Religious truth cannot be based on human opinions and ideas. God must reveal it, for he is not subject to human limitations.

Arthur A. Eggert

While mathematical truth from deductive reasoning and scientific truth from inductive reasoning have value in this world, the most important truth for humanity is religious truth. Moreover, if people are not to grope around blindly in philosophical reasoning hoping to find some sort of firm foundation, then there must be some source of religious truth and some standard by which to judge religious ideas. In other words, religious truth must be revealed to us because we cannot rise up to God (Romans 10:5-11).

Throughout history people have relied either upon some guru who claims insight of the divine (e.g., the pope or oracle at Delphi) or upon some book of revelation (e.g., the Bible or the Qur’an) that claims to be God’s Word. Of all the religious sources, only the Bible presents a God who freely delivers people from their sins and promises eternal salvation. All the rest make salvation dependent on some course of action in which people must earn or contribute to their salvation through their own efforts.

With such a great offer, one would think that biblical Christianity would attract nearly everyone, but just the opposite is the case. The reason is that people inherently want to take some of their own good deeds to the judgment throne of God when they are summoned to appear before him. They do not want free salvation because it means they must repudiate not only all their sins but also everything they view as their own meritorious works (Luther’s Works, Vol. 79, p. 196). They are unwilling to accept the biblical declaration that they are totally depraved and have no works acceptable before the Lord (John 15:5). They seek a “rationalized truth” that is less clear-cut, one that leaves room for negotiation over issues of behavior and piety. Biblical truth becomes distorted when people try to mix “rationalized truth” into it.

Scripture interprets Scripture

As Lutheran Christians, we follow Luther’s directive to test every teaching to see if it matches what the Scriptures actually say. We know that some parts of Scripture are difficult to understand, so we employ three simple principles:

1. The words of the Bible are to be interpreted in their simplest grammatical sense unless a clear indication in the text tells us that the words are meant in a figurative or symbolic sense.

2. If a passage is unclear we look for another passage that speaks of the same thing and gives more clarity or detail.

3. If a passage is difficult to understand in spite of parallel passages, we must not invent an interpretation but conclude that the passage is difficult to understand.

Even using these principles does not remove the desire to “rationalize” the words of Scripture. There are many examples of scholars and simple everyday Christians rationalizing God’s Word because something doesn’t make sense to them. Here’s an example that will help illustrate the challenge. The first chapter of Genesis reveals God’s creation in six days. That conflicts with what many believe about the origin of the universe. To “fix” the problem, some rationalize that those six days must be symbolic or an ancient myth in order to harmonize God’s activity with what they think actually happened. But the Bible contains no clue that the account in Genesis is symbolic or mythological. Biblical Christians simply accept the Genesis account as it is without “rationalizing the truth.”

Another example is the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Jesus tells his disciples, “This is my body” and “This is my blood.” But that doesn’t make logical sense. John Calvin was a brilliant Christian scholar, yet he adopted the nonbiblical idea that, in some cases, God would not expect us to believe what was against reason. He, therefore, sometimes used reason to filter some of the biblical teachings. He argued that Jesus’ human nature could only be present at one place like everyone else’s human nature. Consequently, he taught that Jesus is currently at one place in heaven and therefore cannot be really present in the bread and wine of Holy Communion. But the words of Jesus say something clear and different, even though it’s difficult to comprehend. Like Luther we simply let God’s Word stand and conclude the God is wiser and more powerful than we are and that he can do what he says.

Scripture alone

From the earliest days of the Reformation, Martin Luther recognized the inerrancy of the Bible and the importance of understanding it correctly because he knew that there can be no religious truth apart from the Lord’s revelation. Sola Scriptura (from the Scriptures alone) became one of the pillars of the Reformation. Those who claim Luther did not regard the Bible as inerrant have not read enough of his writings. In more recent times we have used the phrase the “narrow Lutheran middle” to indicate that we may teach no more and no less than what is revealed in the Scriptures (Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18,19).

