Section 13
Go to Chapter 7 – The Indispensibility of Reason and Logic in Biblical Interpretation
Can an exegesis that results in rational and moral incoherence ever be the correct exegesis of a text? Would the biblical authors ever write in a way that resulted in incoherence and contradiction? Could a message or theological point that is inconsistent with other biblical texts or the author’s own writings ever be what the author intended to communicate to his original readers? If not, we can confidently say that incoherent, inconsistent, or contradictory interpretations reliably indicate the text has been misinterpreted. Performing exegesis does not directly equate to nor always guarantee that the exegete will bring forth the true, accurate meaning of a text. Obviously, there is good and bad exegesis. So what should we look for to help us discern the difference? Are the assessments and deliberations of philosophical reflection essential for doing good and complete exegesis? I submit that it is only by incorporating critical thinking that we will know how to discern the difference between good and bad exegesis.
The late Ravi Zacharias stressed the importance of critical thinking in evaluating differing worldview statements as well as interpretative propositions and assertions.
“When you’re analyzing any propositional statement or system of thought you are engaged in critical thinking whether you like or not. So the only question is, are you doing it well, are you doing it in a way that is befitting the subject or are you doing it unjustly…I like to think of critical thinking as an analytical process of evaluating the truth component of the statement or the thought you are processing. That has to be done. If you’re looking at a worldview, if you’re looking at any assertion, if you’re looking at any challenge to your own worldview, you have to evaluate it on the basis of truth and the coherence of what is being claimed….We must think critically, especially in defending our worldview or in challenging a counter-perspective. In a world full of challenges you have to come to something outside of the text you are defending, rather than saying this is the text I believe…. Critical thinking is to lay bare what is readily visible to reason…”[81]
What Ravi is saying is that a defense of the meaning of a biblical text or any other text, for that matter, presupposes a standard, or “something outside of the text you are defending.” That standard involves “critical thinking” or “an analytical process.” Ravi states that “critical thinking” is necessary in the search for the truth. He also states that worldviews or assertions need to be evaluated “on the basis of truth and the coherence of what is being claimed.” Coherence is a criterion for discerning the truth and legitimacy of what is being asserted. Therefore, when one’s assertions or interpretations result in incoherence, and they also claim that their interpretation are nevertheless true, we are justified in pointing out their incoherence and concluding that they have erred in interpreting the text. We are justified in rejecting the interpreter’s claim to have come to what the text means to say. Due to the incoherence in their interpretive results, that claim cannot be true.
Now, when the Calvinist flees to ‘mystery’ or asserts ‘incomprehensibility,’ this does nothing to justify their interpretive claims as true. Ravi makes an important point when he states, “In a world full of challenges, you have to come to something outside of the text you are defending, rather than saying this is the text I believe…. Critical thinking is to lay bare what is readily visible to reason…” Mere assertions about what a text means are unsubstantial without critically thinking about those interpretations in light of their context and the whole of Scripture and reality. Proposals of what a text means must be made transparent to human reason. Therefore, if “critical thinking” requires the incorporation of logical and moral reasoning to get at the truth of a text, then these are essential to an authentic and sound evangelical hermeneutic.
Ravi goes one step deeper asking probing questions about the “first link” in a “line of argument.”
“The first link is this. Is reason rational? Is it defendable? Are the laws of logic so incontrovertible that they are certainly applicable to reality? Does logic apply to reality? We know it does in mathematics, but does it apply also in ethics? Does it apply in sustaining an argument? Do the laws of logic apply to reality?”[82]
Here, Ravi is asking the most fundamental questions upon which all our thinking, inquiries, and interpretations rest. He is raising the point about the reality, legitimacy, and function of reason. He is also raising questions about the applicability of reason, or the laws of logic, to reality and argumentation. Ravi is asking whether reason is necessary for coming to the truth about a certain interpretation, position, or worldview. He is asking whether we are all bound by the laws of logic and logical reasoning concerning whatever we are thinking about or whatever positions and conclusions we are arguing for or against.
