Section 5
Go to Chapter 7 – The Indispensibility of Reason and Logic in Biblical Interpretation
Although the Calvinist gives lip service to the indispensability of the laws of logic for rational communication, due to the logical and moral difficulties inherent in the Calvinist’s biblical interpretations and theological positions, they are inevitably forced to downplay the reliability and role of human reason in biblical interpretation and theological construction. They do not want the searchlight of reason and moral intuition to shine upon their exegetical conclusions. Therefore, they will criticize non-Calvinists for relying too heavily on their human reason when rejecting Calvinism for its logical and moral incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions. But the Calvinist seems to be confusing, or worse, equating the legitimate use of reason or rationality in biblical interpretation, with the illegitimate exaltation of reason as found in rationalism as a worldview.
What is rationalism? It is basically the perspective that something can or cannot be true as determined by the capabilities and standards of a particular presupposed worldview. Professor A. Berkeley Mickelsen gives a good illustration when writing about Rudolph Bultmann’s view of history. Mickelsen states,
“Bultmann…claims to be the kind of historian who holds to an unbreakable chain of cause and effect in history. This view of history is also held by philosophers known as logical positivists.
The historical method includes the presupposition that history is a unity in the sense of a closed continuum of effects in which individual events are connected by the succession of cause and effect… This closedness means that the continuum of historical happenings cannot be rent by the interference of supernatural transcendent powers and that, therefore, there is no “miracle” in this sense of the word.”[17]
Bultmann “reasons” that history is a closed continuum of cause and effect and therefore miracles simply do not occur. But this kind of “human reasoning” is characterized by “reasoning” from one’s philosophical presuppositions or pre-understandings rather than reasoning according to the laws of logic and our moral intuitions. The non-Calvinist affirms that a godless rationalism can lead us astray in our thinking, but reasoning according to the laws of logic and moral intuitions is not this type of rationalism. And as much as the Calvinists would rightly reject this kind of rationalism, they must also avoid the scrutiny of legitimate logical and moral reasoning due to the problematic nature of their theology. And for the Calvinist to equate the legitimate use of reason in a logical and moral critique of Calvinism to this kind of rationalism, to place Calvinism outside the realm of the rational and moral critiques brought against it, is disanalogous and disingenuous. The “use of reason” that rejects the supernatural intervention in history because it presupposes a closed view of history is not the same use of reason whose purview it is to discern what is true from what is false in any sphere of life, including biblical interpretation and theology. Just because one is interpreting a divine Word does not mean that the “use of human reason” should be used to excuse incoherence, inconsistency, and contradictions in one’s interpretations of that divine Word. The rationalist rejects supernatural intervention because he “reasons” that history or the universe is a closed system. God does not enter into the picture. The Calvinist would have to believe a priori that Calvinism is true to claim it is beyond human reason to comprehend. And he might say that any assessment of it by the use of “fallen human reason” will only lead one astray and probably to reject it. But that would not be rationalism. That would be a failure to think and do one’s Christian duty to test what we are being told we ought to believe.
Dr. Norman Geisler explains the difference between rationality and rationalism.
“Rationality versus Rationalism. Others protest that making truths about God subject to human reason is a form of rationalism. However, this objection overlooks several important things. First, it is not the case that God is being subjected to human reason. God is the author of reason, and he created us to be like himself – a rational being. So, the basic principles of human reason hold sway as true for all human thought and discourse as well thought and discourse about God. They are not arbitrarily imposed on God as if God has the prerogative to act in ways that completely counter to or opposite of the basic principles of logic and reason. Rather, these are rooted in the nature of God himself and therefore come from him. As such they are unalterable and always applicable.
Second, the basic laws of reason are not opposed to God’s revelation. Indeed, they are an essential part of God’s general revelation. Human rationality, with its basic laws, is a manifestation of God’s rationality. God is rational, and humans are made in his image. So using logic is not opposed to revelation, it is part of it.
Third, even special revelation cannot be known or communicated apart from logic. We would not even be able to distinguish the revelation from God from that of the Devil unless the law of noncontradiction is valid. Furthermore, when the Bible reveals that “God so loved the world,” we could not know that love is not hate unless the law of noncontradiction is valid. So logic is essential to special revelation as well as to general revelation.
Finally, there is a difference between using reason and being a rationalist. A rationalist tries to determine all truth by human reason. A reasonable Christian merely uses reason to discover truth that God has revealed, either by general revelation or by special revelation in the Bible.”[18]
Note what Geisler is saying here with respect to the Calvinist dichotomy between exegesis and reason. He states that “the basic laws of reason are not opposed to God’s revelation. Indeed, they are an essential part of God’s general revelation. Human rationality, with its basic laws, is a manifestation of God’s rationality. God is rational, and humans are made in his image. So using logic is not opposed to revelation, it is part of it.” Geisler also affirms the basic laws of reason and human rationality in the interpretation of Scripture when he writes, “A reasonable Christian merely uses reason to discover truth that God has revealed, either by general revelation or by special revelation in the Bible.” The laws of logic and human rationality are essential to a sound, evangelical hermeneutic. Hence, exegesis cannot be divorced from the laws of logic. Exegesis goes hand-in-hand with philosophical reflection. Any exegesis that claims to provide the accurate meaning of Scripture yet can be seen to be incoherent, inconsistent, or contradictory, as in Calvinism, is not a valid exegesis of the text. Given the essential nature of logic to thought as thought, “that is, the necessary conditions to which thought, in itself considered, is subject,”[19] fleeing to mystery or incomprehensibility will not do as a justification or establishment of the validity of that exegesis. Indeed, when mystery and incomprehensibility are proposed in light of sufficient evidence of incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction in one’s interpretations, this is a sure indication of misinterpretation.
