Theology and Logic
One valuable form of studying theology is through philosophic lenses. Trying to use non-biblical terminology to put theological ideas in a logical form that the common person can rationally understand is a grand endeavor. However, after reading some writings recently, I have noticed a great danger. When one abandons the Bible and how it states things and switches to logic as the means in which to reach people, that person is in grave danger of abandoning his or her biblical center and bordering heresy. I am in no means calling these people a heretic but I find that what they are communicating is not biblical.
For instance, I am a Five Point Calvinist, may be even seven if that were a true reality. I believe in God’s sovereign, unconditional election of who is to be saved and that he sovereignly passes over those whom he has not set he gracious favor upon. In some sense I ascribe to double predestination. If God is chosing who will be saved he is at the same time chosing who won’t be saved. Predestination and unconditional election is found in passages such as Acts 13:48, Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9:6-23, 11:1-7, Ephesians 1:4-6, 11-12. Yet at the same time, we are accountable for our choice to believe and to live the holy life the Gospel commands or to not believe and to live in sin. See texts such as Ezekiel 18, 33, Acts 3:19, Revelation 2:5, 2:21. These seem to contradict each other but the Bible affirms that both are true. Therefore I must affirm both are true. That is not logical of me to do so but to be a good steward of the Bible, I must.
Logic is a great tool but it must be made subject to the Bible. It cannot be aloud to try to explain things that the Bible is silent on. An example that comes to mind is from a blog on Theology for the Masses. We are debating whether or not Christ had original sin. Logically, Christ could not have original sin because he would be tainted and not be the perfect sacirifice. Therefore since Christ is fully human, no one can have original sin because ontologically there is no difference between Christ’s humanity and the rest of Adam’s descendents. I will admit, that is a great argument from a logical standpoint. However, the Bible affirms 1.) Humans have original sin; 2.) Christ is both fully human and fully God; 3.) Christ is the perfect sin offering. Does it help to try to put them together in a logical form. But when logic tries to discern this, the argument above is accurate and that the Bible surely can’t affirm all of these factors. But it does and logic must take a back seat to this issue.
My Prophetic Literature I class has been reading through Isaiah. His prophecy is amazing to read. It is a back-and-forth roller coaster. In Isaiah 37:22-29, God is pronouncing judgment upon the king of Assyria. He mocked God and now it is time to pay the piper, so to speak. In vv. 26-27 God says,
26 “‘Have you not heard
that I determined it long ago?
I planned from days of old
what now I bring to pass,
that you should make fortified cities
crash into heaps of ruins,
27 while their inhabitants, shorn of strength,
are dismayed and confounded,
and have become like plants of the field
and like tender grass,
like grass on the housetops,
blighted before it is grown.’”
He says that he determined this action. God planned for Assyria to come down from the north. To sweep into Palestine, destroying Syria, Israel, and Philistia in the process of his coming against Judah. God had determined it long ago, not King Sennacherib. Assyria was only fulfilling what God had determined long ago.
Yet read the next two verses,
28 “‘I know your sitting down
and your going out and coming in,
and your raging against me.
29 Because you have raged against me
and your complacency has come to my ears,
I will put my hook in your nose
and my bit in your mouth,
and I will turn you back on the way
by which you came.’”
God is holding this man accountable for his actions against God’s people, and against God himself. This was God’s plan yet Sennacherib is responsible for his actions. This is not logical as to why if God ordained this, that God punish a man for fulfilling his destiny.
All I can say is what the Psalmist said in Psalm 8:1
, “O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory above the heavens.” When God is logicized, he loses that majesty because he is bound up in logic, which man can fully grasp. But if we keep logic from bounding God up, the majesty still remains. Awe is left in tact. God is still the being who by his very nature demands our worship. Logic is a good tool to help put our doctrines into good, well-developed, and well-rounded statements. But does it hinder us from the majesty of God? Too much and the answer is yes.
Paul says in 1 Timothy 3:16 that God is a great mystery. I say to philosophy and logic, “Bow down, and accept the mystery.”
Related posts:
5 comments
The Nature of Prophecy
In my class on the Major Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel), two observations were made that I think preachers need to home in on when they preach from a prophetic text. First, to understand Isaiah’s prophecy, you must first understand Isaiah. You can substitute any prophet in for Isaiah but the point is the same. Isaiah, or any prophet, is a point of view upon what is recorded for us. We must put ourselves in that context that Isaiah is in. The prophets dealt with the kings of Judah and Israel and so we must become familiar with Kings and Chronicles to understand that setting of the prophet. The prophet has a deep and bottomless relationship with God that moves them to radical action. We must understand that. We must empathize and step in the prophet’s shoes to understand their sermons.
Secondly, prophecy is the divine exegesis of present reality. It is God’s message to a particular experience. Therefore, and I am sure most preachers know this, prophecy is primarily forthtelling and not foretelling. Prophets are speaking forth the word of God. They are primarily predicters of the future but explaining present circumstance. Isaiah wasn’t primarily giving us details of the millennial kingdom but rather trying to speak to the eight century Hebrew kingdoms about what is happening and their results.
I feel this must also apply to Revelation if we call it a prophecy book. This means that we cannot place its events in the 21st century but it must be looked at in light of the first century. Therefore a primarily futuristic approach to the book does not meet the demands of biblical prophecy. To look at the book from a primarily preterist approach keeps the book in its original context of John’s day, no matter if you early date or late date the visions. When preaching prophetic literature, learn as much about that time period in which it is written and aviod putting it some distant generation.
Related posts:
No comments