is logic the opposite of faith?

I was in a class recently at my church. The fellow teaching the class said he believes Scripture teaches that Jesus was sacrificed "from the foundation of the world." Revelation 13:8 states, "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship [the beast], whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb [Jesus] slain from the foundation of the world."

"So," he concluded, "this is really interesting. In Old Testament times, Jesus had already been sacrificed, even though He had not yet been sacrificed!"

Although I have a lot of respect for this teacher, I think he misinterpreted the passage.

The New American Standard Bible translates the verse: "...everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain." Revelation 17:8 reads almost identically, but omits the part about the Lamb: "...whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world..."

I think the phrase "from the foundation of the world" was meant to refer to when the names were written, not when the Lamb was slain. And Scripture teaches elsewhere that Jesus died only once: "For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all" (Romans 6:10), and "Christ also suffered once for sins" (1 Peter 3:18). So I think the correct interpretation is pretty obvious.


After the class I shared my skepticism over the teacher's interpretation with a friend from the class. One point I made was that we can rule out the teacher's interpretation simply because it is internally contradictory. It would have been logically impossible for Jesus to have been both "already sacrificed" and "not yet sacrificed" at the same time; it would have violated the law of non-contradiction.

The law of non-contradiction states that something cannot both "be" and "not be" in the same respect and at the same time. Things that contradict cannot both be true.

My friend had a hard time with that.

Two weeks later, after further consideration, this same friend suggested that I was placing my trust in logic and "secular philosophy" rather than "receiving the Word of God in faith." He felt the breach of logic was something I should be open to since "God's ways are not our ways" (which I think is a misapplication of this statement in Isaiah 55:8). My friend went as far as to question my Christianity.

What my friend doesn't realize is that one can't argue anything, spiritual or otherwise, without using logic. In fact, (not coincidentally), his correction of me itself relied upon logic: (a) Christians must interpret Scripture in a certain manner, (b) I don't interpret Scripture in that manner, therefore (c) I must not be a Christian. If (a) and (b) are true, then (c) must also be true. We know this because the law of non-contradiction is universally reliable.

You see, the reliableness of the law of non-contradiction is the very thing which allows us to determine whether or not something is true: we compare it to things we already know to be true. If it contradicts or is inconsistent, we reject it.

One can label this "secular philosophy" all he wants. But in reality, it's just figuring things out. Its opposite is not faith. Its opposite is haphazard thinking, irrationality, incoherence, foolishness, absurdity, ridiculousness, fallacious, nonsense, falsehood.

Theologians sometimes say we "use Scripture to interpret Scripture." This is another way of saying we rule out interpretations of passages that contradict interpretations of other passages we already have good reason to believe are correct. We do this because we do not believe the Word of God contains contradictions -- contradictions being, by their nature, inconsistent with the character of God (which is another application of logic, and an affirmation that we understand God to be rational).


Suppose the law of non-contradiction was not always reliable. And suppose someone directed me to worship a hamburger, claiming a hamburger was actually God. I'd be in a tough position. I'd have no way to evaluate the truthfulness of his claim. Normally I would consider the attributes of God and the attributes of a hamburger, recognize them to be different, and conclude that, because they are not identical, a hamburger is not God. But if the law of non-contradiction were not universally reliable, and something could indeed be its opposite, I would have no way of ruling out going to McDonald's for Sunday worship!

And without confidence in the law of non-contradiction, how can anyone trust God's promises? How can we even grasp what it is God is promising? When we decipher the meanings of sentences, we favor interpretations that are consistent with the meanings of words. We reject interpretations that contradict, or are not consistent with, the meanings of words. Without logic, all of that is out the window. So understanding a promise becomes impossible, let alone believing and trusting it!


What I was doing in that class at my church was nothing more than using common sense to reject an incoherent interpretation of Scripture. I don't think logic is a threat to Scripture. On the contrary, I think logic protects Scripture from multiple abuses.