Calvinist apologist and philosopher Greg Koukl would agree. And yet, indicting his own Calvinist beliefs, he remains a Calvinist! What this confirms is that the Calvinist dismisses these requirements of logic and reason when it comes to their own interpretations and theology! Although writing in an apologetic context on the virtues of argument, his comments on the role of reason apply to biblical interpretation. Koukl writes,
“Imagine living in a world in which you couldn’t distinguish between truth and error… Such a world would be a dangerous place. You wouldn’t survive long.
What protects us from the hazards of such a world? If you’re a Christian, you might be tempted to say, “The Word of God protects us.” Certainly, that’s true, but the person who says that might be missing something else God has given us that is also vitally important. In fact, God’s Word would be useless without it.
A different thing is necessary before we can accurately know what God is saying through his Word. Yes, the Bible is first in terms of authority, but something else is first in terms of the order of knowing: We cannot grasp the authoritative teaching of God’s Word unless we use our minds properly. Therefore, the mind, not the Bible, is the very first line of defense God has given us against error.
For some of you this may be a controversial statement, so let’s think about it for a moment. In order to understand the truth of the Bible accurately, our mental faculties must be intact and we must use them as God intended. We demonstrate this fact every time we disagree on an interpretation of a biblical passage and then give reasons why our view is better than another’s. Simply put, we argue for our point of view, and if we argue well, we separate wheat from chaff, truth from error.
Jesus said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength” (Mark 12:30). Loving God with the mind is not a passive process. It is not enough to have sentimental religious thoughts. Rather, it involves coming to conclusions about God and his world based on revelation, observation, and careful reflection.
What is the tool we use in our observations of the world that helps us separate fact from fiction? That tool is reason, the ability to use our minds to sort through observations and draw accurate conclusions about reality. Rationality is one of the tools God has given us to acquire knowledge.
Generally, sorting things out is not a solitary enterprise. It’s best done in the company of others who dispute our claims and offer competing ideas. In short, we argue. Sometimes we are silent partners, listening, not talking, but the process is going on in our minds just the same.
This is not rationalism, a kind of idolatry of the mind that place’s man’s thinking at the center of the universe. Rather, it’s the proper use of one of the faculties God has given us to understand him and the world he has made.”[20]
Again, it is perplexing as to why Koukl does not apply his teachings here to his own Calvinism and hermeneutics. Nevertheless, Koukl is making an important hermeneutical point when he states that “in order to understand the truth of the Bible accurately, our mental faculties must be intact and we must use them as God intended. We demonstrate this fact every time we disagree on an interpretation of a biblical passage and then give reasons why our view is better than another’s. Simply put, we argue for our point of view, and if we argue well, we separate wheat from chaff, truth from error.” Koukl asks, “What is the tool we use in our observations of the world that helps us separate fact from fiction? That tool is reason, the ability to use our minds to sort through observations and draw accurate conclusions about reality. Rationality is one of the tools God has given us to acquire knowledge.”
What would constitute arguing well for one’s interpretation of a biblical passage, given Koukl’s stress on the essential role of reason? It would have to be an argument that conforms to the canons of reason. It would be the acceptance of a hermeneutic of coherence. But as we have seen in many examples, this interpretive coherence is not essential to Calvinists. They are willing to jettison the tools of reason and our moral intuitions when their exegesis does not conform to its deliverances. Hence, the Calvinist has dichotomized exegesis from reason.
Read the next section – The Mysteries of Faith: Beyond Reason or Against Reason?
Footnotes
[17] Rudolph Bultmann, “Is Exegesis Without Presuppositions Possible?” in Existence and Faith (1960), pp. 291-292. From A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 7.
[18] Ibid. 428-429.
[19] Sir William Hamilton (1788-1856), Scottish Metaphysician.
[20] Gregory Koukl, Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 31-33. Interestingly enough Greg Koukl is of the Calvinist persuasion, and I do wonder what his response would be to this extended critique of his Reformed Calvinist soteriology. From the podcasts I have heard, it appears to me that the defense of his Calvinist soteriology is typical of that I describe here. Rather than question the accuracy of his interpretive conclusions when they lead to the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election and its related logical and moral incoherencies, he takes the position that reason simply doesn’t apply to these conclusions. This begs the question by assuming those conclusions to be correct. Whether they are and how we would know is the question before us. Koukl tells us above, but doesn’t seem to apply what he says to his own Calvinist exegetical conclusions. But once rational and moral coherence are put out of court, nothing is left by which to answer these questions. Thus, Calvinism is propagated at the expense of reason, not in light of it. This is the hermeneutical divide, and it is why no biblical consensus can be reached on the controversial interpretative issues between Calvinists and non-Calvinists.
The Truth of the Gospel 