Five Perspectives on the Relationship Between Faith and Reason
Ever since the Enlightenment humankind has clung to the belief that we can answers all of life's questions through the power of reason, removing God from morality and epistemology. The Enlightenment also brought a renewed interest in science as the best method to uncover truth via our intellectual abilities. Over several hundred years, this thinking has separated faith and reason into different spheres, believing that if we were to subject our faith to the overwhelming power of reason, reason would tear it apart.
The Christian church has reacted to this modern thinking in different ways. Some have claimed that reason and faith are utterly incompatible. Others believe revelation is unverifiable and therefore irrelevant. Still others have attempted to find some balance in between these two extremes. The vexing question remains, however: Are faith and reason non-overlapping magisteria or can they interact?
Five Perspectives on Reason and Faith
Norman L. Geisler and Paul D. Feinberg have outlined five different views on the interaction between reason and faith in God's revelation: "(1) revelation only; (2) reason only; (3) revelation over reason; (4) reason over revelation; and (5) revelation and reason."[1] The purpose of this paper is to analyze these five viewpoints from a Christian perspective and determine which enjoys the greatest scriptural support.
Revelation Only
"Revelation only" is rooted in existentialist philosophy and is found amongst such thinkers as Soren Kierkegaard[2] and Karl Barth.[3] According to this view "the human mind has no ability to know God."[4] "God must supernaturally give the ability to understand His revelation as He gives the revelation itself."[5] Therefore, knowledge of the divine is purely a gift from God and reason serves no role whatsoever.
Proponents of this view claim support from scriptures that emphasize the fallen nature of humanity's understanding. "[N]o one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."[6] "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."[7] "As it is written: 'There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.'"[8] "[T]he sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so."[9]
Our intellect is so fallen that we have no ability to come to faith by our own power. However, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching."[10] So where reason fails, revelation can provide answers. If we cannot come to understand God by our own reasoning, the only way to know him is by faith in the revelation of his scripture.
The problem with excluding reason altogether, though, is that it fails the test of unaffirmability.[11] People may utter the phrase, "I cannot speak a word of English," but they cannot simultaneously affirm it to be true. In the very act of speaking the sentence they have contradicted it. An unaffirmable statement must be false and the "revelation only" stance is unaffirmable. Proponents may utter the phrase, "Revelation, not reason, is the sole source for divine knowledge," but they cannot affirm it. In presenting their view, they utilize reason in order to argue against the use of reason.
Reason Only
The opposite of "revelation only" is "reason only." This stance is derived from philosophical rationalism in which "all truth is discoverable by human reason."[12] With no room for revelation in discovering truth, citing scripture for support is pointless; hence rationalists such as Immanuel Kant[13] and Benedict Spinoza[14] do not do so.
Kant explained his view by distinguishing between a priori and a posteriori knowledge. "A cognition independent of experience and even of all impressions of the senses is called a priori. One distinguishes it from empirical cognitions, which have their sources a posteriori, that is in experience."[15] According to Kant, a priori knowledge comes to us by way of reason. But reason can only be applied to subjects that are within space and time. Because God is outside of space and time reason cannot provide any a priori knowledge of him.[16] If reason cannot be applied to God then it cannot evaluate whether a given revelation is genuinely divine either, leaving us with a sense of agnosticism toward any alleged revelation. The assumption that reason is the sole source of truth therefore leads to the elimination of any meaningful role for revelation in the acquisition of knowledge.
Extreme rationalism like that of Immanuel Kant is not an option for Christians who claim the Bible is God’s Word. If our Lord has spoken through the Bible we cannot adopt epistemological presuppositions that ignore his personal communication.
Revelation Over Reason
The remaining options all attempt to find some middle ground in which faith in God’s revelation and human reason can co-exist. One view holds that revelation reigns over reason but still grants reason a subsidiary role. Perhaps the oldest example comes from early third century theologian Tertullian who spoke against the extreme rationalism of Greek philosophers by asking, "What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church?"[17] According to this school of thought, Christians may reason "about revelation but never against it."[18] A modern example of this perspective is Cornelius Van Til and his presuppositional apologetics.[19]
There is ample scriptural support for this view. First of all, the passages quoted for "revelation only" apply equally here. Both camps grant revelation the primary position. Tertullian and Van Til, however, acknowledge that scripture also preserves a role for reason. For example, Paul instructed the church in Thessalonica to "test everything."[20] Testing requires the use of reason. John similarly told Christians to use their reasoning abilities to "test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."[21]
This option is viable for Christians because it preserves the supremacy of God. However, it is not likely to be the view held by the original apostles. "Revelation over reason" is based on the assumption that non-Christians' reasoning abilities are so fallen that there is no common ground between us on which to base a discussion of the Christian worldview. If this were so, the apostles would not have encouraged non-believers to use their allegedly fallen reasoning abilities. Yet Paul "reasoned with [non-believers] from the Scriptures."[22] When speaking to the gentiles in Lystra Paul and Barnabas challenged them to reason to God from the natural wonders of creation.[23] When Peter addressed the crowd on Pentecost he relied upon Jesus' miracles, fulfilled prophecy and eyewitness testimony to show the gospel to be true.[24] Clearly these apostles found some common ground with non-Christians.
