Section 12
Go to Chapter 7 – The Indispensibility of Logic and Reason in Biblical Interpretation
Philosopher Robert Audi comments directly on religious disagreements such as the Calvinist/non-Calvinist controversy we are examining on this website. He states, “To resolve religious disagreements, we need principles of rationally approaching them.”[67] He calls “religious disagreements internal provided they center on a tenet or practice of a religion, are between persons “in” that religion, and concern religiously proper interpretation or practice therein.”[68] Such is the nature of our controversy.
Audi states,
“The problem (prominently discussed in recent epistemological literature) is how to assess possible disagreements one has with someone who seems, in the relevant matter, and epistemic peer: roughly, someone who (a) is as rational and as thoughtful as oneself (in the relevant matter, assessing whether a disputed proposition is true), (b) has considered the same relevant evidence – which need not be all the relevant evidence – and (c) has done so equally conscientiously.”[69]
Whether either side views the other as having properly fulfilled these criteria of an “epistemic peer” is part of the problem. Audi cautions that “Epistemic parity is an idealization and at best rarely realized” and then offers hope of resolving controversies. He states, “It is a difficult empirical question how often such people can reach agreement after long and repeated discussion. But such agreement is possible.” I think he is correct. But note that he adds, “Let us consider how any rational individuals who religiously disagree might achieve, if not consensus, then peaceful coexistence. Here considerations of the types of evidence is particularly important.” [70]
For the most part, there has been peaceful coexistence in the Calvinist/non-Calvinist soteriological controversy. But this peaceful coexistence comes with an intellectual and hermeneutical price tag that for many of us is just too high to pay. Intellectually, it requires that we ignore the mutual exclusivity of the positions. The anti-intellectualism and interpretive and theological relativism within the evangelical church have made this coexistence possible. But surely this is not an acceptable situation for the thinking Christian, especially one who is concerned to rightly interpret the Scripture. The evangelical church has taken the position that we all just ignore Audi’s point that “…mutually incompatible propositions cannot both be true…”[71] The evangelical church also chooses to ignore Audi’s other criteria for coming to know what is true from what is false, that is, by applying the criterion of consistency and coherence to what we say the Bible means and what we believe.
To ignore the mutual exclusivity of the Calvinist and non-Calvinist positions is just bad thinking and goes to Audi’s point “a)” above, that is, that rationality and thoughtfulness are needed to get to the truth. That is what is needed to bring this controversy to a resolution. Both parties have to be “rational and thoughtful.” Yet, two incompatible theologies and soteriologies claim to be what Scripture teaches, with the Calvinist position, which is a universal divine causal determinism, creating acute interpretive incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions. Therefore, this is where the problem lies. This is simply bad thinking, and as such, it is also bad hermeneutics. Hence, as far as a criterion of rationality goes, the Calvinist position is lacking. Yet our evangelical churches are indifferent to these issues. So for many of us, it is a matter of intellectual and interpretive integrity. It has a direct bearing on our doctrine of God, and is especially important because the truth of the gospel is at stake.
Furthermore, I submit that Calvinism is also deficient regarding point “b).” I have pointed out that the Calvinist does not attend to the deliverances of philosophical reflection and moral intuitions that reveal the incoherence, inconsistency, and contradictions in Calvinism. As such, the Calvinist is not considering all the relevant evidence. They are also indifferent to the exegetical conclusions of non-Calvinists that do not generate logical and moral difficulties. This, too, is evidence that the Calvinist does not seriously consider that their insuperable logical and moral difficulties speak to the invalidity of their interpretations of the relevant texts. These difficulties are evidence that their interpretations are invalid. As such, point “c)” is also left unfulfilled. Calvinists are not as conscientious in the exegetical and interpretive process as non-Calvinists are. They do not accept that coherence is a necessary hermeneutical principle. They have adopted a hermeneutic of incoherence.
Given the importance of rationality to religious and theological agreement, I would like to focus on letter (a) in Audi’s quote above with respect to assessing Calvinism. Can we determine that the Calvinist is being as rational and as thoughtful as the non-Calvinist about the truth of the propositions that are being disputed in this controversy? My contention is that the Calvinist cannot provide a rational or moral defense of their theological propositions. They may have an exegesis to present, but we are talking about whether that exegesis, in conjunction with all the other biblical data, can stand the tests of philosophical reasoning and moral reflection. And although Audi suggests peaceful coexistence as a goal, recall his conclusion that “…mutually incompatible propositions cannot both be true…”[72] If Calvinism itself can be shown to be presenting mutually exclusive propositions (e.g., deterministic sovereignty and human freedom and responsibility), and we have a situation of mutual exclusivity between the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist positions in which it can be demonstrated that the Calvinists’ theistic determinism stands in contradiction with other agreed upon clearly taught biblical truths, then based on logical reasoning we can conclude that the Calvinist propositions are flawed and the non-Calvinist interpretations are more likely to be closer to the truth. Therefore, we are justified in believing the non-Calvinist’s doctrinal positions over the Calvinist teachings.
