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 so far
Leave a reply
Do you think that one need not apply logic to the scriptures, or any type of rational thought?
How else can one go about in the sea of seeming contradictions?
It was a great deal of philosophy and logic that lead some of the reformers to crystalize calvistic thought. The calvinistic framework is one gigantic systematic and logical apparatus. Each of the point logically and philosophicly depends on the other.
I would question that God loses majesty when He is “logicized.” In understanding God and how he set up the world, a utterly profound sense of awe comes with it; much more so than the confusion that follows not trying to work out the mysteries.
It really seems that people demand a coherent logical framework until their particular view runs up against a wall, then they resign it to the mystery of God. When others try to fix their logical holes and end up modifying other portions of their theology to try to comeup with a system that makes sense, they suddenly dismiss the priority of logic. I find something circular in that process.
With that said, I do subcribe to the notion that our knowledge is incomplete. We can only fit ideas together in our minds (analytic a priori) and taken in ideas through our senses. The reality of God most be revealed to us and it has been in part via the Bible.
Calvinists try to fill the holes, non-calvinists try to fill in the holes. Both use logic, philosophy, and reasoning to do so. Don’t decry too much that which your yourself use when others use the same meathods and come to different conclusions.
Here is the problem that was bugging me in writing this post. You said, and I quote, “In order to be logically consistent, one must reject the idea of original sin and replace it with an idea of free will that allows one to choose or not to choose God…What use is quoteing scripture if you are quoting it wrong?” (taken from Theology for the Masses post on OS and Jesus).
To the first statement I must say. The argument from which that statement was made was based upon pure logic with Scripture to back it up. It did nothing to show the error in the doctrine only that it doesn’t logically conform to the pattern of Immanuel. Therefore it says this assumption must be brought when reading the Bible. It is not saying because the Bible actually says “free will”–which I have never ever in my entire life seen a single verse that explicitly teaches self-determination–we must believe it. We must read it and then use logic to help us understand the conclusions, not reach the conclusions. The Reformers are regarded as some of the foremost expositors of the Bible in the history of the church. They used philosophy after they reached their conclusions.
To the second statement I must say that you did not show how we were wrong. You only state that we are wrong. I’m speechless. How am I wrong in my interpretation?
Yes I agree that we use logic after we have found the doctrines of the Bible to help systematize them. But we must find the doctrines first. The doctrines only come from the Bible. There is no doctrine to support, as far as I am aware, found in the Bible. In philosophy there are, but not in the Bible. Calvinism does have it’s holes. Arminianism has its holes. The question will always be, which has less? The one that has more Scriptureal support must be the one we adopt. Not the one that is most logically consistant.
Puritan Bob was accusing those who did not quote scripture in their arguments (do I have to each time I bring up any point?) of being wrong for the sole reason that they did not quote scripture. As it merely adding a bible verse at the end of a point made it true. That is what I was talking about, not that any certain point was wrong per se. I was speaking in the general, not the specific. I am sorry that it was miscommunicated.
If I think someone is wrong on any certain point, I will say which ones and why, if that is what I am emphasizing.
To your first point, if we start off with premises that are backed up by scripture and reason from them, then the conclusions must hold. God through logic demands it. There are verses that point to the idea of OS and verses that point away from OS and more towards SN. I am simply using logic to see which one stands.
Without the Bible verses to see from where you are reasoning, one cannot know upon where you are getting your rationale. From what I have read in the Bible, I did not agree with you. You had not shown where anyone was wrong in their reading of the Bible, just that their conclusions are wrong. Then you assert free will, but without warrent from the Bible. You were emphasizing we were wrong without a why?
It does little for theological advancement to just say that the conclusions are wrong. Espcecially when you reach your conclusions based upon one method and mine another. I must say that if my answer comes from the Bible and yours does not–for your position was not grounded in the Bible and did not show where any of your concepts came from–then the logic needs to change, not the exegesis.
That is my whole point. Unless you can show that this is what God says, not just what you think, then I am willing to change. I have only been a Calvinist for not quite a year and a half. I have always been a teachable person. But if you won’t teach, how can I learn?
Hank,
All I was saying there was the merely listing off verses does not prove one’s point. I was not saying that any particular verse was wrong, or that in general your verses were wrong. I will detail my beef with the psalm’s quoting in a bit.
In those words I was not trying to do any theological advancement.