The Negative Inference Fallacy & 1 Corinth. 11:5

[Homer]

The other day, while doing research on another topic, I ran across an interesting article showing examples of what is called "the negative inference fallacy". This topic is also briefly covered in the book "Exegetical Fallacies", by D. A. Carson, but Carson devoted less than two pages to the subject.

1 Corinthians 11:5 says the following:

1 Corinthians 11:5 (New King James Version)
5. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.

But later in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (New King James Version)
34. Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

The author of the article explained that Paul never indicated in 11:5 that he approved of women praying or prophesying in the assembly. The conditional thought is simply this: if a woman prays or prophesies with her head uncovered, she acts shamefully. The negation usually assumed is "if she prays or prophesies with her head covered, then she does not act shamefully". The text does not say this, and it is not valid to infer it.

Consider the following:

If a man drinks to excess and drives his car while doing so then he acts shamefully. Does this imply that if he drinks to excess and does not drive his car while doing so, then he does not act shamefully? That we easily recognize as an invalid inference because we know both behaviors to be wrong.

Another apparent negative inference fallacy:

1 Corinthians 7:11 (New King James Version)

11. But even if she (the wife) does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.

We might infer from this verse that the wife is permitted to abandon her husband as long as she remains unmarried. But Paul had forbidden this in the previous verse:

10. Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband.

Comments?

[darinhouston]

Context, context, context.

If a man drinks to excess and drives his car while doing so then he acts shamefully. Does this imply that if he drinks to excess and does not drive his car while doing so, then he does not act shamefully? That we easily recognize as an invalid inference because we know both behaviors to be wrong.

This seems different in that there is something in Scripture that tells us expressly that drinking to excess is wrong whether or not driving in a car.

To imply from such a compound statement alone even that excess drinking itself was wrong would seem to draw on another fallacy but I can't recall which one it is. To say that it is wrong to walk and talk while chewing gum speaks nothing to the individual elements outside that combination.

[Homer]

Hi Darin,

I think the point the author was making is this: In 1 Corinthians 11:5 there are two behaviors mentioned, neither of which we know to be wrong prior to reading the letter. The context is about head coverings. We can not determine from this verse whether Paul would approve of the women praying or prophesying in the assembly. 1 Corinthians 14:34 is unambiguous and would seem to rule it out.

D. A. Carson gives this example of a fallacious negative inference by Calvin:

2 Corinthians 13:5 (New King James Version)
5. Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified.

Calvin understands Paul to be saying "all are reprobates who doubt whether they profess Christ and are part of his body". Calvin seems to argue as follows:

Those who have confidence Christ is in them are saved.
Some Corinthians and others doubt (i.e., they do not have this confidence).
Therefore those Corinthians and others are reprobates.

Even if it is granted that Calvin's major premise is correct, the conclusion does not follow because it is a negative inference. It reflects Calvin's bias that saving faith entails assurance of salvation but it is not obvious that Paul is trying to make that point.

Likewise, we bring our own views of what should be correct to the text and read the scriptures through that lens.

[TK]

Quick question-- is it possible that the passage from 1 cor 11 has nothing to do with public worship, as is clearly the case in 1 cor. 14? verses 1-16 of ch 11 dont seem to mention a gathering per se.

in other words, perhaps in Ch 11 Paul is saying that it is okay out of a church setting for a woman to pray or prophesy but should have her head covered when doing so. Ch 14 seems to talk about a formal gathering.

TK

[darinhouston]

I tend to agree tk .

Homer, that seems different to me -- Calvin seems to prove too much but that seems a different fallacy. Wouldn't the corollary here be to infer from this statement (rightly, perhaps) that one can determine whether Christ is in them by testing themselves?

[darinhouston]

To say that it is wrong to walk and talk while chewing gum speaks nothing to the individual elements outside that combination.

Of course, it may well be fair to infer that the individual elements are permissible if your underlying premise is that all things not outlawed are permissible, and there is no other teaching about the individual elements. Here, if we know generally that there are no teachings against walking or talking or chewing gum, then -- yes, I would say it's a fair inference from this statement that the speaker finds nothing inherently wrong with any of the elements. Otherwise, why make the compound statement in the first place? It seems unnecessary. Now, if I've elsewhere criticised walking, then an inference from this statement that walking is ok as long as you aren't talking and chewing gum would be inappropriate. I just think you have to take any statement in the larger context to determine what inferences are fair.

[Paidion]

I don't think there is any passage in the New Testament which indicates that women ought not to prophesy either in an Christian assembly or elsewhere. Rather the contrary!

And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin,and then as a widow until she was eighty–four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day. And coming up at that very hour she began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem. Luke 2:36-38 ESV

I know that this was a prophetess within Judaism, of course. But why should this change under the new order? When compared to Judaism, one could well affirm that Christ liberated women! Consider Jesus' attitude toward adulteress at a time when the Jews brought up the fact that under the Mosaic law she would have been stoned to death.

In I Corinthians 14, Paul indicates that he would like to see all prophesy in the Corinthian assemblies. Nowhere in this passage does he suggest that the "all" excludes women.

1 Corinthians 14:5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.
1 Corinthians 14:24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all.
1 Corinthians 14:31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged... ESV

There is no indication in the following passage from Acts that Philip's daughters were doing anything wrong by prophesying:

On the next day we departed and came to Caesarea, and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. He had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied. Acts 21:8,9 ESV

So what can we say of the passage Homer quoted?

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (New King James Version)
34. Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

The church at Corinth practised many irregularities --- for example, they ate the food of the Lord's supper (or "love feast") with greed instead in honour of Christ. They also spoke in tongues simultaneously. There was little order in their meetings.

My guess is that when women in that church didn't understand something that was said, they disrupted the meeting by asking their husbands aloud to explain what the speaker meant.

I think Paul was saying that women are not permitted to TALK in church --- that it is shameful for women to TALK in church.

I don't think Paul had any problem with women praying or prophesying in church. In fact, I think he expected it. As I see it, women are free to do these things, as well as to testify, or even give a word of exhortation. The only restriction of women which I see in Paul's writings is that they are not to teach men in the assembly.

1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

In view of Paul's other teachings, "She is to remain quiet," cannot mean that she is not to open her mouth in the meetings. Rather it means that she is to remain quiet with regards to teaching men, or exercising authority over them.

Quick question-- is it possible that the passage from 1 cor 11 has nothing to do with public worship, as is clearly the case in 1 cor. 14?

Huh? I Cor. 14 clearly has nothing to do with public worship? This is the first time I ever heard that stated. TK, please explain. It's not at all clear to me. As long as I remember, I have always thought the passage was all about public worship.

[mattrose]

I think TK was saying that 1 Cor. 14 clearly IS about public worship and speculating that 1 Cor. 11 is NOT about public worship

His second line makes this clear

TK said...

in other words, perhaps in Ch 11 Paul is saying that it is okay out of a church setting for a woman to pray or prophesy but should have her head covered when doing so. Ch 14 seems to talk about a formal gathering.

[TK]

thanks for coming to my rescue matt.

you are correct- my grammar was less than spectacular in the part that Paidion quoted.

sorry about that Paidion!

TK

[TK]

by the way, I agree with paidion's analysis of this. i would have LOVED to have been a fly on the wall during a corinthian church service prior to the arrival of Paul's letter. must have been a sight!

TK