Is Paul's reasoning here an example of 'deduction', 'induction' or something else. (I can never keep them straight)

__________________

It is a series of rhetorical questions. In effect, Paul is saying "In order to call on him, they need to believe. In order to to believe in him, they need to have heard of him, and in order to hear of him, they need to have someone preach to them, and in order for someone to preach to them, you need to send that someone." Each rhetorical question makes an inductive point - the first being that in order to call, they need to believe, the second that in order to believe, they need to have heard. But as the questions are rhetorical, he is assuming that these inductive points are already known. The putting them together in a logical chain - what the Romans apparently do not already know - is deductive.

__________________
T W Hopper
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church
Currently between churches since PRC closed here - attending Crossroads Christian Church.
Canberra, Australia.

I'd call it an Enthymeme, that is, a set of syllogisms with implied premises used for rhetorical effect.

Because they are syllogisms, the logical method would be deductive.

If it were inductive, Paul would have said something like, "we have never experienced hearing the word without someone preaching, therefore we should have preachers."

__________________
R.Vic Bottomly
Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Tacoma, WA

You could rewrite it in the form of a deductive argument called a sorites where the predicate of the premise is the subject of the next premise until the conclusion of the argument joins the subject of the first premise with the predicate of the last premise.

Below is the argument rewritten in the form of a sorites:

Premise 1: In order to call on him, they need to believe.
Premise 2: In order to believe in him, they need to have heard of him
Premise 3: In order to hear of him, they need to have someone preach to them.
Premise 4: In order for someone to preach to them, you need to send that someone.
Conclusion: In order to call on him, you need to send that someone.

__________________
Curt Hayashida
member, Community Bible Church (Non-denominational)
Vallejo, CA

I would refine it just a bit:

Premise 1: In order for them to call on him, they need to believe
.
.
.
Conclusion: In order for them to call on him, you need to send that someone

__________________
-JD
[URL="http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B52C005.htm#V21"]1Thess5:21[/URL]
Ordained Deacon, PCA
Serving on Ministry Staff, SBC
MS

[url=http://www.christianskepticism.org]Team blog: ChristianSkepticism.org[/url] | [URL="http://mbbchurch.com"]Martin Bluff Church [/URL] | Personal:[URL="http://jdlblog.blogspot.com"]...a Longmire rambles[/URL]

The Apostle argues for his position from the impossibility of the contrary. These four questions are asked in rhetorical fashion, each with the obvious answer, "It is impossible". It seems to me that since he is making absolute statements, these cannot be inductive, but dogmatic.

__________________
Rev. Todd Ruddell
Pastor, Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCGA)
Wylie, TX
www.christcovenantreformedpc.org

Our best marks can contribute nothing to our justification, ...that is proper to faith. Faith cannot lodge in the soul alone, and without other graces; yet faith alone justifies before God.--G. Gillespie

I don't know it it's either, or even a syllogism. The conclusion is not stated in the verses. In vs. 17 it reads "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Of course, this is also telling what a preacher should be preaching)

__________________
Timothy Johnson
First United Presbyterian of Moline
PCUSA (Yea, I know)
Theology/Philosophy Sunday School Teacher
Davenport, IA