Loading ...Logic and the Bible
It really amazes me about the emotional attachment that people have to logic. For a topic that is to rely on logic only, without having any emotions involved, people can get passionate about the need for logic in interpretation. There must be a balanced understanding of logic in Biblical interpretation. The reason is that life is a blending of logic and emotions. Those who feel that they have transcended emotion are living in “Spock” world. It seems odd that someone would deny that logic has a place in interpretation. Even to argue that logic does not seems to be using logic. You have to have logic to function in life. But before you crown logic as the in all of the Bible, one must realize that God operates on more than a logical “spock” mindset. God has blended emotions with perfect reasoning. Those who crown logic would be hard pressed to prove that God is a God of logic only. For an example, it was not through logic only that God sent his Son. It was because of the emotion of love. “For God so loved the world,” not “for God was so logically that he sent his son.” Someone that desires to see the nature of God as one who has perfect reasoning as well as perfect emotions is not someone that is soft on the gospel but someone who understands the nature of God. I am thankful that my God is bigger than a logic textbook on situations. My God is big enough to blend emotions as well as logic to always do the right thing. Also, those who seek to prove that the Bible proves that correct interpretation comes from a correct logical approach seems to miss the mark on the context of the Bible. It does not seem that the inspired writers were giving a manual on correct interpretation but rather giving the account of God. Those who go to the Bible to prove that all interpretation is from a logical base seem to overlook the immediate context to prove-text the word of God. Anyway, just a few thoughts on the role of logic in the narrative of God and in the role of interpretation.
Related posts:
- Bible Studies and Conversions
- Vacation Bible School is Here
- Beyond the Syllogism: Proper Contextual Interpretation
- Beyond the Syllogism: Proper Contextual Interpretation–4
- The First Step in Intrepretation
About The Author
We cannot go to one extreme or the other.
Good points that we must consider!
One of the better posts you have had in a while to provoke thought, Matthew. I can remember the first time I read Thomas Warren’s book “When is an example binding.” I thought that if logic was all there is to understanding the bible then it is a very cold and lifeless book, but the emotion conveyed in the bible is as much a part of it’s understanding as logic.
Thanks for the thoughts. . . great cartoon too!
Great post. It often seem that those who want to make logic/rationality the be all, end all, do so unware of its rather modern (punn intended) epistemological origins in both human history as well as Christian history. Further, they seem very reluctant not only to allow room for emotion as a source of epistemology but also experience. Yet your citation of John 3.16 reminds us that emotion (love) was a factor in moving God to redemptively act for his people. As far as experience goes, in Acts 10.44ff, Peter asked his fellow Jewish Christians (the circumcised believers) to determine whther Gentile believers could rightfully be baptized based upon their experience of witnessing the Holy Spirit come upon the Gentiles. So the Jewish believers were being asked to employ a hermeneutic of experience rather than decide through logical bible study.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Logic is an attempt to explain how brown cows eat green grass in order to give white milk. While 300 algebra equations may be used to teach me that the brown-green-white process is as plain as the nose on my face, I find it illogical to waste time “syllogizing” instead of “experiencing” the work of God’s hand.
Matthew,
Interesting thoughts. Just a couple of honest questions…
You say that, “God has blended emotions with perfect reasoning.”
Are you saying that God sometimes sets aside His perfect reasoning and instead acts irrationally as a result of emotion, or are you arguing that God makes perfectly reasonable choices that also happen to be emotional choices?
Said another way, can a human being trust God to always act rationally, even when His actions are instigated by, say, anger or love?
Incidentally, there is a world of difference between the statement that “God is a God of logic only,” and the statement that, “God always acts rationally; that is, consistent with the rules of logic.” I honestly don’t know of ANY brethren who would conscientiously try to defend the first statement with its implications (there may be some, but I have not found them), but I know quite a few who have staked their eternal destiny on the implications of the second. What do you think?
Rex and Eddy, great points. Great insight too Rex into the Acts situation. Never thought of that.
