While reading a few scriptures today I realized that Jesus proved  himself logical in Matthew Chapter 12, while the lawyers and his persecutors did not prove themselves logical in this debate.

In verse 22 the people bring a man who was blind and mute to Jesus.  Jesus heals him, "so that he could both talk and see." 

So we have something unusual happening here, and people start trying to explain what caused this supernatural event from their limited human perspectives, backgrounds and biases/worldview filters.

Some people "were astonished and said, 'Could this be the Son of David?'"  They are thinking from a perspective of something beyond human power, spiritual, and they have the background of a promise from God about a savior coming through a human lineage of King David.  They are thinking in line with what the Bible reveals about a God who cares and made a promise which He is able and willing to keep.  They open their minds to think, wow, maybe we are blessed to be alive at the time God is keeping his promise of a savior!  So they give credit for the supernatural power displayed to this God they have read about and have maybe been expecting.

But another group of people come from a worldview of religion that they can control.  They are comfortable with believing in a set of rules to obey rather than a living God who is involved with their life, can talk to them and have a relationship with them.  They were more comfortable with rules that only demand good external behavior, but do not criticize inward thoughts and attitudes.  They were threatened, but not teachable.  If they opened their mind to say, "Oh no, this does look like it could be God come down to earth to overcome disease and evil!" They had to admit that their external form of religion was wrong and they would have to admit it to God and relinquish their power of holding control over others as leaders of the church and the law.  Those that did not want to do that, resisted and had to use an illogical defensive argument about the devil working at cross purposes to his own welfare.  The devil working against himself rather than to admit the other explanation which has a logical foundation.
They say, "It is only by Beelzebul (another name for the devil), the prince of demons, that this fellow (Jesus) drives out demons." (vs 24) This is not logical because if the devil went around telling his demons to evict the humans they move into, the devil would be harming his own kingdom and purposes.  He would be destroying his own works and 'family' so to speak.  Logically, that which is evil and unclean brings about evil thoughts, actions, speech and results, and that which is good brings out good from itself and good results.  Just like apple trees bear apples and camels produce camels. 

Jesus goes on to explain that the Pharisees, his attackers are not using logic or rational arguments against him in verses 25-28. 

 

Sometimes people use examples from the Bible to try to persuade you to believe something is true which is not.  They use an unusual case to support the conclusion with which they want you to agree.  But we are warned not to believe that just because something is logical in one situation it will also be logical in all situations or under all circumstances.  Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks explain in "Come Let us Reason" that this is called a "Hasty Generalization".  The example they use is an argument about drinking wine in general.  The person tries to persuade you with something Paul did in the Bible.  "If Paul recommended wine for Timothy, then it is good for Christians today." 
This example of a recommendation was for medicinal use for Timothy.  The person cannot logically use a medicinal recommendation for wine drinking as a valid argument to recommend social drinking and other contexts for all other types of situations.   Do you see the difference?  One recommendation has a specific context and use which is not the same as the widespread, common and general type.
The authors even point out that the wine that Paul was recommending was not the same as today's alcohol level (it was watered down back then) so the logic falls apart even in the context of the type of wine being spoken of in the unusual case of this recommendation of wine to Timothy.
The point is that in using logic to persuade someone to agree, a person must use the same terms that do not contradict each other.  Here there are contradictions in the type of recommendation (medical does not equal nonmedical) and in the use of the word wine (watered down wine does not equal pure wine).

We live in the middle of many dark and illogical philosophies and ways of thinking which are dressed up in "good-looking" forms but are actually illogical.  There is also a parallel in the unseen world- the enemy dresses up himself and his following fallen angels (demons) in "good-looking" or "good-appearing" robes of light so as to lure us nearer and draw us away from truth and Christ.  Wat

In our study of logic in the book "Come Let Us Reason" we come across faulty logic that is used against the Bible today.  This faulty logic is the use of a cliche, which sometimes fit, but tend to overgeneralize and often contradict each other.  When someone tells you that the Bible was written by humans and so it must have mistakes in it they are using a faulty logic.  They are believing that "The Bible must err, because 'to err is human' and the Bible was written by humans."  The wrong logic is found twice.  One failure in the cliche 'to err is human'  is that it means humans have the tendency to err, but it does not mean that humans err 100% of the time. So the Bible could be written during the times that no errors were made. 
The other false use of this cliche is that it was not only humans who were involved in writing the Bible. The Holy Spirit was also involved in supervising and inspiring the writing of the Bible for His holy purposes in humanity.  So the logic is false because it does not tell the whole truth about the authors of the Bible. 
So the next time someone tells you that they have a scientific or accurate argument about why they do not trust or believe the Bible you can tell them that this argument is not scientific or accurate and why.  But be sure to tell them in love so you can talk to them about that Holy Spirit's work in your own life and plant a seed of spiritual truth in their heart.

It may not be another person who brings this argument up to you, it may in fact be your own thoughts which have been trained with faulty arguments from our culture.  So you can also use these facts of logic to dismantle this falsehood about the Bible in your own worldview. 
We can correct this cliche and have more truth in our thinking about the Bible.  We can say, "The Bible does not have errors in it just because it was written by humans who tend to err.  The Holy Spirit was inspiring and working with the humans to write the Bible and so I can trust and believe it to be error-free.  I am thankful that humans do not err 100% of the time."  May we be enabled to stick to the facts and avoid cliches that are illogical and untruthful. Amen.