{Lektüre} Deduktives und induktives Vorgehen – am Beispiel der Irrtumslosigkeit der Bibel

Welchen Platz hat ein deduktives bzw. induktives Vorgehen in der Klärung biblischer Themen? Roger Nicole hat dies am Beispiel der Irrtumslosigkeit der Bibel veranschaulicht.

Zur Begriffsklärung:

  • Deductive reasoning starts with a principle and/or statement, and analyses its implications.
  • Induction starts with a number of concrete facts or data of observation, and seeks to correlate them in terms of a common principle.

Angewandt bedeutet dies:

  • Some believe that we should start from the statements of Scripture and move deductively to a doctrine of inspiration with all it implicates.
  • Others, on the contrary, would maintain that we should start from the phenomena of Scripture and by induction develop a doctrine concerning the nature of Scripture.

Nicole plädiert für einen zweiphasigen Prozess unter Benutzung beider Prinzipien:

When we attempt to express the biblical doctrine of God we do not start with the scriptural accounts of the acts of God in order to induce from them a view of God which we should think scriptural. Rather, we start from the scriptural statements about God and derive from them a general understanding which we are then careful to match to the characteristics apparent from divine activity.

Beide Ansätze bergen Gefahren:

1. With respect to deduction, we can be mistaken in ascertaining the meaning of a premise upon which we believe that we should establish our faith. There can be further error introduced if in our deductions from these statements of Scripture we proceed beyond what is legitimate, particularly beyond the Scripture itself.

2. In the process of induction the possibilities for deviations are even more serious, for we must reckon with: a) possible incomplete enumeration of relevant facts; b) possible inappropriate selection of facts; c) possible inadequate understanding of the nature of the facts selected; d) our limited ability to envision the full range and variety of principles that would account for the facts; e) our possible inadequate grasp of the relationship between the facts and the principles advocated; f) possible improper use of the rational powers at all these steps.

Ähnliche Beiträge