INTRODUCTION
1.
DESCRIPTIVE DEFINITION
1.1 REASON
1.2
REVELATION
1.2.1
Tertullion’s Fideism
1.2.2
Augustinian’s Rational Presuppositionalism
1.2.3
Thomistic Natural Theology
1.2.4
Revelational Epistemology
2. A BRIEF
LOOK AT VARIANT OUTLOOKS
2.1
REVELATIONAL RAMIFICATION
2.2 REASON’S
RAMIFICATION
2.3 REASON
OVER REVELATION’S RAMIFICATION
2.4
REVELATION OVER REASON’S RAMIFICATION
2.5 RATIONAL
FIDEISM: THE PERFACT BLEND OF REVELATION AND
REASON
3.
EPISTEMICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL DISSECTION OF REASON
4. THE PROBLEM WITH BIBLICAL REVELATION ALONE
5. BEST
COMMUNICATION OF REVELATION NECESSITATES REASON
6. REASON IN APOLOGETICAL
CONFRONTATION: A BIBLICAL PROBE
7. HISTORICAL
APOLOGETICAL APPROACHES TO THE CONFLICT
8. CHRISTIAN REASONING: A
TOOL FOR AN EFFECTIVE DEFENSE AND
COMMUNICATION OF THE UNIQUE
TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INTRODUCTION
Graeme
Goldsworthy in his Biblical Theology and Hermeneutics comments that the
demise of the biblical theology probably began with Enlightenment. It simply
did not come to the terms of the orthodox understanding of the revelation,
inspiration and authority of the Bible.[1]
At this
point, to many Christians, the two terms; reason and revelation seem as two disagreeing
phenomenon or as two contrasting ends. The fact of the matter is that
Christians have various worldview regarding the affiliation between revelation
and reason. A few entirely eradicate one or the other from their faith; others are
likely to incline more seriously toward one over the other, while others take
care of both with identical stress. Other Christians welcome reason and take
care of it as God-given resource to be utilized to its possible highest zenith.
In this regard I have discussed five outlooks, to show their advantages and
disadvantages, in brief.
So “Rising
Predicament of Reason and Revelation Conflict: Highlighting The Usage Of
Rational Fideism In Christendom For An Effective Apologetics And Communication
Of The Gospel” is a humble endeavor to formulate a bridge between the two:
reason and revelation. This work will also be helpful to many, in its approach
to apologetics for a better use of reason not only for presenting a defense but
proclaiming the gospel effectively to a modern mind.
In the following presentation, I would like to sketch,
in broad lines, one such discussion concerning the relationship between
political philosophy (Reason) and religious experience (revelation), or between
“Reason and Revelation.” With the brief
descriptive definition of the terms, this research will turn to show the various positions as revelation,
reason, revelation over reason, reason over revelation," or the balanced
concept of the perfect blend of
Revelation and Reason equally with their right positions. The final part will
be an attempt to reconcile the appropriate reasoning to Christian faith, not
only to make it rationale but help in communicating the truth of the gospel
message effectively.
1. DESCRIPTIVE
DEFINITION
1.1 REASON
Reason, rationalism (as a process, not a philosophy),
and logic are synonymous includes formal deduction, the laws of logic, informal
fallacies, definitions, grammar, informal arguments, induction, the tests of
truth, and all the other ways that words, propositions, and arguments can be
constructed.[2]
Reason
generally is understood as the principles for a methodological inquiry…Some
kind of algorithmic demonstrability is ordinarily presupposed. Once
demonstrated, a proposition or claim is ordinarily understood to be justified
as true or authoritative.[3]
For Henry,
the category of reason don’t arise only from human consciousness, but rather
drives from God’s intelligible attributes and from human existence in God’s
image.[4]
For Kant,
the mind contributes to experience reason’s organizing conceptual elements. For
pragmatist argues that the mind knowingly creates the object of knowledge. For
radical empiricists who insist that knowledge arises out of our sense
experience and is ultimate source and ground of knowledge.[5]
Alvin Plantinga in Warranted
Christian Belief states that
Taken narrowly, reason
is the faculty or power whereby we form a priori beliefs,
beliefs that are prior to experience or, better, independent,
in some way, of experience. These beliefs include, first of all,
simple truths of arithmetic and logic, such as 1 + 2 = 3 and if all men
are mortal and Socrates is a man, the Socrates is mortal … that
nothing can be red all over and also green all over … that to be a person you
must at least be potentially capable of forming beliefs and having ends or
aims … that there are properties, states of affairs, propositions,
and other abstract objects … that no object has a property in a possible world
in which it does not exist … that obviously follow from deliverances of reason
… and the power or capacity whereby we see or detect logical relationships
among propositions.[6] What
should be noted from Plantinga, is the breadth of reason. Also, he
not only uses the word logic, he identifies the syllogism, the law of excluded
middle (red, not green), and “logical relationships.” He is making
the link between reason, rationalism, and thought.