Ravi, as a philosopher and apologist, affirms the universal applicability and indispensability of logic in discerning the truth or validity of an argument. The laws of logic apply to all of reality. They therefore apply to biblical interpretations and theological constructs. Speaking on the topic of pluralism, Ravi warns us that,
“Pluralism may be a good thing, but if it is extrapolated into meaning relativism, then you are on the knife edge of self-destruction…logic will tell you that. This is so important that we understand the nature of what it is that happens when a person lives a life that is systemically contradictory. And I hear these comments again and again and again on television or by the media. You hear such brazenly contradictory statements and you say to yourself, did this person ever have an introductory course in logic? Does this person understand what happens when you hold to mutually exclusive ideas that collide in actuality? I like to often say to you that what contradiction is to reason sin is to life. If your life is embedded in sin, life breaks down. If your argument is contradictory, your argument breaks down.”[83]
Given the circumstances at the end of Ravi’s life, the irony of his analogy to sin is not lost on me, and probably you, too. There is no excuse for what Ravi did, although the organizational failure at RZIM almost guaranteed a scandal of some kind. In contrast, compare the precautions taken by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association to avoid such temptations and sins. The evidence against Ravi seems conclusive, and it is shocking, repugnant, and sad. So why leave this section up on my site? I leave it here, not to promote Ravi or treat his sin with indifference. What first comes to mind in answer to that question is the very purpose of this website. Above, I said, there is no excuse for what Ravi did. But on Calvinism, isn’t there an excuse? Think about it. Here is where we must use our God-given logical and moral faculties, as Ravi and others have challenged us to do. On Calvinism, God caused Ravi to do what he did. That is true given the Calvinists’ deterministic doctrines of God’s sovereignty and unconditional election. Now, if you are a Calvinist who finds it hard to believe that, given Ravi’s sin, I have left this section up on my site, then what does your moral protest say about your Calvinist theology? What does your moral protest say about your God? After all, it is your God who pre-determined and caused Ravi to be who he was and do what he did. Furthermore, other questions for Calvinists arise from this. Was Ravi unconditionally elected by God to salvation? Judging by most of his life, you might have answered “Yes.” But if he was, why was he not preserved, and why did he not persevere to the end as you, as a Calvinist, say happens to those who are among the elect (i.e., the ‘P’ in TULIP)? And if you say he wasn’t among the elect because he didn’t persevere in the faith, that is, one only knows whether they are unconditionally elected to salvation when they come to the end of life, then what might your eternal destiny be? What might God have predetermined for you? Eternal salvation or eternal damnation? How can you be sure it is not eternal damnation? Well, as a Calvinist, you can’t. This goes to show not only how irrelevant the Calvinist doctrines are to faith and life, but also how unbiblical they are. Your moral aversion to Ravi’s sin, although justified, is incoherent on your Calvinist theology. So, situations like Ravi’s have a direct bearing on the Calvinist/non-Calvinist controversy before us. These are precisely the kind of real-life issues involved in this controversy. But note how Calvinism is incoherent with these real-life issues. It provides no substantive answers for us that bring real hope and the assurance of salvation in the gospel.
Other thoughts come to mind. First, the words of Jesus that the one among us who is without sin, let him cast the first stone (Jn. 8:1-11). Secondly, we have Matthew 5:27-30 where Jesus probes into the very depths of our thoughts with regard to the matter of adultery. Thirdly, even we sinners can speak true things. And truth always remains truth, no matter who speaks it. Hence, all I want to do is allow Ravi to make his point that the truth or falsity of an argument can be discerned by the laws of logic. The truth or falsity of an argument or proposition depends upon whether it is contradictory or not. Contradictory arguments and statements are false. This has direct application to the Calvinist/non-Calvinist controversy. Not only are the positions mutually exclusive and therefore both cannot be true, but I contend that it is the Calvinist who needs to let the light of logical thought expose his incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions. He needs to allow the canons of reason and moral intuition into his hermeneutic for the purpose of discerning valid from invalid interpretations and interpretive conclusions. To the degree that Calvinism is incoherent and contradictory is the degree to which its hermeneutic is flawed and the theology “breaks down.”
