Logic, Reason, and Biblical Infallibility: Thoughts on Ultimate Authority

I haven’t posted a theological post in some time, so I decided to touch the subject.  Here are my thoughts that I wrote the other day, when posed with the following question:

Without begging the question and leaning on the Bible to tell us that it is totally inerrant, and still maintaining a reformation stand on Sola Scriptura, how can we define and defend Biblical inerrancy? Do we try to go too far in doing so?

Regardless of what stream of thought a person comes from, any appeal to any authority must be vested in that authority itself. To dissect this statement, consider the following:

The rationalist appeals to reason as the ultimate authority. This is because it is the most “reasonable” thing to do; i.e., reason dictates that reason is the ultimate authority.

Naturalists appeal to the scientific method and inductive inquiry as the ultimate authority. This is because it is the most “quantifiable” or “reliable” thing to do.

It is only “logical” that “logic” should be the ultimate authority, et cetera ad infinitum.

Scripture testifies that it is truth. Confessing Christians believe that scripture is the Word of God, because it testifies itself to be. While this superficially appears to be the same “circular argument” appeal to authority, it is fundamentally different from any other; in that the subject matter is the revelatory oracles of the living God. The Spirit of God indwells the believer, and bears witness to it.

Ultimately, I personally do not think that a person can “convince” another person of the authority or “infallibility” of scripture. Scripture itself testifies this: “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot” (Rom 8:7). “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14). “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9).

Fundamentally, appeal to authority is an epistemological endeavor; that is to say, it resides within the area of one’s entire “worldview.” If my worldview dictates that the miraculous and supernatural are not real—that God does not exist, and that the gospels are fictitious accounts of the man Jesus of Nazareth—then any data that is offered contrary to these positions will simply be interpreted to align with the prior presuppositions of my worldview: i.e., that it cannot exist. If a person has eyewitness testimony of a miracle, they were deluded. If there is archaeological evidence for Biblical events, they are misdated in the carbon-readings. You see the pattern.

The Christian worldview is the only consistent epistemology that cannot be cracked- we know this because it stands upon and is embedded in Truth. Every alternative worldview has its Achilles’ Heel, whereby it can be dismantled. But the Holy Spirit must be at work in the person-in-question’s heart, otherwise sinful man will repel any truth; darkness will hide from the light.

Personally, I would take this one step further, and argue that particular schools of theological tradition are similarly the most epistemologically holistic in interpreting the entire gamut of reality/creation, but that is for another conversation.

A small note to add, would be to the dynamic of the “circular” appeal to the authority. If we accept the Bible as “infallible” because that is “logical” to do so, then actually, we are no longer appealing to the Bible as our authority: logic is the higher authority. The same is true if we accept the Bible because of science, etc.

That being said, we should not throw out these important factors. As the Westminster writers put it, scripture is magnificent in style, perfect in harmony, perseveres against scrutiny, etc. But these are all secondary issues, albeit corroboratory and very important.