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.

a significant flaw in Jehovah's Witness theology

I have an uncle and aunt and cousins who are Jehovah's Witnesses. I visited them recently and we got to talking about their beliefs. Not expecting to hit on something particularly profound, I told them how I have difficulty with their prohibition on government involvement (such as voting) -- that I think government involvement is a virtue. Interestingly, I found out I hit upon a fatal flaw in their worldview.

They explained to me that JWs believe the fundamental sin in the Garden of Eden was man rejecting God's governance, and that earthly governments are, by nature, the embodiment of a rejection of God's theocratic rule. They believe that at the end of time, God will destroy all government and establish His own government once and for all. They believe that our current time on earth primarily serves the purpose of proving to the heavenly hosts that man cannot successfully rule himself. So, to them, participating in government is to side with the enemy and contribute to the effort to prove God wrong. They get a lot of this from the admonition to be "in the world, but not of it." All of this, they believe, is the central theme of Scripture.

Before this came to light, I shared with them Romans 13:1-7:

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor." (emphasis mine)

What I said to them was, it seems bizarre to me that a church body would forbid its members from participating in something the Apostle Paul refers to as a "ministry."

We discussed the issue at some length, but in the end they warned me not to base my beliefs on an idea found only one place in the Bible. (In reality, I think the rest of Scripture harmonizes quite comfortably with this passage. Consider all the men of God in the Old Testament who worked in government. And consider that nowhere in Scripture is there a command against government participation. And I can see no necessity to interpret "of the world" as meaning government involvement any more than I can see "of the world" needing to mean something like commerce -- something the JW's have no issue with. We know from its usage in Scripture that the term "of the world," or "worldliness," refers to the sinfulness the world is entangled in. We are told to be "in the world," but not tied up in sin.)

"Hmmm. Are you saying that this passage of Scripture is inaccurate and its teaching can’t be relied upon? Does its message differ from the Watchtower's?”

What I find particularly interesting is, I have never heard this used as a challenge to JW theology. I think it hits upon a significant vulnerability. There is no way I can buy the idea that the Apostle Paul would have written the above passage had he believed government, as an institution, was fundamentally an embodiment of rebellion against God.

Amazing Grace movie

I went a saw the Amazing Grace last night, a movie based on the life of antislavery pioneer William Wilberforce. A devout Christian and Member of Parliament, Wiberforce brought an end to the slave trade in the British Empire. I highly recommend it! It is engaging, touching, and documents the life a true hero.

About the characters (from the movie's website):

Elected to the House of Commons at the age of 21, Wilberforce, over the course of two decades, took on the English establishment and persuaded those in power to end the inhumane trade of slavery.

John Newton, a former slave trader and composer of the hymn Amazing Grace, was a confidante of Wilberforce who inspired him to pursue a life of service to humanity.

William Pitt the Younger, England's youngest ever Prime Minister at the age of 24, encouraged his friend Wilberforce to take up the fight to outlaw slavery and supported him in his struggles in Parliament.

Barbara Spooner, a beautiful and headstrong young woman, shared Wilberforce's passion for reform and became his wife after a whirlwind courtship.

Olaudah Equiano, born in Africa, was sent as a slave to the Colonies, but bought his freedom and made his home in London, where he wrote a best-selling account of his life and became a leading figure in the fight to end the slavery of his fellow countrymen.