Chapter 7 – The Indispensibility of Reason and Logic in Biblical Interpretation
Calvinists tend to dismiss non-Calvinists who critique Calvinism based on philosophical or logical reflection and moral intuition. Calvinists believe that they have Scripture “on their side” despite any incoherencies, inconsistencies, or contradictions that non-Calvinists identify in Calvinism. After all, according to the Calvinist, human reason has been so drastically affected by the fall that it cannot be expected to function properly when critiquing the doctrinal truths of Calvinism. That is why, according to Calvinists, we can never fully fathom the doctrines of Calvinism. Calvinists believe their doctrines are not subject to the assessment of human reason and moral intuition. Indeed, since “God’s ways are higher than our ways,” we should actually expect that God’s revelation should not accord with human reason and morality.
But this seems rather an excuse to deflect our attention away from the logical and moral problems of Calvinism while dragging the red herring of a more “spiritual” and exegetical approach across our path. This is done in an attempt to foster assent to the Calvinist doctrines by claiming that this approach exalts God’s sovereignty as a theistic determinism, which, for the Calvinist, is the God-ordained means to crush human pride and instill humility. In light of the prospect of adopting a theology that presents to the Christian such lofty heights of spiritual dedication in the cause of exalting God’s sovereignty and glory to its “logical conclusion” by a universal divine causal determinism, no wonder a rational and moral assessment of Calvinism may be viewed as inconsequential. But the problem with this approach is that the logical and moral incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions within Calvinism persist while they are also left unaddressed.
The Calvinists’ claim of exegetical support for their doctrines apart from the logical and moral critiques brought against those exegetical, interpretive, and doctrinal conclusions is unconvincing from a hermeneutical point of view because it creates a false dichotomy between exegesis and philosophical and moral reasoning. Dichotomizing exegesis from philosophical reasoning and moral reflection is a false dichotomy and bad interpretive practice. It should go without saying that the historical-critical methodology does not shun philosophical reflection or moral intuition but employs these to secure a better understanding of the text. The conjunction of all these disciplines is necessary to achieve proper interpretations.
The testimony of preeminent biblical interpreters is that human reason is reliable and essential for the interpretive task. Let’s survey the material.
Read the next section – Milton S. Terry on Reason in Interpretation
Chapter 7 – The Indispensibility of Reason and Logic in Biblical Interpretation
The Truth of the Gospel 