study 1

How to tell whether a conclusion really follows from the evidence.

1. Two True Statements. One False Conclusion.

Consider these three statements:

All dogs are animals. TRUE.

All cats are animals. TRUE.

Therefore, all cats are dogs. FALSE!

What went wrong?

Both statements are true. Nobody needs to argue about that.

But the conclusion does not follow from them.

Just because dogs and cats belong to the larger group called animals does not mean they belong to the same smaller group.

This is an example of invalid reasoning.

And here is something important: We can make the very same mistake when studying the Bible.

We may quote two or three verses correctly, explain each one accurately, and still reach a conclusion those verses do not establish.

Quoting Scripture correctly does not guarantee that we are reasoning from Scripture correctly.

2. What Is a Syllogism?

A syllogism is a form of reasoning that uses two premises to reach a conclusion.

A premise is a statement offered as a reason for believing something.

Consider this example:

Premise 1: All dogs are animals.

Premise 2: All beagles are dogs.

Conclusion: Therefore, all beagles are animals.

This conclusion follows logically.

Why?

Because every beagle belongs to the group called dogs, and every dog belongs to the larger group called animals.

If both premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

That is a valid argument.

Now compare it with our earlier example:

Premise 1: All dogs are animals.

Premise 2: All cats are animals.

Conclusion: Therefore, all cats are dogs.

This argument is invalid.

Both premises are true, but they do not establish the conclusion.

The problem is not the truth of the premises. It is the connection between them.

3. What Makes an Argument Valid?

In logic, an argument is valid when its conclusion must be true if its premises are true.

Notice that definition carefully.

Validity concerns the relationship between the premises and the conclusion.

It does not, by itself, tell us whether the premises are actually true.

Consider this example:

• All fish are birds.

• All birds have feathers.

• Therefore, all fish have feathers.

The reasoning follows a valid pattern.

But the first premise is false. Fish are not birds.

Therefore, the argument is not sound.

A sound argument must meet two requirements:

1. Its reasoning must be valid.

2. All its premises must be true.

When both requirements are met, the conclusion must be true.

This gives us two questions to ask whenever someone presents an argument:

Are the premises true?

Does the conclusion actually follow from them?

Both questions matter.

4. Can an Invalid Argument Have a True Conclusion?

Yes!

This is another important distinction.

Consider these statements:

Premise 1: All dogs are animals.

Premise 2: All cats are animals.

Conclusion: Therefore, all dogs are mammals.

The conclusion is true. Dogs really are mammals.

But the conclusion does not logically follow from those two premises alone.

The premises tell us that dogs and cats are animals. They do not establish that all dogs are mammals.

We know the conclusion is true because of other information, not because these premises prove it.

This is an invalid argument with a true conclusion.

Now compare it with another argument:

Premise 1: All dogs are animals.

Premise 2: All cats are animals.

Conclusion: Therefore, all dogs are cats.

This conclusion is false, and the reasoning is invalid.

Both examples demonstrate the same principle:

A conclusion may be true or false, but an invalid argument does not establish it.

When studying Scripture, we should be interested in more than whether a conclusion agrees with what we already believe.

We should ask whether the passages being offered actually establish that conclusion.

5. What Happens When We Combine Bible Verses?

Here is an illustration that may sound ridiculous, but it makes an important point.

Matthew 27:5 tells us that Judas went away and hanged himself.

Luke 10:37 records Jesus saying, "Go and do likewise."

John 13:27 records Jesus telling Judas, "What you are going to do, do quickly."

All three statements are found in Scripture.

But suppose someone combines them this way:

Judas went and hanged himself.

Jesus said, "Go and do likewise."

Jesus said, "What you are going to do, do quickly."

Therefore, Jesus commands us to imitate Judas!

Of course not!

Every quotation comes from the Bible, but the conclusion is completely wrong.

Why?

Because the statements have been taken out of their original settings.

In Matthew 27:5, the writer is reporting what Judas did.

In Luke 10:37, Jesus is telling a man to imitate the mercy shown by the Samaritan in a parable.

In John 13:27, Jesus is speaking directly to Judas in connection with his betrayal.

The three passages address different situations.

Combining them does not create a command.

This particular mistake involves more than a faulty syllogism. It also involves ignoring context and treating unrelated statements as though they belonged to one argument.

That is why sound Bible study requires both correct interpretation and correct reasoning.

6. Did Jesus Use Logical Reasoning?

Yes.

Consider Matthew 22:23–33.

The Sadducees denied the resurrection. They presented Jesus with a question about a woman who had been married to seven brothers.

Jesus answered their question and then directed their attention to Scripture.

He quoted God's words to Moses:

"I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Matthew 22:32; Exodus 3:6).

Jesus then said that God is not the God of the dead but of the living.

Notice what Jesus did.

He did not merely repeat a verse.

He reasoned from what God had said to a conclusion about the resurrection.

His argument depends on the meaning of God's continuing relationship with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, together with the truth of God's power and promises.

The conclusion was not stated in those exact words in Exodus 3:6.

