Sermon Tone Analysis

Overall tone of the sermon

This automated analysis scores the text on the likely presence of emotional, language, and social tones. There are no right or wrong scores; this is just an indication of tones readers or listeners may pick up from the text.
A score of 0.5 or higher indicates the tone is likely present.
Emotion Tone
Anger
0.55LIKELY
Disgust
0.15UNLIKELY
Fear
0.15UNLIKELY
Joy
0.17UNLIKELY
Sadness
0.27UNLIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.94LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.27UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.97LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.66LIKELY
Extraversion
0.14UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.06UNLIKELY
Emotional Range
0.47UNLIKELY

Tone of specific sentences

Tones
Emotion
Anger
Disgust
Fear
Joy
Sadness
Language
Analytical
Confident
Tentative
Social Tendencies
Openness
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Emotional Range
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
The labels /inductive/ and /deductive/ may be applied to several things, including methods of reasoning and methods of studying.
A /deductive/ approach moves from the rule to the example, and an /inductive/ approach moves from the example to the rule.
I will first discuss /deductive/ and /inductive/ methods of reasoning (I have discussed these in greater detail elsewhere), then I will discuss /deductive/ and /inductive/ methods for studying.
!! The Deductive Method of Reasoning
The deductive method reasons from certain premises to a necessary conclusion.
It is often described as reasoning from the general to the specific.
Premise: All men are mortal.
\\ Premise: Socrates is a man.
\\ Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
If the premises are true, and the form is correct or valid, then the conclusion is necessarily true.
However, if the form is invalid, then the conclusion is not necessarily true.
Some men are mortal.
\\ Socrates is a man.
\\ Therefore Socrates is mortal.
Though we may know that Socrates is mortal, nevertheless that does not logically flow from the premises of this argument.
If we only know that some men are mortal, then Socrates might be among some men who are not mortal.
The form of the argument is not valid.
!! The Inductive Method of Reasoning
The /inductive/ method reasons in the opposite direction of the /deductive/ method.
It begins with specific observations and reasons to a generalization about the observations.
It is often described as reasoning from the particulars to the general.
I have examined ten thousand dogs.
\\ Every dog I have examined has fleas.
\\ Therefore, all dogs have fleas.
The conclusion (really, a generalization) may possibly be true there is no observation which contradicts the conclusion but it is not necessarily true there are still more observations which could be made.
If, indeed, I had examined all dogs (which, of course, nobody could possibly do), and all dogs examined had fleas, then I could conclude that all dogs do indeed have fleas.
Based on my sample of dogs, it appears that all dogs have fleas.
But the first dog I found which did not have fleas would contradict and therefore disprove my conclusion.
So all that I actually know is that some dogs have fleas.
!! A Comparison of Inductive and Deductive Methods of Reasoning
The /deductive/ method of reasoning moves toward /necessary/ conclusions derived from /correct/ connections between premises premises which are /all/ either given or assumed to be /true/.
The /inductive/ method of reasoning moves toward /possible/ conclusions derived from /hypothetical/ connections between premises (observations) which are /selected from among all possible true/ premises (observations).
Ideally, the /deductive/ method of reasoning is /objective/ in its conclusions (the conclusions are necessarily true), but /subjective/ in its premises (the premises are assumed to be true).
Ideally, the /inductive/ method of reasoning is /subjective/ in its conclusions (the conclusions are not necessarily true), but /objective/ in its premises (the premises are observed to be true).
!! Deductive and Inductive Reasoning Applied to the Bible
To begin with, if we believe that all of the propositions of the Bible are absolutely true, then we must believe that if we arrive at /deductive/ conclusions by connecting the propositions of the Bible in a formally valid way, then these /deductive/ conclusions are absolutely true.
Therefore, deduction from the Bible results in absolute certainty.
Many doctrines are arrived at /deductively/ from the Bible, and it is these /deduced/ doctrines which are the most widely accepted doctrines among Christians simply because they are proven (at least to the satisfaction of many if not most persons) and cannot be refuted without rejecting the full authority of the Bible.
Secondly, if we selected certain propositions from the Bible and weaved them into a pattern which is not based on /necessary/ connections (that is, they are formally valid), but rather the pattern is based on our /conjectured/ connections (that is, what looks best to us), then we can place no certain confidence in our conjectured patterns.
In other words, /induction/ from the Bible does not result in any absolute certainty.
Many theological or dogmatic systems for interpreting the Bible are arrived at /inductively/, and it is these /induced/ systems which are the most divisive among Christians, creating various schools of theology and denominations simply because different persons prefer different conjectures and are not willing to stay within the boundaries of what is provable.
Of course there are differences of opinion as to what actually is provable from the Bible, but this is not due to any defect in /deductive/ reasoning.
Rather, this may be compared to the proverb that computers actually don't make mistakes, it is the programmers or the operators who make the mistakes.
Because the Bible does not (for the most part) come in the form of nicely formulated and completely unambiguous propositions, the element of interpretation is introduced, and this is where we humans often fail.
In addition, we often fall into various fallacies deceptive errors in reasoning which lead us in the wrong direction.
Some believe that we can prove the Bible is true with logic.
This is an unbiblical /rationalism/ which places the authority of reason above the Bible.
In order to prove the Bible, we would need propositions of higher authority than the Bible which is impossible by definition.
However, if given enough time, we could conceivably prove all non-Biblical systems of thought to be self-contradictory and therefore false, which would leave the Bible standing as the only example of something which has not yet been proved self-contradictory.