John, I certainly do not believe in a God that just “flies off the handle.” Also, my major concern is not that God will act rationally, I am sure He does, but what I trust is that God always does that which is right or righteous. Also, who am I to judge whether or not God “obeyed the rules of logic.” Do the rules of logic transcend the Lord? Anyway, is this my friend John for BTSOP. If so, how is the work going. I am so proud of you for giving up so much to do the Lord’s work. You are a true servant of God.
Yes, it’s me.
Two thoughts, and I’m done…
1. Righteousness is impossible without rational behavior. That was the point of my first post. An irrational God is, by definition, an unrighteous God. If God’s speech or actions are ever unsound or invalid (hence, irrational), then He is not God. Logic does not transcend God; rather, He is the standard of truth, and as such the “rules of logic” conform to Him.
2. Logic does not discover truth, logic is merely a tool of analysis that can be used to analyze revelation and discern error. When God invites us to, “test all things, hold fast that which is good,” is He not asking us to use logic to analyze what is revealed to “prove” or “test” whether it is true? How else would one analyze God’s revelation today apart from the use of logic? This does NOT mean that the Bible is a lifeless, emotionless book. What is means is that the Bible is a consistently true book, and such can be proved.
Perhaps an interesting study for all concerned with this topic would be: what tools of analysis has God given to us, that we may truly know Him? I would submit that personal experience is NOT a tool of analysis… it is a form of revelation.
If you’ve sat through logic classes, you’re familiar with the fallacy of “assuming what you’re trying to prove.” Seeking to logically prove the logic of being logical is by definition, illogical.
If I may chime in again…
Logic and rationality as it seems to be used in this discussion is a product of enlightment epistemology, therefore we cannot claim it is essential to analyzing God’s revelation because God’s revelation existed prior to the enlightment era. Second, whatever logic/rationality we employ (and we must employ) does not operate apart from our flesh. That is to say, that we are human and therefore our logic/rationality is never infallible. It was completely incomprehensible to the majority of first century Jews that God was operative in Jesus of Nazzareth. Likewise, it was also incomprehensible to most first century Gentiles that a god (whom we know as The God) would incarnate and then be crucified and resurrected. If we were to employ logic/rationality as we know it from the common mind-set of first century Jews and Gentiles, we just may end up denying the redemptive work of God in Jesus Christ. Let’s remember, that it was experience not logic – the experience of witnessing the Holy Spirit come on Pentecost, the experience of Saul being confronted by Christ on that road to Damascus, the experience of seeing the Holy Spirit indwell the believers of Cornelius’s household, etc… – that illuminated what the scriptures had revealed concerning God’s redemptive work in Jesus Christ to both Jew and Gentile.
I have had similar discussions like this concerning the idea of wisdom. I served in a church where the elders were exchanging God’s wisdom for conventional/secular wisdom. The two wisdoms are drastically different. That fatal mistake led them to de-power the gospel by their exclusion of the homeless and people of minority ethnicity. Their use of logic and conventional wisdom coupled with their fear of people different from them allowed them to twist the scriptures in a way that justified the mistreatment of the poor and racism in the church.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Rex,
With all due respect:
“Logic and rationality as it seems to be used in this discussion is a product of enlightment epistemology, therefore we cannot claim it is essential to analyzing God’s revelation because God’s revelation existed prior to the enlightment era.”
That sentence is a logical argument consisting of a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion.
John
John,
That was an accidental syllogism. Nevertheless, the statement is historically verifiable. Logic/rationality was not promoted to a supreme empistemological resource until the enlightment.
BTW, I am trying to suggest that we should abandon logic/rationality. But I do not believe logic/rationality is any more reliable than experience, tradition, emotion, etc…for all of these epistemic resources are employed through the lenses of our fallible minds. I believe all of these resources are valuable along with a few others, especially to include the Christian community.
Thanks for the continued dialogue.
Grace and peace,
Rex