Nevertheless, Jesus showed that the Sadducees had failed to understand what Scripture implied.

This teaches us that a biblical conclusion need not appear in Scripture in the exact words we use to express it.

But the conclusion must genuinely follow from what Scripture teaches.

That is a very important distinction.

7. When Does a Conclusion Go Beyond Scripture?

Consider this example.

Romans 16:5 refers to a church meeting in a home.

Philemon 2 also refers to a church meeting in a home.

From these passages, we can correctly conclude:

Some first-century Christians met together in homes.

But suppose someone goes further:

Therefore, every congregation must meet in a private home.

Does that conclusion necessarily follow?

No.

The passages establish that Christians met in homes.

They do not, by themselves, establish that every congregation must meet in a home.

The conclusion goes beyond what those passages prove.

This does not settle every question about where Christians should assemble. Other evidence may need to be examined.

It simply shows that we must not claim more than our evidence establishes.

And the same principle applies to the opposite conclusion.

We cannot argue that because Christians met in homes, every possible meeting place is therefore authorized.

That conclusion also requires examination.

The purpose of sound reasoning is not to reach the conclusion we prefer. It is to discover what the evidence actually establishes.

8. Three Questions Every Bible Student Should Ask

Whenever a teacher connects several Bible passages to establish a doctrine, ask:

Question 1: Are the statements true?

Have the verses been quoted accurately?

Have they been understood in their proper context?

Are they being used in the sense intended by the biblical writer?

Question 2: Does the conclusion follow?

Is there a genuine logical connection between the passages?

Or has the teacher simply placed several true statements together and assumed they prove something?

Question 3: Does the conclusion claim more than the evidence proves?

Does Scripture establish that something must be true?

Or does the evidence merely show that it could be true?

Those are not the same thing.

A possibility is not a certainty.

An example is not automatically a universal command.

And a conclusion that sounds reasonable is not necessarily a conclusion Scripture establishes.

9. Some Objections Worth Considering

Objection: "Doesn't the Bible teach truths that must be inferred?"

Yes.

Jesus himself drew conclusions from Scripture.

The problem is not inference. The problem is an inference that does not follow from the evidence.

A necessary implication is different from an unsupported assumption.

Objection: "If my conclusion is true, why does it matter whether my argument is valid?"

Because a true conclusion can be defended with a bad argument.

If we use faulty reasoning to defend one true teaching, the same reasoning may lead us to a false teaching somewhere else.

We should correct faulty reasoning even when we agree with the conclusion.

Objection: "Aren't we putting human logic above God's Word?"

No.

Logic does not decide whether God's Word is true.

Logic helps us examine whether our conclusions actually follow from what God's Word teaches.

We must first understand Scripture correctly. Then we must reason correctly from what we have understood.

Objection: "Can't someone use logic to prove almost anything?"

Someone can construct an argument that sounds convincing while hiding a false premise, changing the meaning of a word, or making an invalid inference.

That is precisely why we need to learn the rules.

A convincing argument is not necessarily a sound argument.

10. Try It Yourself

Consider these statements:

Premise 1: Every apostle was a disciple of Jesus.

Premise 2: Peter was an apostle.

Conclusion: Therefore, Peter was a disciple of Jesus.

Does the conclusion follow?

Yes.

Now consider:

Premise 1: Every apostle was a disciple of Jesus.

Premise 2: Mary Magdalene was a disciple of Jesus.

Conclusion: Therefore, Mary Magdalene was an apostle.

Does the conclusion follow?

No.

Being a disciple does not automatically make someone an apostle.

Even if both premises are true, the conclusion is not established.

Notice that this exercise concerns what the two premises logically prove. It is not an attempt to settle every historical or theological question about the meaning of the word apostle.

That distinction matters.

11. What Have We Learned?

We have established several important principles.

• Two true premises do not automatically produce a valid conclusion.

• A valid argument is one in which the conclusion must follow if the premises are true.

• A sound argument is valid and has true premises.

• An invalid argument can accidentally reach a true conclusion.

• Correctly quoting Scripture does not guarantee correctly interpreting or reasoning from it.

• A conclusion may be a necessary implication of Scripture without being stated in exactly those words.

• We must never claim that our evidence proves more than it actually establishes.

Here is the lesson I hope every reader will remember:

TRUE STATEMENTS + FAULTY REASONING = AN UNPROVED CONCLUSION.

That conclusion may be true. It may be false.

But until the reasoning is corrected, the argument has not established it.

A Final Thought

The purpose of Bible study is not to prove that our favorite teacher is right.

Nor is it to prove that everyone who disagrees with us is wrong.

Our responsibility is to examine the Scriptures carefully, understand what they actually teach, and draw only those conclusions the evidence supports.

That includes examining our own reasoning.

Read First. Reason Carefully. Conclude Later.

TEXT B4 TRADITION

Continue Exploring Scripture

Bible and Logic — Main Study Page

Does That Conclusion Really Follow?

Next Study — What Makes an Argument Sound?

Learn why correct reasoning is not enough if the statements on which an argument depends are false.

Return to HOME page

Return to STUDY page