Deductive reasoning can be dangerous in theological studies. An example of deductive reasoning in theology goes like this: “if the Bible teaches A, then the Bible must also teach B that follows from A.”
Where’s the error? The Bible does itself not teach B. It teaches A, and it is we who believe that B must necessarily follow. Soon it easily becomes that B is as necessary as A. B might be true, but the key word is “might.” Even if we think the reasoning is airtight, we should readily admit that it is an inference.
Here’s an example, limited atonement. Most who have studied this will readily admit that this is not directly taught in the Bible, and that those passages which could be teaching it are susceptible of other interpretations. In Calvinist circles not only is limited atonement taught, limited atonement becomes the actual turning point of their soteriology. On the face of it, this is strange. What is initially a deduction is transformed into the center of salvation itself.
Here is another example. God is sovereign. Therefore everything that happens is decreed by God, or otherwise he would not be sovereign. Soon meticulous providence becomes more important than sovereignty itself. The Bible clearly teaches the sovereignty of God. For some this necessarily means that all things that happen are directed by God’s positive will for sovereignty cannot be sovereignty is this is not so. But the Bible teaches that God is sovereign, and it also teaches that some things happen even though God does not will for them to happen. This is the data of Scripture. If we explicitly change what the Bible seems to directly teach because rationally it cannot be teaching that because another passage of Scripture says this, that or the other, then soon we are off into a rationalism that can take us far away from the Bible.
In other words, what begins as only an inference becomes the center. This is a process that takes us to places where we shouldn’t go. I listen to a lot of NeoCalvinistic sermons and read their blogs and articles. I am often impressed how often limited atonement comes up no matter the initial topic. In their mind, the inference becomes so central that if the inference is wrong, the whole system of doctrine is wrong. Therefore, the less clear becomes the way we teach the more clear.
While deduction has its place and cannot be wholly avoided, we must be careful to keep it in its place. By and large, our theology should be built on the explicit teaching of Holy Scripture, on biblical data. This keeps us in the safe zone and serves as a check on narrow theological systems that fragment the unity of the Body of Christ.
I understand that some will protest that this provides too strict a limit on the project of theology. I don’t agree. What it does is make a clear distinction in reasoning, and our theological systems should recognize it.
From My Heart, Out Of My Mind 