Vern Poythress attempted to write a textbook on western logic from a Christian perspective. Although he discussed other logics, his main focus was on justifying first order logic with identity (FOL=) as a neo-platonic reflection of “God’s logic” and, because of that, personal and loving.

This reflection bridges the Creator-creature distinction. However, when he sets up this reflection between FOL= and “God’s logic” he assumes that FOL= is not just another example of man’s desire for autonomy from God. This is where he makes a mistake.

To see why this characterization of FOL= is problematic, consider that Poythress would not want to describe the Tower of Babel as a reflection of “God’s tower”. Because the Tower of Babel is an example of man’s desire for autonomy from God, it should not reflect anything from God.

Poythress knows that almost no one, Christian and non-Christian alike, thinks FOL= is personal in any way. To counter this anticipated objection, he accuses those who might reject his argument as being “massively guilty” of “idolatry”. For example, consider this comment about guilt and idolatry on page 84:

"Christians too have become massively guilty by being captive to the idolatry in which logic is regarded as impersonal. Within this captivity we take for granted the benefits and beauties of rationality for which we should be filled with gratitude and praise to God."

By committing to FOL= Poythress blinds himself to seeing it as another attempt by man to gain autonomy from God. Given that commitment, perhaps better described as compromise, he now has to defend FOL= even when it attacks the Trinity. ( )

Not a logic textbook as much as Poythress' argument for where the discipline sits within the scheme of things. Repetitive, dull and rote stuff. Not recommended.

Big face-palm moment in the introductory chapters when after claiming that the only people who can really "get" logic are Christians he proceeds to make some major blunders in explaining the differences between truth, validity and soundness (pp. 48-49). Uh, yeah. Let's tone it down a bit there dude.

Copi's Logic beats this attempt at profundity, hands down. ( )