Reason Over Revelation
The fourth perspective allows for divine revelation but elevates reason to the higher position. The Word of God may be contained within the pages of the Bible, but that does not mean that the Bible is God's Word in its entirety. We must test the plausibility of any alleged revelation and discard anything that does not accord with logic as unlikely to be from God. This describes the views of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson.[25]
Despite the fact that revelation is assigned relatively minor importance under this approach, it is possible to find some scriptural support for it. For example, Paul told the Romans, "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."[26] It is possible to argue that this passage identifies the mind as the tool by which we should discern God’s will; even if different people reach contradictory conclusions we must be true to wherever our reasoning leads us. Paul also told the church in Rome, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."[27] "What has been made" is creation, not revelation. Reasoning from nature is supposedly sufficient to leave us "without excuse." Therefore, any necessary spiritual truths must be discernable from reason alone.
Even if nature can reveal sufficient truth so that we are "without excuse," however, that does not mean that nature and reason are capable of revealing all truth. Perhaps nature only reveals enough truth to show us the need for God's revelation. If so, we are still "without excuse," but we need far more knowledge than nature alone can provide.
Revelation and Reason
The final category contends that revelation and reason are mutually complementary. Our intellect is impaired by sin, but with the assistance of the Holy Spirit we can overcome this deficiency and recognize reasonable truths. Christians may offer logical arguments in the course of our apologetic as long as we realize that fallen humanity will not accept even the soundest of arguments unless enabled by the Spirit. Augustine[28] and Aquinas[29] both held an interrelated view of faith and reason.
In a similar vein, William Lane Craig makes a distinction between knowing Christianity is true and showing it to be true. We know Christianity to be true through the testimony of the Holy Spirit. A person who has such testimony "does not need supplementary arguments or evidence in order to know and to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the Spirit of God."[30] Reason, therefore, plays at most a subsidiary role in knowing our faith is true.[31] Compelling evidence may confirm our faith, but it does not provide the basis for it.[32]
In showing Christianity to be true, however, "things are somewhat reversed."[33]
Here we present reasoned arguments and evidence to non-believers. The role of the Holy Spirit is to open their minds to the validity of the arguments and the truth of Christianity.[34] Therefore, we "know Christianity is true primarily by the self-authenticating witness of God’s Spirit. We show Christianity is true by presenting good arguments for its central tenets."[35]
The writings of the apostles provide strong support that they held a similar view of the relationship between faith and reason. First, Paul clearly believed that we know our faith is real through the testimony of the Spirit. "The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children."[36] Similarly, "our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction."[37] John agreed. "We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit."[38] "As for you, the anointing you received from [the Spirit] remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you."[39] Not surprisingly, John also recorded Jesus' teaching that "the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."[40]
While the apostles clearly supported Dr. Craig's notion of knowing Christianity through the Holy Spirit, they also clearly showed Christianity using reason. When Paul appealed to the Jewish leaders in Rome he "explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets."[41] Whenever he went to a new town his custom was to go to the local synagogue where he "reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead."[42] As was noted previously, in Lystra Paul and Barnabas argued from the gift of nature[43] and on Pentecost Peter reasoned from Jesus' miracles, fulfilled prophecy and eyewitness testimony.[44]
When the apostles discussed how they knew the gospel to be true they gave credit to the Holy Spirit. But their methodology in showing the gospel to be true assumed that if enabled by the Spirit their listeners had the ability to understand their arguments via logic and reasoning.
Conclusion
Using reason alone as the method to discover divine truth is the equivalent of wearing epistemological blinders, limiting the possible range of knowledge to that which can be discovered through one isolated method rather than being open to all possibilities. Any methodology that exalts reason above revelation is also an affront to the sovereignty of God. "Revelation alone," "revelation over reason" and "revelation and reason" are all viable options for Christians, but finding a mutually complementary relationship between the two seems most consistent with the views of the apostles.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Craig, Wiliam Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 3rd ed.
Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008.
Geisler, Norman. Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1976.
Geisler, Norman L. and Paul D. Feinberg. Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian
Perspective. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1980.
Kant, Immanuel. "Pure Reason and the Question of God." In Primary Readings in
Philosophy for Understanding Theology, edited by Diogenes Allen and Eric O.
Springsted, 172-209. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992.
Tertullian. "The Prescription Against Heretics." In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 3, Latin
Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian. I. Apologetic; II. Anti-Marcion; III. Ethical,
edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 243-65. Peabody, MA:
Hendriskson, 2004.
[1] Norman L. Geisler and Paul D. Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1980), 255.
[2] Geisler and Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy, 256-57.
[3] Geisler and Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy, 258.
[4] Geisler and Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy, 258.
[5] Geisler and Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy, 258.
[11] Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1976), 141-43.
[12] Geisler and Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy, 258.
[13] Geisler and Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy, 259.
[14] Geisler and Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy, 259-60.
[15] Immanuel Kant, "Pure Reason and the Question of God," in Primary Readings in Philosophy for Understanding Theology, eds. Diogenes Allen and Eric O. Springsted (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), 178.
[16] Kant, "Pure Reason and the Question of God," 184, 196-97.
[17] Tertullian, "The Prescription Against Heretics," in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 3, Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian. I. Apologetic; II. Anti-Marcion; III. Ethical, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendriskson, 2004), 246.
[18] Geisler and Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy, 263.
[19] Geisler and Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy, 264.
[23] Acts 14:16-17 (NIV).
[24] Acts 2:14, 22, 25-32 (NIV).
[25] Geisler and Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy, 262.
[28] Geisler and Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy, 265-66.
[29] Geisler and Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy, 266-68.
[30] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), 43.
[31] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 47.
[32] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 48.
[33] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 51.
[34] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 56.
[35] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 58.
[43] Acts 14:16-17 (NIV).
[44] Acts 2:14, 22, 25-32 (NIV).
|