Ravi also states,
“Whenever we argue, whenever we dialogue, whenever we differ from each other on the interpretation of something or the facts of something, what do we rely on? We rely on the use of the laws of logic as they measure out against the truth. Anybody who’s charged in a court of law, ultimately the charge has to meet two tests. The first test is what you call a correspondence test. Are the statements that he is making in correspondence with reality? …But then there is a second test in every court of law. It is not just the correspondence test, it is what you call the coherence test. What is the coherence test? …When you put all the statements together you’re testing it against coherence. Does this story fit together? …So tests of truth and coherence are assumed in any court of law and in any dialogical defense. Reasonableness of reason, the logicality of logic is assumed.”[84]
This, of course, also holds true in biblical interpretation and theology. If it didn’t the “courtrooms” of exegesis and theological systems could be filled with conflicting and contradictory testimonies and we would have to embrace them all as equally valid. Sadly, this is the situation in the evangelical church, not only with respect to the incoherencies and contradictions that the Calvinist’s doctrines generate, but also with regard to the difference between the Calvinist and non-Calvinist theologies and soteriologies. By embracing two mutually exclusive positions without a concern for the ‘illogicality’ of that situation, that is, in disregard of the ‘reasonableness of reason’ or the ‘logicality of logic,’ then what we are affirming and demonstrating is our theological and soteriological relativism.
Ravi mentions “whenever we differ from each other on the interpretation of something” the “reasonableness of reason and the logicality of logic is assumed.” This also applies to exegesis and theology. The tests of correspondence and coherence must be met. But this is not so for Calvinists. They claim that mutually exclusive ideas – propositions that do not exhibit correspondence with reality and do not evidence coherence – can nevertheless be biblical truth. Calvinists dismiss logical coherence and moral intuition in their interpretive process and conclusions. When this is done, attempts must be made to “justify” the incoherent, inconsistent, or contradictory interpretations. This is done via the ad hoc claim that such interpretations are a “mystery” or the question-begging assertion that “the Bible teaches both” or the ‘spiritual’ response, “who are you O man, to talk back to or question God?” Another attempt at justification is to claim that we cannot comprehend God or his ways because our reasoning faculties have been distorted by sin. “God’s ways are above our ways.” But this is unconvincing based on the arguments in this chapter and many others on this websiter and when one’s exegesis obviously exhibits incoherence and contradictions. There is no exegetical method that transcends the laws of logic and is “above our ways.” The problem is not that we simply cannot comprehend these issues because of their divine transcendence but that we comprehend the issues all too well. Reason and the laws of logic are real, reliable, and applicable for discerning flawed thinking and interpretations. We know incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction when we see them. And when it comes to one’s interpretive claims, they either stand upon sound reasoning, correspond to reality and exhibit coherence, or they are misinterpretations of the text. The results of one’s exegesis are not valid when they are inconsistent or contradictory. And unless the Calvinist wants to claim that included in the definition of “miracle” is God’s intervention into the laws of logical reasoning, then logical reasoning, as reflective of God’s nature and his gift to us, holds absolute sway in the exegetical process.
