In my historical theology class, we learned an important distinction between the Medieval Roman Catholics and the Reformers (Luther, Melancthon). The big distinction is the “Ergo” vs. the “Never the less” syllogism.
Medieval Roman Catholocism fell under the “Ergo” which is essentially this:
Major Premise: God is righteous
Minor Premise: I am a sinner
Ergo: I will be condemned in God’s righteousness.
For Luther, scripture proclaimed a different saving syllogism called the “Never the Less”:
Major Premise: God is righteous
Minor Premise: I am a sinner
Never the less: I shall be saved on account of His righteousness (Rom 4:5).
Thank God for Reformation syllogisms!
Planet Augsburg 
January 23, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Hmm,
Not to be a stickler here, but there is no such thing as a “never the less” syllogism. The “never the less” part destroys the essence of the syllogism – which is a tool of logic.
I see the point that is being made, but there is no reason to abuse the discipline of logic to make it. That’s sort of a post-modern thing to do.
Seems to me that an appeal to proper separation of Law and Gospel is a better way to make the point. The law is logical. The law is very comfortable with syllogisms. All sinners are unrighteous. I am a sinner. Ergo: I am unrighteous.
The Gospel operates outside logic. Indeed, the same God that set the rules of logic also declared the Gospel. The Gospel is beyond logic. All sinners are unrighteous. I am a sinner. JESUS CLEANSED ME FROM ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.
Medieval Roman Catholics (and modern Catholics who hold to official church teaching, BTW) are trapped inside logic and the Law. You cannot reason your way out of the law. It is perfectly reasonable and logical.
Fortunately, the Bible gets beyond the law and reason as it must. The Gospel had to be revealed.
So, no need to deconstruct the rules of logic to make this point!
January 24, 2009 at 3:26 am
OB1-K!
You tell me to write stuff; I write stuff, and now I’m getting slammed?! Come on! 🙂
Seriously though, that’s the point of the “never the less”….it doesn’t fit. Syllogisms themselves have to be “ergo”. The “never the less” is a slap in the face of salvation based on logic. Your comments are great, because they expound upon what the reformers were getting at: The Greeks looked for wisdom, the Jews sought after signs, but we preach Christ crucified a stumbling block to both Jews and Gentiles. It’s the foolishness of God frustrating the “wise.”
No deconstruction necessary here. Syllogisms work great in the horizontal realm (created order, between me and my neighbor, etc), but when the “ergo” tries to dictate how God operates in salvation (vertical realm), God will always break the back of “ergo-ism”. It’s how the Reformers operated, it is essentially a rhetoric to frustrate the Romists. It’s like beating someone at their own game; essentially not playing “fair”.
And I agree with you, this is how Catholics operate in our generation too. I was just speaking strict history here. Hope this clears things up.