Induction is always a fallacy, even in biblical study and systematic theology. The difference is that in cases where all the possibilities are available and considered, then it can be called a “complete induction” (the term could mean other things in various contexts), and a complete induction is the equivalent of deduction, because in that context, you possess “omniscience.” Your conclusion is made by deduction from a singular and complete knowledge.
Suppose I have ten marbles in a bag, and I take out three of them to show you. All three are red. If you then say that most or all the marbles must be red, this is induction, or the method of empiricism and science, and it is always fallacious. However, suppose I take out all of them. You count that there are ten, and then you count that there are seven red ones. If you then say that most of the marbles are red, this is not fallacious. It is based on “omniscience,” or complete knowledge, and it is the same as deduction. On this basis, you can say, “There are ten marbles. There are seven red ones. Therefore, most of the marbles are red.” This is deduction. Still, this is not to say that we can sometimes achieve complete induction outside of revelation. This is only an analogy that cannot truly represent what we have in Scripture. We will come back to this.
In biblical study and systematic theology, all the data is contained in one place. God himself has revealed and secured all the propositions as a single closed unit. So if you formulate a doctrine based on the entire Bible, then the doctrine is deduced from the Bible. It is deduction. But if you take two verses from one book and make a doctrine that claims to represent the whole revelation, this would be induction, and it is a fallacy. This is how false doctrines and heresies are formed. What is said may be true as far as it goes, since what the Bible says is always true even if it says it just once, but it is fallacious to claim that it is the whole doctrine. And if you neglect the context, then the text might not even say what you claim that it says. Theology must consider the whole revelation, and when it does, it is based on deduction.
God always performs deduction, because he possesses true omniscience in every context. Some wish to appear clever but fail to grasp the simple concept of deduction, and therefore object to this characterization. Since all the information in deduction is contained in the starting point, in God, deduction is identical to his intuition or knowing, and does not entail a process of reasoning. When our theology is performed correctly, that is, based on a complete consideration of Scripture, the doctrine is based on God’s omniscience (his omniscience revealed this part of his knowledge), and it is therefore always correct. In any case, because God is the one who produced this closed system from his own omniscience, it is also unique. It is the only system that allows us to make a valid complete induction. A complete induction from the Bible would be a deduction from a portion of God’s mind, and therefore, truth.
The methods of science and empiricism can never achieve complete induction. There is an infinite number of possible variables that might or might not affect their knowledge and experiments, so that they do not even know whether they are missing something. It is like not taking all the marbles out of the bag, so that showing you two or seven or three million red marbles means nothing. As mentioned, I need to come back to this. Our analogy is a limited illustration, since it assumes that you see correctly, that you count correctly, that you have an infallible memory or record, that I have shown you all the marbles, and a number of other things. In fact, you cannot assume that even I know about all the marbles or that I am in full control of them. Therefore, even the induction in our analogy is fallacious, because without omniscience, you can never know that it is a complete induction.
There are still people who claim that induction is necessary for biblical study and systematic theology as an objection against us, or against the fact that induction is fallacious. They are STUPID. Didn’t we learn about complete induction in the first week of studying logic? Even then it was nothing new. We learned what some people want us to call it, but we applied the concept way before we studied logic, even when we were children. An argument like this could not have survived in our elementary school banters. Now STUPID people claiming the name of Christ want to trample their fellows, rise above all others in philosophical theories and methods, and then lead us to confront the unbelievers! Behold the vanity of delusional religionists. STUPID.
The empiricists cut themselves off from the Bible — and in principle, from salvation — when they insist on empiricism but cannot prove that empiricism is valid. Likewise, these “inductionists” cut themselves off from Christ when they insist on induction but cannot prove that induction is valid. Induction is invalid by its very structure and definition. When they insist on induction but cannot prove that induction is valid, they also confess that all their doctrines are invalid. Thus they forfeit the doctrines of Christ, the atonement, justification by faith, and all biblical doctrines. In principle, they cannot be Christians. They cannot be saved. But they want to teach us how to defend the faith! STUPID.
From: email