What will safeguard us from ad hoc, red-herring, and question-begging rationalizations of what are incoherent or contradictory interpretations and theological conclusions? Can a textual exegesis that lands us in logical incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction be an accurate exegesis of the text? I don’t think so, and neither would C. S. Lewis. He writes,
“It is not more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.”[85]
Philosopher Linda Zagzebski observes,
“…it is misplaced reverence to think that a religious belief takes precedence over common sense. When faced with a dilemma, I do not see why we should opt for one belief over another either because its content is religious as opposed to metaphysical, or because of its importance. We should opt for one belief over another to the extent to which it seems more likely to be true. It is no less a praise of God to retain what we have come to believe about the structure of time and principles of necessity, whose truth is due to God, than to retain what we have come to believe about God himself.”[86]
It is the same with reason. It is no less a praise of God to retain what we have come to believe about the structure of logic and reason, whose truth is due to God, than to retain what we have come to believe about God himself. Calvinists merely assert the “importance” of their deterministic definition of sovereignty and their definition of what redounds to God’s glory, despite the problems of logic, reason, and moral common sense they create. Both Lewis and Zagzebski are grounding reason in the inviolable nature of God himself. As such, reason itself is inviolable. Sound reasoning based on the laws of logic is a truth that is “due to God.” Therefore, the belief and confidence we retain in these laws is “no less a praise to God” than “what we have come to believe about God himself.” Hence, simply because one is doing textual exegesis on a divinely inspired text or talking about “the will and ways of God” does not exempt the exegete from adhering to the canons of reason.
In fact, to disregard coherence, consistency, and non-contradiction in one’s interpretations is to fail to properly reflect the nature of God as a rational being or give to God the praise due his name for giving us the gift of reason. When one’s exegesis and interpretive conclusions land them in incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction, then they need to return to the text in search of the author’s true intent and not pass their interpretation off as a mystery or the depth of God’s ways that simply cannot be comprehended by us.
“We cannot have it both ways, and no sneers at the limitations of logic…amend the dilemma.”
I. A. Richards, Principles of Literary Criticism, chap. xxv. (from C. S. Lewis, Miracles, chap. III.)
Read the next section – David Allen, Leighton Flowers, Exegesis and Contradiction: 1 Timothy 2:1-6
Footnotes
[81] Ravi Zacharias, “Critical Thinking: A Christian Essential, Part 1”, April 23, 2013. Apologetics 315 – https://apologetics315.com/2012/09/critical-thinking-a-christian-essential-by-ravi-zacharias/ “Critical Thinking: A Christian Essential, Part 1″ – https://web.archive.org/web/20130423175258/http://rzim.vo.llnwd.net/o43/MP3/JT/JT20120827.mp3 Last accessed Dec. 12, 2025.
[82] Ravi Zacharias, “Jesus Above All, Part 1”, Last accessed March 26, 2018. You may try different websites. As of Dec. 12, 2025, I cannot find the page or a successful link.
[83] Ravi Zacharias, “The Basis for Truth, Part 2”, Sept. 22, 2018. https://rzim.org/let-my-people-think-broadcasts/the-basis-for-truth-part-2/ (6:39 – 7:53). Last accessed Sept. 27, 2018. You may try different websites. As of Dec. 12, 2025, I cannot find the page or a successful link.
[84] Ravi Zacharias, “One God Among Many, Part 1”, Nov. 10, 2018, Podcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH4fk4HOwN4 (2:40 – 4:22) Last accessed 3/31/2023. You may try different websites. As of Dec. 12, 2025, I cannot find the page or a successful link.
[85] C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, (Macmillan: New York, 1962), 28. In this book, Lewis deals with the topics of divine omnipotence and divine goodness as they relate to the pain and wickedness we observe and experience in the world. “If God were good, he would wish to make His creatures perfectly happy, and if God were almighty, He would be able to do what He wished. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore God lacks either goodness, or power, or both. This is the problem of pain, in its simplest form.” Lewis goes on to examine under what conditions God made the world, which entailed the consequent possibility of pain and wickedness. Divine omnipotence and divine goodness are further defined; exhibited in a world of fixed laws, divine self-limitation, and the free will of creatures. This book has bearing upon the issues of sovereignty and human freedom and is a must-read.
[86] Linda Trinkaus Zabzebski, The Dilemma of Freedom and Foreknowledge, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 180.
The Truth of the Gospel 