What we would like to see is a consensus about the meaning of Scripture on these matters. But that will require us to come to grips with whether or not rational coherence is necessary for one’s interpretations of Scripture to be valid. That will require us to come to terms with whether or not coherence is a necessary rational component within a sound hermeneutic.
Furthermore, Audi employs natural theology and natural reason as aids in achieving consensus in religious disagreement. He states,
“Natural theology is roughly the reflective employment of natural reason – the ordinary kind manifested in using standard deductive and inductive logic and in responding to the evidences of sense-perception, memory, and a priori reason – in matters concerning the divine.[73]
The significance of natural theology for the topic of religious disagreement is immense.
…Suppose I am confident that God is perfectly good. I will tend to presuppose that any apparent command to do certain wrongs – say, chemical bombings or raping women in conquered territory – cannot come from God. Why presuppose this?
This raises the further question whether natural reason – which is required in interpreting religion – yields knowledge of certain moral principles. Suppose that (as I hold) we may rationally claim not only knowledge that God is omnibenevolent but knowledge (in my view a priori knowledge) of certain moral principles and, on the basis of them together with ordinary facts, can know certain singular, action-guiding moral propositions. Most educated religious people in at least the Hebraic-Christian tradition and some Islamic traditions may be taken to believe or presuppose that we have such moral knowledge. One evidence is how we provide moral education to our children – an activity that tends to reveal where we really stand. The epistemic autonomy of ethics – roughly, the knowability of moral principles through natural reason – does not license dogmatism or making light of religious authority (textual or clerical); but it justifies giving greater credibility to moral judgment in this commonsensical range than to conflicting ones made by certain passages in some scriptures or – especially – by its interpreters, such as authoritarian clergy who seek to rule their followers. What is supported by reason and everyday facts may be rationally viewed (even by religious people) as having prima facie (though not absolute) epistemic priority over moral claims based only on religious grounds, especially if these grounds depend on fallible interpretations of scriptures, on private experiences, or clerical statements.”[74]
Audi’s analysis applies to our evaluation of Calvinism to the degree that Calvinism requires of its adherents to reverse their moral knowledge with respect to their own moral intuitions and what we know of the character of God. Calvinism suppresses what Audi calls “the knowability of moral principles through natural reason.” Calvinism requires believing that God preordains and causes all of the actions and events that occur – especially those that are horrendously evil (e.g., the holocaust, the rape and murder of a child, etc.). Yet, our logical faculties and our moral intuitions, that is, our natural reason, tell us these are incoherent, inconsistent, and /or in contradiction with the character of God and other things we know through natural reason and experiential knowledge to be the case. That is, we can include here that the Calvinists’ theistic determinism is in contradiction to human freedom and responsibility. Calvinists insist we believe that God predestines and causes all things to occur as they do, but our logical reasoning and moral intuitions tell us that doesn’t make sense. Our logical reasoning and moral intuitions tell us God’s predeterminations are unjust and wrong. Calvinists claim that Scripture, which is our authority for faith and practice, teaches us these very things about God and the world. But Audi raises the question whether such interpretations, which conflict with natural reason, are legitimately derived from Scripture and then ascribed to God in our theology. The claim, for instance, that “the Bible teaches” that God created certain individuals for the purpose of punishing them for all eternity in hell; assigning them an eternal destiny of separation from God in which they have no input to either avoid or bring upon themselves, and that God does this for his own glory and to exercise his wrath upon them while predestining all others to eternal life which is a distinction made for no reason we could ever understand – certainly does seems to be a faulty reading of Scripture given our natural reason and moral sensibilities. If we are going to resolve the disagreement between Calvinists and non-Calvinists based on biblical interpretation, then, as Audi states, “…natural reason provides important common ground.”[75] Or at least it should. Audi goes on to say,
“If we think a disagreement is with an epistemic peer, or even someone who approximates parity with us, and we wish to retain our position, we should seek new evidence for it or at least a basis of thinking the disputant is not as rational or as conscientious as we are in appraising the issue.”[76]
Can we show that there is a basis for thinking that the Calvinist is not “as rational” as the non-Calvinist in appraising the issues involved in this controversy? In other words, how does the Calvinist fare with respect to the rationality of their position? I contend that I, as well as many other non-Calvinists, have convincingly shown that the answer is, “Very poorly.” Indeed, regarding the criterion of rationality, Calvinism fails. For instance, Glen Shellrude, in his chapter in the book Grace for All: The Arminian Dynamics of Salvation, refers to and quotes Calvinist Edwin Palmer.