For Wright, Human
reason, is the divinely fashioned gift from God to man, not for making truth but
for recognizing it.[7]
Reason is not separated from faith; reason is based upon faith.
Presuppositions
lie at the very foundation of reason. Reasoning necessarily presupposes certain
laws of logic that govern right from wrong thinking. Such laws would have to be
immaterial, universally binding, and unchanging. Some philosophers have tried
to argue that there really are no “laws” of logic per se. Instead, they suggest
logic is merely a descriptive term for a set of rules established by either language
or social constructs. But this explanation hardly provides a foundation for
what we call logic. For “without logical laws even simple everyday conversation
would be impossible…even at the level of word usage, we already presuppose
basic logical distinctions. That is, logic is necessary for language even to
get off the ground.”[8]
The
confusion over faith’s proper relationship to reason has led many people to
think that religious beliefs should not be scrutinized. Reason
is an applied science; reason is applied to validity of argument, not the formulation
of first principles, which is the means by which truth is accepted. Reason is a
process and evaluation, not a determinant of truth.
·
Theoretical and practical reason
This peculiarity is common in philosophy. Theoretical reason applies to the
“higher” questions of truth, reality, epistemology, metaphysics,
etc. Practical reason concerns “what is one to do” (ethics). There are two comments relative to
this difference. First, there
is an interdependence of the two issues. For example, if one chooses Islam
“theoretically,” then his “oughts” have already been chosen for him. Second, the rules and laws of reason
are the same for both spheres. The
law of non-contradiction applies to both theoretical and practical
reasons. While their
spheres of application differ (though interdependent), there is no one set of
laws for theoretical reason and one for practical reason. There is only one set for both,
applied to the distinguished areas. [9] However, Practical reason since Aristotle has been
distinguished from theoretical or discursive reason. Further, in relation to revelation, reason will be
studied briefly.
1.2 REVELATION
Revelation
is the supernatural exposure of truth, by God, which could not otherwise be
exposed by the unaided ability of limited human reason.
Revelation is a divinely initiated actively, God’s free communication by which
he alone turns his personal privacy in a disclosure of his reality. God’s
revelation is uniquely personal both in content and form. God’s revelation is
rational communication conveyed in intelligible ideas and meaningful words that
is in the conceptual form.[10]
Further few prominent concepts regarding
revelation are analyzed briefly.
He further argued that reason can only eliminate the absurd or irrational, but
it cannot be of any positive benefit in discovering divine truth. We need to
take a "leap of faith" beyond rationality to believe divine
revelation. This is why any endeavor to present proofs for God’s existence is
an offence to God. No one needs proof who believes, and those who do not
believe will not be convinced.
This outlook is true insofar as all truth flows from God, and must be exposed
to men by some means. It appears insufficient in that it falls short to permit
men to utilize their God-given minds to ascertain and consider God's truth. It
turns people into nothing more than a computer who can only practice the data
that is input into it. We are finished in God's image, which includes the capacity
to reason. To deny this indispensable portion of our humanity is to contradict
the image of God in us. God gave us minds for a rationale. Although our minds
should not be used to oppose God's revelation, our minds must be used to comprehend
it.
1.2.1 Tertullion’s
Fideism
For
Tertullion, “What Jerusalem has to do with Athens”. This tells about the
disharmony between revelation (by faith) and human reason.[11]
He excludes rational tests as
inappropriate to revelation. This could be called fideistic approach.
1.2.2 Augustinian’s
Rational Presuppositionalism
“Believe
in order to understand” This methodology was also adopted by scholars like,
Anslem (faith seeking understanding), Luther and Calvin
and appeals to revelation in more fully informed reason. [12]
This fuses both the priority of belief and its incompleteness without
understanding and reason. The way to truth was found in the inspired and
revealed scriptures not in philosophical speculations. Reason is applied after
beliefs are chosen.
1.2.3 Thomistic
Natural Theology
“Understand
in order to believe” this Aquinas approached existence of God from the observation
of ordinary experience and special revelation as the starting point. [13]
Thus, he employed a natural type of
knowledge as foundation of faith. All these appeal to sense observation without
reliance on divine revelation. Thus, it leads to natural theology.