Another pervasive error that corrupts the principle of sola Scriptura is the teaching that religious truth develops as time passes. In this philosophical view, God gradually becomes wiser in his dealings with mankind; therefore, some of the things in the Bible should no longer be accepted as true. They were the products of the Lord himself being ignorant of the truth or of his shaping it for the benefit of more primitive peoples. Therefore, some of the things in the Bible must be changed to adapt with contemporary culture and thinking. This ignores the biblical teaching that God is not a creature of time and therefore never changes (Psalm 102; Malachi 3:6).

We end where we started, with the question: “What is truth?” Truth, regardless of its type, is information that conforms to a given standard. For example, the truth about the length of an object is determined by using a ruler as the standard. To decide whether we are willing to accept something as true, we must first know the standard according to which it is to be measured, and then we must do the measuring. In philosophy, the standard of truth is weak, namely the rationalism of the philosopher’s thinking process. In mathematics and formal logic, it is strong, namely the definitions of the domains of study and of the properties of relevant operators. In science, the standard of truth is the assumption that all observations can be explained in the terms of the natural properties of matter, energy, space, and time through the application of the scientific method.

For the Christian, the source and standard of all religious truth is the Bible, as the Lord revealed it in the original Hebrew and Greek. If we try to use our reason to judge it, then we no longer have God’s truth and have fallen back into philosophy. We can lose our eternal salvation if we try to shape our relationship with God with ideas from our sinful hearts, from our clever minds, or from the minds of other humans, rather than relying on what is revealed in his Holy Scriptures.

Dr. Arthur Eggert is a member at Peace, Sun Prairie, Wisconsin.

This is the final article in a four-part series on different ways the world finds truth and where we as Christians should look for truth.

Author: Arthur A. Eggert
Volume 105, Number 4
Issue: April 2018

Copyrighted by WELS Forward in Christ © 2021
Forward in Christ grants permission for any original article (not a reprint) to be printed for use in a WELS church, school, or organization, provided that it is distributed free and indicate Forward in Christ as the source. Images may not be reproduced except in the context of its article. Contact us

Philosophical truth is unreliable because it comes from the corrupt human heart. But what about mathematics and logic? Are they reliable?

Arthur A. Eggert

During our lives, we have come to trust mathematics. We learned to count before we started elementary school, and soon thereafter we were taught arithmetic. We found arithmetic to be reliable because there was only one correct answer for each equation or problem. Later we learned algebra, trigonometry, and perhaps calculus. With each of these we could be certain there was a uniquely correct answer because all the terms and operators (e.g., addition, division) were precisely defined by mathematicians. This type of mathematics is called “numeric” and is an example of deductive reasoning. In such reasoning, one starts with known information, manipulates it by known rules, and obtains a reliable and unique answer.

In high school we also encountered geometry, in which much of the material was quite different from the numeric manipulation to which we were accustomed. We frequently had to prove certain statements to be true where no numbers were involved. Instead we dealt with triangles and other figures for which we needed to show some relationship was true through a series of steps, each justified by some rule that was true for geometric figures. For example, we might have been asked to prove that the base angles of isosceles triangles are equal. Geometry introduced us to a new kind of mathematics, one in which some truism about the object of interest was sought rather than a numeric value. This mathematics is called “non-numeric.” Like numeric mathematics, its results are reliable, being the same no matter who does the problem-solving. This occurs because everything used in solving non-numeric problems is precisely defined and not subject to varying interpretations by different people.

Yet, as we are all aware, mathematical answers are not always correct. Even if one pushes all the right buttons on one’s calculator, the answer will be wrong if the information one started with is wrong. If one measures a door wrong (e.g., 7 feet 10 inches tall instead of 6 feet 10 inches) or reverses two digits when recording a number (e.g., 136 instead of 163), the mathematical calculation will be valid, but the answer will be wrong. Correct application of mathematics cannot compensate for bad input.

Using formal logic

Long ago the Greek philosopher Aristotle concluded the same type of reasoning used in geometry could be used to evaluate other problems as well. He developed “syllogistic logic,” another form of deductive reasoning. This gave a way to reliably evaluate the validity of conclusions based on stated premises. Syllogistic reasoning involves a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. For centuries students have learned: Major premise: “All men are mortal.” Minor premise: “Socrates was a man.” Conclusion: “Socrates was mortal.” Because the premises in this syllogism are true, the conclusion must be true. All syllogisms have a subject (e.g., Socrates), a predicate (e.g., mortal), and a middle term (e.g., man).

