“Brother, it seems to me that you were too severe on your ignorant hearers. You should have followed the practice of the Apostles, and begun by giving them the milk of simpler teaching, and gradually nourished them with the word of God until they were capable of greater perfection and able to follow the loftier precepts of Christ.”

As a Bible teacher and a public speaking teacher, I value these words of wisdom. I rejoice when I see God’s truth being presented with a heart of love, compassion, and patience.

Deductive reasoning argues for a claim based primarily on the logical relationships of certain premises. First, the students must establish a major premise. This is an assumed principle that both sides should agree upon. Next is the minor premise. This is where the one logically connects the major premise to his or her claim. A simplified version of a deductive argument (a syllogism) for both sides of the abortion issue may look like this:

Pro-Choice

Major Premise:            Women have a right to control their bodies and # of children.
Minor Premise:            Abortion is an exercise of that right.
Claim:                         Protect abortion rights

Pro-Life
Major Premise:             Taking the life of another human is wrong.
Minor Premise:            Abortion is taking the life of a human.
Claim:                         Stop abortion

There are other ways to argue both sides, but this is a start upon which both sides generally agree. Anyone have any suggestions on how to improve this beginning point for discussion? Next time I will explain how both sides usually criticize the logic of the other.

“The first necessary element of inductive evangelism is that it is incarnational. Incarnation means “in flesh.”. . . As a communication strategy, incarnation means that God came here personally to earth. . . . Evangelism as incarnational begins with this concept of presence, of “being there.” Just by being there you are communicating, without saying a word. . . . The Christian community in the world not only carries a message, we are the message.”

“The fact of your presence among your lost neighbors is a beginning point for your witness. They are listening. They are watching. They are asking what it means that a person claims to know God and converse with Him. And where we are present, God is communicating. Just as our common humanity ties us to our neighbors, our new life in Christ ties us to God. We are citizens of two worlds. We are here on a mission.”

- Wayne McDill, Making Friends for Christ

“It seems we cannot do anything without communicating something. To stand is to stand somewhere. And both the ‘standing’ and the‘somewhere’ communicate.”

- David Hesselgrave, Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally

“Since Jesus is our model for communication strategy, it is important to us to see how His mission is presented in the Bible. In Jesus of Nazareth God communicated with man as never before. He translated His message into a language mankind could understand, the language of human experience. Jesus was, in an ultimate sense, the Word of God to man. God had spoken once and for all time in an unmistakable way. His message was contained not only in the things said by this Visitor from another world, the message was also in who He was and what He did, His attitudes, and how He related to those around Him. His communication strategy then becomes ours.

. . . An evangelism that ignores the experience of the individual person is not consistent with the gospel of Christ. People can sense our motives. They know when we are attempting to manipulate them for our own purposes. They know when we are out for their good only, and when we aim only to fatten our church rolls and our offerings at their expense. They know when we really care, and when we see them only as objects on which to unload an evangelistic “pitch.” They know when we are actually listening, and when we only wait impatiently for a chance to continue our canned presentation.”

The assumption here is that the effectiveness of the message depends on the how it is delivered. While I certainly believe that a messenger of God should take some care as to how he delivers the message, that is not ultimately the basis for effectiveness. In this case, the effectiveness of response depended on unparalleled mighty acts of God. The messenger’s priority is to take care that he accurately and obediently delivers the message, whether he has reason to expect a good response or not. He can be sure of this: if God has commanded a message to be delivered, he is at work. He has a plan to complete his own purposes. Just consider all the New Testament Scriptures in which God has called his people to speak (Matt 18:15-20; 28:18-20; Eph 4:15 . . .)

“A Babbeling fool will come to ruin” (Prov 10:10b).

“When words are many, transgression is not lacking,
but whoever restrains his lips is prudent” (Prov 10:19)

“Speak the truth in love” (Eph 4:15).

“Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?” 1 Cor 15:29

Here is a notoriously difficult verse. There are two reasons for its difficulty: 1) “There is no historical or biblical precedent for such baptism,” and (more importantly) 2) Paul mentions a clearly unbiblical practice “without apparent disapproval.”[1] Gordon Fee states that “at least forty different solutions have been suggested.” However, most of these propose interpretations that do not match the straightforward meaning: some are being baptized vicariously for those who have already died. Whatever they were actually doing (which Fee says cannot be known), “what is certain is how the text functions in the argument . . . those actions are a contradiction to the position that there is no resurrection of the dead (v. 12).”[2]

The very same week I began to study this passage, I also started reading Plato’s The Last Days of Socrates. The introduction includes a discussion of the persuasive strategies of Socrates. One strategy is called elenchus. “It is a tool for the exposure of problems with beliefs and inconsistencies in sets of beliefs rather than for demonstrating what is true and what is false.”[3] Based on observations of Paul’s argumentation and rhetoric, it is reasonable to assume that Paul would use such a strategy. For the sake of this argument, Paul ignores the fact that being baptized for the dead is a bad idea and demonstrates that those who claim there is no resurrection have an inconsistent set of beliefs. This possibility is supported by Paul’s unusual use of third person (usually 2^nd person in such a context, cf. v. 12) and its clear contrast to the first person in the next verse. He certainly keeps his distance from this practice. He goes on to demonstrate that his own actions only make sense if the dead are raised, and therefore are consistent with his claim about the resurrection (vv. 30-32).

Paul assumes that one’s worldview should be internally consistent. I’m sure than none of us want to contradict ourselves. Although we may have theological consistency, it is possible we have not thought through the implications of our faith for other parts of a worldview – economics, philosophy, politics, sociology, etc. It is not uncommon to find people with a biblical theology and an unbiblical political position. More to Paul’s point in this passage is the consistency of our faith and practice. Are our daily actions and lifestyle habits consistent with our professed faith? If not, it is appropriate to ask whether we believe it at all (James 2:18-26).

[2] Fee, 1 Corinthians, 763.

[3] Introduction to The Last Days of Socrates, xv.

This is not direct evidence that there is a resurrection. Someone could believe there is a resurrection, and act on that belief, but there not truly be one. This is evidence that Paul believes there is a resurrection. The implication of this is that since Paul brought the Corinthians the gospel and is a respected apostle, belief in the resurrection must be consistent with Christianity. The weight of this evidence depends on Paul’s credibility and authority. This is a powerful and legitimate form of persuasion. If people we respect believe something, we are certainly prone to believe as well.

The application is obvious: can I point to my own life as evidence of hope in the resurrection? Would such evidence matter to anyone?