Section 10
Go to Chapter 7 – The Indispensibility of Reason and Logic in Biblical Interpretation
Christian theologians and philosophers William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland concur that philosophy plays an indispensable role in assessing the rationality of concepts and theories in the various academic disciplines. Certainly, the concepts and doctrines of different theological paradigms may be included here. They, too, are subject to philosophical arguments and assessments.
Craig and Moreland state the definition and several purposes of philosophy that have direct bearing on this theological and soteriological controversy. They write,
“…philosophy may be defined as the attempt to think rationally and critically about life’s most important questions in order to obtain knowledge and wisdom about them. Philosophy can help someone form a rationally justified, true worldview.”[47]
In the Calvinist/non-Calvinist controversy, it is a “rationally justified worldview” that we are seeking. The differences between Calvinism and non-Calvinism are nothing less than worldview differences. This is due to the theistic determinism inherent in Calvinism but rejected by non-Calvinists as incompatible with the biblical worldview.
Philosophy is suitable for evaluating particular concerns and considerations that bear upon this controversy. Note the importance of thinking “rationally and critically” as well as the need to arrive at “a rationally justified, true worldview.” Philosophy can help to achieve this for both Calvinists and non-Calvinists. Philosophy can therefore help establish what constitutes sound interpretive principles. Those will be the principles that incorporate rational and critical thinking and therefore lead us to logically and morally coherent understandings of the biblical text. But as we have seen, Calvinism has a hard time with the deliberations and deliverances of a philosophical assessment of its doctrinal beliefs and, therefore, its interpretations of the text. Calvinism’s theistic determinism cannot be rationally justified in light of the overwhelming biblical witness to human freedom and responsibility along with a contingent reality. Moreland and Craig point out that,
“2. Philosophy undergirds other disciplines at a foundational level by providing clarity, justification for, or arguments against the essential presuppositions of that discipline. Since philosophy operates as a second-order discipline that investigates other disciplines, and since philosophy examines broad, foundational, axiological, epistemological, logical and metaphysical issues in those other disciplines, then philosophy is properly suited to investigate the presuppositions of other disciplines.”[48]
Universal divine causal determinism is the result of the Calvinist interpretations of Scripture. As such, a philosophical examination of the viability of determinisms per se can offer a critical assessment and conclusions about the truth or falsity of Calvinism. For instance, a philosophical investigation of naturalistic determinism reveals the incoherence of determinism per se. Therefore, philosophy can also offer a critical assessment of Calvinism as a determinism and whether it too is incoherent by virtue of its determinism, as a careful scrutiny of naturalistic determinism reveals. (See Chapter 11 – Examples of Calvinist Interpretive Incoherence, Example 23 – Mohler on Naturalistic Determinism and Theistic Determinism: A Distinction without a Difference.)
In addition, whether one’s proposed theological paradigm demonstrates coherent integration also comes to the fore in this controversy. Philosophy is essential for achieving such integration.
“…the discipline of philosophy is absolutely essential for the task of integration. To integrate means to blend or form into a whole. In this sense, integration occurs when one’s theological beliefs, primarily rooted in Scripture, are blended and unified with propositions judged as rational from other sources into a coherent, intellectually adequate Christian worldview.”[49]
Many of the problems in Calvinism are problems of integration. There are problems of coherence among the scriptures themselves, among theological beliefs, and other sources. This incoherence prevents Calvinism from constructing an “intellectually adequate Christian worldview.” Calvinism suffers from internal conflicts involving deterministic theological presuppositions and definitions in light of other clear biblical teachings and doctrines. It also cannot endure the role coherence and non-contradiction play in responsible biblical interpretation. Philosophy is perfectly suitable to arbitrate these matters.
Moreland and Craig point out that philosophy serves to establish conceptual clarity on a matter. This lack of clarity, along with contradiction and circularity are also essential problems within Calvinism. They write,
“3. Philosophy can aid a discipline by helping to clarify concepts, argument forms and other cognitive issues internal to a field. Sometimes the concepts in a discipline appear to be contradictory, vague, unclear or circularly defined. Philosophers who study a particular discipline can aid that discipline by bringing conceptual clarity to it.”[50]
Problems of ambiguity, duplicity, circularity, and contradiction plague the Calvinists’ interpretive conclusions and theological constructs. Philosophy can help address and untangle these problems.