Aristotle quickly realized, however, that syllogistic reasoning had its limitations. If the two premises were “Some frogs are green” and “Plants are green,” then the conclusion would be “Some frogs are plants.” Clearly, this conclusion is not true even though both of the premises are true. To determine which of the many arrangements and types of subjects, predicates, and middle terms gave valid syllogisms, Aristotle developed five rules that guided this form of logic for two thousand years. Syllogisms were the beginning of “formal logic,” which manipulates phrases with the same reliability that arithmetic manipulates numbers.

Within the last century formal logic has been expanded far beyond syllogisms to methods such as truth-functional logic and predicate calculus. In the former, informational statements are coded into a matrix called a “truth table,” which allows all possible true and false values for each statement to be combined and evaluated. In the latter, the truth or falseness of any conclusion can be determined from any set of premises by a process that is similar to the proof used for a geometric axiom. By coding premises and conclusions into a symbolic representation, the emotional component so often present in philosophical reasoning is removed. It does not matter how one feels about the merit of an argument; its validity depends only on whether the conclusion can be shown to follow logically (i.e., through rule-based manipulations) from the premises. Formal logic, therefore, always gives us valid answers just as numerical mathematics always gives us valid answers.

Identifying false premises

Just as we saw with mathematical conclusions, however, formal logic can give valid conclusions that are not true (i.e. “sound”). For example, “All orange vegetables are poisonous.” “Carrots are orange vegetables.” Therefore, “Carrots are poisonous.” This is a valid conclusion, but the conclusion is not true because the first premise is false. Despite the validity of formal logic, it can be used to lead us astray if we are duped into accepting a false premise or assuming a premise is being used that was never actually stated. For example, if a product is labeled “reduced sodium” or “reduced fat,” we tend to assume as a premise that the reduction is significant, not just 1%. Our assumption may be wrong.

A real threat to our faith occurs when people state deceptive premises about religious issues and then use valid logic to draw us into false beliefs. For example, consider this argument commonly studied in philosophy classes. Premise: “If a god exists, then he is omnipotent.” Premise: “Anyone who is omnipotent can do anything.” Conclusion: “God, therefore, can create a stone so heavy that he can’t lift it.” Contradiction: “But if god cannot lift the stone, he is not almighty. Therefore, the premise that there is a god must be false.” While this argument may sound convincing, it is the second premise, not the first, which is false. The correct premise is “If he is omnipotent, then he can do anything consistent with his will.” God’s attributes are perfectly unified and cannot conflict with each other. The existence of God does not depend on our ability to logically prove it.

Now consider a more common argument directed against hell. Premise: “God is love” (1 John 4:8). Premise: “Hell is a horrible place” (Matthew 13:42). Premise: “A loving being would not send someone to a horrible place.” Conclusion: “Therefore, God will not send anyone to hell.” In this case the first premise assumes an unclear definition of love. The third premise is false also because it claims that God being love overrides his other attributes, including his justice. It also contradicts his direct statement (Matthew 25:46).

Thus, while formal logic is a major advance over philosophical reasoning in the search for truth, it suffers from two limitations. First, stating the premises and conclusions correctly and developing proofs takes significant study and effort. Many people shy away from it because of bad memories involving word problems and geometry. Second, false premises can lead to false conclusions even if the reasoning is correct. To avoid being deceived, one must be certain one’s premises are correct.

Dr. Arthur Eggert is a member at Peace, Sun Prairie, Wisconsin.

This is the second article in a four-part series on different ways the world finds truth and where we as Christians should look for truth.

Author: Arthur A. Eggert
Volume 105, Number 2
Issue: February 2018

Copyrighted by WELS Forward in Christ © 2021
Forward in Christ grants permission for any original article (not a reprint) to be printed for use in a WELS church, school, or organization, provided that it is distributed free and indicate Forward in Christ as the source. Images may not be reproduced except in the context of its article. Contact us