Section 2
Go to Chapter 7 – The Indispensability of Reason and Logic in Biblical Interpretation
Philosopher Robert Audi has written,
“It is obvious that rational persons disagree about some important matters and that even a high degree of rationality in persons is consistent with great diversity among them…But there are also constant elements that play a prominent role in the make-up of rational persons, least controversially a measure of simple logicality.”[2]
And amidst the several ways in which one may be justified in their beliefs concerning the question of their defeasibility, Audi writes,
“Descartes surely believed something to the effect that one has indefeasible justification for the proposition that one exists. Simple logical truths seem to be an even better candidate, for instance the proposition that if Jane Austen is identical with the author of Emma, then the author of Emma is Jane Austen.”[3]
The logical and moral incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions inherent in Calvinism require us to explain and defend the nature, potential, and essential role of reason in biblical exegesis and interpretation. The logical difficulties inherent within Calvinism make it necessary to doubt that its interpretations can be justified. They also force Calvinists, and Christians in general, to address certain misconceptions Calvinists have, not only about the relationship between faith and reason, but also reason and interpretation. Let’s discuss some of these misconceptions.
Note first that Calvinists will claim that due to our fallen and sinful condition, which has left us “totally depraved” or in a moral condition of “total inability,” human reasoning is therefore expected to be incapable of making sense of various Calvinist teachings. For example, Calvinists claim the Bible teaches that God predetermined and causes all things to occur as they do – including every thought, belief, desire, action, and eternal destiny of every person throughout human history. Yet, Calvinists also affirm that God is not responsible for a person’s thoughts, beliefs, desires, actions, and eternal destiny; rather, the person themselves is responsible. They are responsible moral agents who determine and cause the majority of their own thoughts, beliefs, desires, and actions, including their eternal destinies, by their acceptance or rejection of the gospel. This is just to say that God predetermines and causes all things to occur as they do, and God doesn’t predetermine and cause all things to occur as they do. But this is nonsense. Note that human beings determine and cause many of the things that they do and the things that happen in this world, much of which is obviously contrary to the will of God. Therefore, the Calvinists’ universal divine causal determinism is neither realistic nor biblical.
Now Calvinists will claim that because our minds have been so negatively affected by the fall, we just cannot comprehend this problem, which the Calvinist labels an ‘apparent contradiction.’ We cannot reason these biblical truths out. Although they certainly present themselves to our thinking as contradictory, we are just to trust and believe that both are true based on the Calvinists’ exegesis of certain biblical texts. According to Calvinists, this is what the Bible teaches – God’s universal causal determinism and human freedom and responsibility. Calvinists maintain that it is impossible to understand how these doctrinal claims logically and morally cohere.
But the Calvinist also does not want to embrace a position that can be deemed irrational; therefore, we are to believe that what presents itself to us as a contradiction is only apparent and not real. So, despite the intellectually and morally problematic nature of those doctrines, the Calvinist asserts they are taught in Scripture and therefore true and to be believed. But they cannot be in real contradiction lest the Calvinist finds himself affirming contradiction in Scripture and interpretation. Even the Calvinist at this point affirms the legitimacy and efficacy of human reason. Hence, Calvinists must merely assert that the rational or moral reconciliation of certain of their doctrines will always be a “mystery” due to our fallen, limited human understanding.
Philosopher theologians J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig offer a corrective to this Calvinist position.
“…the claim is made that human depravity has made the mind so darkened that the noetic effects of sin, that is, sin’s effect on the mind, render the human intellect incapable of knowing truth. However, this is an exaggeration. The Fall brought about the perversion of human faculties, but it did not destroy those faculties. Human reasoning abilities are affected but not eliminated. This can be seen in the fact that the writers of Scripture often appeal to the minds of unbelievers by citing evidence on behalf of their claims, using logical inferences in building their case and speaking in the language and thought forms of those outside the faith.”[4]
Moreland and Craig also dispel the common Christian suspicion that faith is antithetical to reason.