“Edwin Palmer acknowledges the absurdity of what Calvinism affirms: “He [the Calvinist] realizes that what he advocates is ridiculous….The Calvinist freely admits that his position is illogical, ridiculous, nonsensical and foolish.”[77] However he argues that the Scriptural evidence requires one to embrace this intrinsically absurd view of God. If God has created us with a rational and moral discernment which to some extent mirrors his own, then the cluster of logical and moral absurdities inherent in the Calvinist system suggests that there is a problem with the theology itself. The appropriate response is not to celebrate absurdity, or as is more commonly done, to appeal to mystery, but rather to rethink the theology in light of the totality of the Scriptural evidence.”[78]
The absurdity of Calvinism is on full display when Calvinist John Piper agrees with Calvinist Mark Talbot, who states that,
“God…brings about all things in accordance with His will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love Him; it is rather that He himself brings about these evil aspects for His glory (see Ex. 9:13-16; John 9:3) and His people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11: James 1:2-4). This includes – as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem – God’s having even brought about the Nazi’s brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child…”[79]
I think it is obvious that the Calvinist has significant problems in being “not as rational” or “as conscientious…in appraising the issue.” Audi concludes,
“There is much common ground among human beings, and natural reason provides a framework for meeting on that ground. Natural reason does not depend epistemically on God as creator, but piety is in no way compromised by relying, in the ways I propose, on what one may take to be a gift from God… The search for common ground, moreover, can be guided by efforts to bring natural reason to bear.”[80]
Note that Audi acknowledges what most evangelical Christians would consider to be a biblical truth, that is, that natural reason is a gift from God.
So what is the point here? It is that natural theology provides “common ground” among us as human beings as to what we can consider to be rational or not. Natural theology provides us with a shared natural human reason. By this human reason, we can discern whether or not what we presently believe or are being asked to believe is true and thereby justified in believing it. We can evaluate proposed truth claims by their coherence or incoherence using natural reason and, I would add, our moral intuition. These serve to assess the validity of interpretive and doctrinal propositions and whether we are justified in believing those interpretations and doctrines. Hence, a common rationality by which we can determine what is incoherent, inconsistent, or contradictory must be applied to biblical interpretations. Therefore, interpretations that are incoherent, inconsistent, or contradictory are not viable options as the intent of the author. Moreover, therefore, these principles of coherence, consistency, and non-contradiction are essential and necessary in a sound hermeneutic. They are indispensable factors by which we determine the truth of interpretive claims.
Hence, Calvinism, by reason of its universal divine causal determinism, shows itself to be incoherent, inconsistent, and contradictory with many clear biblical teachings and the biblical worldview. It cannot, with rational consistency or moral clarity, explain the dynamic of our personal, free will relationships with others and with God, as well as our experience of the world around us, which is substantially contingent in nature. Therefore, Calvinism must be declared to be irrational and, as such, unbiblical.
Read the next section – Ravi Zacharias on Critical Thinking and Logic
Footnotes
[67] Robert Audi, “Religious Disagreement Structure, Content and Prospects for Resolution,” Philosophia Christi 20, No. 1, (2018): 277.
[68] Ibid. 279.
[69] Ibid. 279-280.
[70] Ibid. 280.
[71] Robert Audi, The Architecture of Reason: The Structure and Substance of Rationality, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 52.
[72] Ibid. 52.
[73] Audi adds: “I have clarified and defended the notion of natural reason in The Architecture of Reason (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001) and many later works.”
[74] Robert Audi, “Religious Disagreement Structure, Content and Prospects for Resolution,” Philosophia Christi 20, No. 1, (2018): 281-283.
[75] Ibid. 283.
[76] Ibid. 284.
[77] Edwin Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972), 106.
[78] Glen Shellrude, “Calvinism and Problematic Readings of New Testament Texts Or, Why I am Not a Calvinist” in Grace for All: The Arminian Dynamics of Salvation, eds. Clark H. Pinnock and John D. Wagner, (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015), 46-47.
[79] Mark R. Talbot, All the Good That Is Ours in Christ: Seeing God’s Gracious Hand in the Hurts Others Do to Us, John Piper and Justin Taylor (eds.), Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), 31-77. As found in Leighton Flowers, The Potter’s Promise: A Biblical Defense of Traditional Soteriology (Trinity Academic Press, 2017), 77.
[80] Ibid. 288.
The Truth of the Gospel 