And finally, philosophy can act to test whether a concept, theory, or even a theological paradigm is rationally well-founded by comparing it to an argument in philosophy that is already considered to be rationally well-founded but with which that concept, theory, or paradigm conflicts. Moreland and Craig state,
“5. Philosophy provides external conceptual problems for other disciplines to consider as part of a rational appraisal of theories in those disciplines (and vice versa). A philosophical external conceptual problem arises for some theory in a discipline outside of philosophy when that theory conflicts with a doctrine of some philosophical theory, provided that the philosophical theory and its component doctrines are rationally well founded. For example…if there are good philosophical arguments for the existence of genuine freedom of the will or arguments for the existence of real moral responsibility, and the necessity of full-blown freedom as a presupposition of moral responsibility, then these would tend to count against sociological, economic or psychological theories that are deterministic in nature. In cases like these, a rationally defensible position is present within philosophy, and it runs contrary to a theory surfaced in another field. The philosophical external conceptual problem may not be sufficient to require abandonment or suspension of judgment of the theory in the other discipline; it may merely tend to count against it. Even so, these kinds of conceptual problems show that philosophical considerations are relevant to the rationality of theory-assessment in other disciplines.”[51]
Here, we certainly may include hermeneutics and theology in those “other disciplines.” The issue of determinism and human freedom is central to the Calvinist/non-Calvinist controversy. To marginalize the input of philosophy would smack of evading the search for the truth in favor of preserving one’s theological tradition at any intellectual cost. Yet, this marginalization of philosophy is precisely what Calvinists do to protect and defend their deterministic theology from its scrutiny. The scrutiny of philosophy’s clear thinking would uncover the incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions within Calvinism. Such scrutiny would be the death knell of Calvinism. (See the section “Schreiner and Ware – Logic or Exegesis: The False Dichotomy” in Chapter 9 -Reason as Problematic for Calvinist Interpretation.)
All this is very important because, in the mind of many thinkers, Calvinism engages in and indeed requires the obfuscation of what is otherwise obvious to reason, moral intuition, and common sense. It would have us suspend the most basic of logical deductions and inferences, and dismiss the clear moral implications of its theological claims by seeking refuge in ‘high mystery,’ “incomprehensibility,’ ‘the Bible teaches both…’ and ‘apparent contradiction.’ Once again, Moreland and Craig point out that,
“The Christian philosopher will try to undergird, defend and clarify the various aspects of a worldview compatible with Scripture. This will involve not only working on broad theological themes – for example, the dignity of being human – but on defending and clarifying specific verses in Scripture. Of course, caution must be exercised. One should not automatically assume that one’s particular interpretation of a biblical text is the only option for an evangelical, and one should not automatically assume that the biblical text was intended to speak to the issue at hand. But when due care is given to these warnings, it is nevertheless, important that the Christian philosopher tries to forge a worldview that includes the teaching of specific biblical texts, properly interpreted.”[52]
The key phrase here is “properly interpreted.” Therefore, we have to ask whether or not the Calvinist interpretations of specific texts can be the proper interpretations if they violate the fundamental principles of logic and morality which are foundational to philosophical thought and assessment. Here’s where philosophical reasoning will come into play, not only at the worldview level, which is enough to refute Calvinism due to its determinism, but also at the interpretive level.
At the level of worldviews, Craig and Moreland attempt to discern the truth of a worldview by its ability to avoid contradictory propositions and provide consistency and coherence with reality as we comprehensively understand and experience it. Surely these same principles would also apply to one’s theological worldview gleaned from an interpretation of the biblical text. The text is not open to various inconsistent, incoherent, or contradictory meanings. Even though Moreland and Craig warn us against automatically assuming that our particular interpretation of a biblical text is the only option for an evangelical, I believe they would also affirm that the text has a certain objective meaning that needs to meet rational and moral standards. It is the meaning that is in accord with those standards that needs to be discerned, and that would be the meaning of the text when properly interpreted. This is to say that only meanings that evidence rational and moral coherence can be options for evangelical belief. Obviously, Craig and Moreland cannot include in a “proper interpretation” the presence of clearly identifiable incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions. If so, they may as well pack up their philosophical and moral “principles” and go home. They would play no significant or meaningful role in the interpretive task. Therefore, I believe the intellectually responsible evangelical philosopher must reject the interpretive and theological relativism that holds that two mutually exclusive interpretations of the text are both true, and it would be legitimate for an evangelical Christian to hold to either view. As logically and morally mutually exclusive theologies and soteriologies, the Calvinist and non-Calvinist views cannot both be viable options for the evangelical Christian.
My point is that, given responsible philosophical assessment and careful examination according to our moral intuitions, we find that it is impossible that Calvinism is a viable theological and soteriological option for the evangelical precisely because its exegesis generates real incoherencies and contradictions. Hence, the employment of philosophy and its investigative “tools of the trade” – logic, clarification, argument, etc. – is essential for informing, guiding, and checking our exegesis, interpretative conclusions, and theological constructs. The deliberations and deliverances of philosophical reflection must be considered essential to a sound, evangelical hermeneutic.
Can philosophical arguments be brought to bear upon Calvinist theology to show that it is not rationally or morally well-founded? I think so. I have provided Dr. Craig’s philosophical and moral arguments against Calvinism in Chapter 4. I will do so throughout future chapters. Therefore, we may ask what implications these difficulties within Calvinism have for determining whether or not it is an accurate reflection of biblical teaching. Would these philosophical arguments (along with other exegetical assessments) make a compelling cumulative case that something is amiss with the Calvinist interpretations and doctrines? If so, would we lose our intellectual warrant to believe Calvinism to be true? Let’s examine the issues further.
Read the next section – Robert Audi: Reason, Logic and Justified Beliefs
Footnotes
[47] J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 33.
[48] Ibid. 23.
[49] Ibid. 17.
[50] J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 23.
[51] Ibid. 25.
[52] Ibid. 26.
The Truth of the Gospel 