“…it is sometimes claimed that faith and reason are hostile to each other, and whatever is of reason cannot be of faith. But this represents [sic] misunderstanding of the biblical concept of faith. The biblical notion of faith includes three components: notitia (understanding the content of the Christian faith), fiducia (trust) and assensus (the assent of the intellect to the truth of some proposition). Trust is based on understanding, knowledge and the intellect’s assent to truth. Belief in rests on belief that. One is called to trust in what he or she has reason to give intellectual assent (assensus) to. In Scripture, faith involves placing trust in what you have reason to believe is true. Faith is not a blind, irrational leap in the dark. So faith and reason cooperate on a biblical view of faith. They are not intrinsically hostile.”[5]
Moreland writes in another book that,
“We are committed to Christianity in general, or some doctrinal position in particular, because we take that commitment to express what is true. And we are committed to the importance of our God-given faculty of mind to aid us in assessing what is true.”[6]
Philosopher and apologist Douglas Groothuis writes,
“There is no doubt that human reasoning and human reasoners have been adversely affected by the fall. However, reason itself – the logical structure of being and argument – is based on the eternal character of God as the Word (the Logos [John 1:1]), and on his bestowal of reason to creatures made in his image and likeness.[7] In that sense, reason is not fallen. Reason in itself cannot be fallen and remain reason.”[8]
Because of the strength of the above arguments, Calvinists will claim that their doctrine of “total inability” applies only to our “moral” sense or capacity, that is, that we are unable to respond to God and the things of God like the gospel message. But on pain of irrationality, Calvinists must acknowledge that logic functions in all other areas of life and thought. That is what they are explicitly saying here. But then, to eliminate it from its proper functioning in the “moral” or “spiritual” sphere is quite ad hoc. If our logical and moral reasoning functions sufficiently well to lead us into what is true in all other respects, then why not in the exegesis of a written text and the construction of our theology? If the Calvinist says that the Bible tells us this is the case with our reasoning, then that seems to be self-defeating or begging the question. We had to use our reasoning in reading the Bible, which tells us our reasoning is flawed regarding spiritual and moral matters. And isn’t the Bible full of spiritual and moral issues? If our reasoning is so inadequate regarding spiritual things, how do we know that the Calvinists’ interpretations of Scripture are correct?
In effect, Calvinists claim that their doctrines are the teaching of Scripture even though they generate incoherence. Calvinists are therefore predisposed to dichotomize reason from exegesis to secure their exegetical conclusions. Calvinists make the point that Scripture is the only reliable means of knowing the truth about God and salvation – a point with which the non-Calvinist agrees. But then the Calvinist will preserve the contradictory nature of their beliefs by discounting the deliverances of reason as determinative of the validity of their exegesis from which they derive those beliefs. That is, they safeguard their claim that the Bible teaches divine sovereignty as theistic determinism by ignoring the role of logical reasoning and moral intuition in the interpretive task. They do not believe that the interpretive task requires the clear logical thinking of philosophical reflection or the moral clarity of our moral intuitions. They do not believe these to be essential elements in establishing the validity of a particular exegesis and interpretation, nor reliable arbiters between interpretations that reveal themselves to be incoherent, inconsistent, or contradictory as opposed to those that don’t. The Calvinist can therefore exegete their way into the logical and moral problems of the Calvinist position without applying the probative force of logical and moral reasoning to determine the legitimacy of the Calvinist’s exegetical conclusions. Hence, the very means we have to evaluate the validity or invalidity of the Calvinist’s exegesis has been put out of court. It has been knocked out from under us by the Calvinist.
Therefore, we can readily see that the Calvinists’ claim about the effects of “total inability” on our reason and morals is self-defeating. It is self-defeating because exegesis, or the interpretation of Scripture itself, along with the evaluation of an exegesis or interpretation of Scripture, requires the use of the very same logical and moral reasoning that is so distrusted and ultimately dismissed under the rubric of “mystery.”
“Logic is the science of thought as thought, that is, the necessary conditions to which thought, in itself considered is subject.”
Sir William Hamilton (1788-1856), Scottish Metaphysician.
So Calvinism faces serious difficulties regarding the relationships of faith and reason, and reason and interpretation. To the degree that Calvinism shows itself to be an incoherent and contradictory theology, we lack reasons to give it intellectual assent. And what we cannot give intellectual assent to by the use of our reason (which should not be confused with rationalism), we cannot and should not believe is true. If we lack reasons to give intellectual assent to a certain theological teaching, then we cannot trust that the teaching is true to Scripture. We can’t believe in a proposed interpretation or doctrine when we can’t believe that it is true. The heart cannot give its trust to what the mind cannot affirm as true. To do otherwise is intellectually irresponsible and not the nature of biblical faith.
Therefore, the Calvinists’ claim that their exegesis may require us to discount our reason when evaluating the Calvinists’ exegetical conclusions should be deemed unacceptable as part of a sound hermeneutic. The demand that we discount our reason in evaluating exegetical and doctrinal conclusions points to an error in exegesis and interpretation, not to a problem with reason or the identification of any true biblical mystery. This is so due to the nature and purpose of logic itself. Let us elaborate on this further.
Read the next section – Norman Geisler on the Nature and Use of Logic
Footnotes
[2] Robert Audi, The Architecture of Reason: The Structure and Substance of Rationality, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 9.
[3] The Architecture of Reason, 20.
[4] J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 18.
[5] Ibid. 18.
[6] J. P. Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul, (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1997), 99.
[7] The meaning of logos in John 1:1 is wider than reason alone; it also indicates verbal communication. See Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), pp. 54-55. The apostle John uses logos in a manner that goes far beyond its use in Greek philosophy, since the logos is personal, moral, and transcendent. For a thorough development of these themes, see Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1976-1983), 3:164-247.
[8] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 177.
The Truth of the Gospel 