Nevertheless, we cannot prove the negative.
So the truth of the Bible must ultimately be revealed to the individual.
The Bible is self-authenticating, but only for those who have been brought within the circle of faith.
Some believe that we cannot prove anything from the Bible.
This is an unbiblical /irrationalism/ which denies that reason can be applied to the Bible.
Instead, we must add experience and guesswork and take some leaps into uncertainty by faith.
We believe that the correct role of reasoning is as our servant to help us to understand the Bible.
The place of logic is in submission as a servant to the Word of God.
!! Methods of Reasoning Compared to Methods of Studying
A /method/ is a regular way or manner of proceeding with or of accomplishing something.
We must make a distinction between a method of reasoning to conclusions, and a method for studying a book or a subject.
For example, consider the /inductive/ and /deductive/ methods for studying a language:
/Deductive/ language learning involves memorizing the various parts and categories of a foreign language and learning how to fit it all together and to us it.
In other words, it begins with certain accepted principles of the language, then deduces the language as a whole from the correct combination of the parts and principles.
/Inductive/ language learning involves reading passages in a foreign language, then picking it apart and learning what the parts mean.
In other words, it begins with the language as a whole properly connected in all of its parts and principles, then figures out certain parts and principles of the language.
As you can see, we aren't actually talking about a method of reasoning so much as we are talking about a method of approaching a subject.
In the /deductive/ method of study, we take for granted the work which others before us have done in identifying and categorizing various parts and their relationships of language (or any other subject), and we use this to develop our understanding of the whole system and to generate true examples of the language (or any other subject).
In the /inductive/ method of study, what was taken for granted in the /deductive/ method is here our primary work.
We move from the given true examples of the language (or any other subject) and we break it down into its parts and relationships and thereby develop our understanding of the whole system
In actual practice, though any one method of study may be characteristically /deductive/ or /inductive/, nevertheless nothing is purely /deductive/, and nothing is purely /inductive/, but they are actually used to serve each other.
!! How Does This Apply to Inductive and Deductive Bible Study
Used correctly, both /inductive/ and /deductive/ Bible study methods can be helpful in using the Bible to arrive at or to test ones beliefs.
Each has its special uses and abuses.
I will describe each method below on the basic level, then on the advanced level, pointing out some uses and abuses.
!! Basic Level /Deductive/ Bible Study
/Deductive/ Bible study on the basic level is simply instruction in Biblical doctrine.
A better name for this might be /synthetic/ Bible study [Greek: /suntithemai/ to put together] because it puts together the separate elements of the Bible to form a coherent whole which is more highly developed than the parts.
In a /deductive/ study we might examine a previously selected series of Biblical texts in order to gather up Biblical propositions which, when properly arranged, prove such doctrines as the deity of Christ, or the personality of the Holy Spirit, or salvation by the blood atonement of Christ.
The Apostles reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead.(Acts
17:2-3) So a /deductive/ study is topical in nature, and someone must first do the work of finding the texts and arranging them to prove the doctrine, then we examine his work, benefit from it, and perhaps even improve upon it.
The /deductive/ study saves us much of the work of assembling these texts and building these doctrines on our own.
In this way those young in the faith can be quickly edified [built up] line upon line in basic, essential, and important doctrines of the faith.
One common way of doing a /deductive/ study is for the student to examine a selected series of Bible texts, then to answer specific questions about each text questions which will draw out and pull together the logical inferences so that the student can think for himself step-by-step through the logic of the doctrine.
Of course, in /deductive/ Bible study the student must place a reasonable amount of trust in his teacher to guide him through the doctrines.
Nevertheless, there are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable /persons/ twist to their own destruction, as /they do /also the rest of the Scriptures.(2
Peter 3:16) The danger of the /deductive/ study is that, regardless of the teachers intentions, we may be mislead.
So the student must also examine for himself the Bible texts in their contexts to see if they say what the teacher thinks they say, and He must test the logical connections to make sure they prove what the teacher thinks they prove.
The Bereans were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word [of the Apostles doctrine] with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily /to find out /whether these things were so.
Therefore many of them believed.(Acts
17:11-12) Both the teacher and the student are accountable to the Lord, as well as to each other in the Lord.
Religious cults use a /deductive/ method of Bible study in order to keep followers at a more childish level of understanding and thereby dependent upon them for instruction.
The ultimate goal of a faithful Bible teacher is to bring his students up to his level of skill in understanding so that they may eventually instruct and correct him.
Pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head Christ from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.(Ephesians
4:11-16) We have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.
For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need /someone /to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food.
For everyone who partakes /only /of milk /is /unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child.
But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, /that is, /those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to maturity.(Hebrews
5:116:1)
As long as the doctrine is actually demonstrated by correctly handling genuine and valid proof texts, then this method of study can be very edifying, useful, and fruitful.
[A valid proof text is a proposition found in the Bible which can be clearly shown to mean only one thing.]
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9