However, at
this point, mankind is capable of intellectually analyzing rational evidence
for the truth value of assertion about God. The Thomistic way by contrast to
Augustinian rational Presuppositionalism and Tertullion’s Fideism, is
evidentialist. It affirms that speculative understanding should precede
faith/revelation.
1.2.4 Revelational
Epistemology
According to
Carl F.H. Henry’s, who is known for his defense of Divine Revelation, opines,
human knowledge is not a source of knowledge to be contrasted with
revelation…thus God, by his immanence, sustains the knower, even in his moral
and cognitive revolt, and without that divine preservation, ironically enough,
man could even rebel against God, for he would not exist.[14]
For Henry, the Christian’s primary
ontological axiom is the one living God, and his primary epistemological axiom
is the divine revelation. Augustine opined that human reason is not the creator
of its own object; neither the world outside, nor world of ideas within, so it
is rooted in subjectivistic factors alone.[15]
Divine revelation is the source of all the truth of Christianity. And the
reason is the instrument for recognizing and communicating it effectively. And
the scripture is its verifying principle. In next section revelation and reason
will be separately and combined examined as a single point of measurement of
reality.
2. A BRIEF
LOOK AT VARIANT OUTLOOKS
The first
stumbling block to trounce in any dialogue is the defining of terms.
"Reason" is the natural facility of the human mind to determine and
process truth. Let us examine and weigh up the five outlooks in connection of
the relationship and contrast between revelation and reason.
2.1
REVELATIONAL RAMIFICATION[16]
Here certain
ramifications are highlighted of holding to revelation alone. According to Dr.
Orr revelation, generally, is held, does not consist in a sum of doctrines, or
even of facts, but is associated with any event which produces in us a vivid
immediate realization of the presence and working of God. But this realization
of God’s presence is awakened in us in a powerful and pre-eminent degree by the
historical manifestations of Jesus Christ.[17]
“The Bible,”
says Barth, “is God’s Word, so far as God speaks through it.”[18]
Brunner speaks of the “incognito of the purely human appearance” of the Word,
and says that this “is unmasked only by faith, by the testimony of the Holy
Spirit which enables us to hear the Word of God in the mere word of man.[19]
Soren
Kierkegard argued that since man is fallen and in a state of revolt and seclusion
from God, he cannot comprehend God’s truth without revelation. God is
transcendent.[20]
As such His
ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts
(Isaiah 55:9). The ways of God are past
finding out (Romans 11:33). God is wholly other than man, so attempting to
understand the truth of God with man’s reasoning ability is futile. God is not
irrational, but suprarational and away from the inspection or testability of
human reason.
2.2 REASON’S
RAMIFICATION
The Calvinist
stands in the firm conviction that it is impossible to know God, unless he has
been pleased to make Himself known to man.[21]
Zophar’s question,
“Canst thou by searching find out God?” It seems utterly impossible that man,
by his unaided reason, should discover God, and he therefore considers the
question, “Has God spoken?” as one of the utmost importance.
During the last
decennia the revelation of God has repeatedly been called in question by
scientists and philosophers. The new materialistic psychology excludes the idea
of such a revelation, and the Humanists ridicule it.[22]
This view positions
that nothing is known from divine revelation, but all truths are discovered by
human reason.
This outlook is fine insofar as it stresses man's need to utilize His God-given
mind to find out the truths of the universe that God created, and to discover
truths about God. It is gravely incomplete, however, in that human reason aided
by divine revelation is inadequate in its scope. Even away from the effects of
sin on our capacity to reason to truth, there are many things that could never
be known apart from revelation. We would not know of Jesus Christ, the
resurrection, or the future kingdom of God apart from heavenly revelation.
Human reason could never find out such truths.[25]
2.3 REASON
OVER REVELATION’S RAMIFICATION
'Reason over
revelation' affirms both reason and revelation’s importance in the life of the
believer, but reason is given more importance than revelation. [26]
Justin Martyr said that those who lived reasonably were Christians, even if
they did not have faith in Christ.[27]
Starting with the idea that all truth is God’s truth, Justin believed that the
Greek philosophers were Christians because their reasoning brought about the
discovery of God’s truth.[28]
Clement of Alexandria even measured up to the Greek’s philosophy to the Jewish
law. He said that both were intentional to lead one to Christ.[29]
The Deists
of seventeenth and eighteenth centuries held to such a view. In fact, Thomas
Jefferson went through the Bible and literally cut out every supernatural event
and printed the rest as the "Jefferson Bible." [30]
Reason over revelation concludes that if the Bible’s teaching does not line up
to good reason, it must be unwanted. The best modern-day example of those who
hold to reason over revelation are the higher critics of the Bible who
determine by reason which parts of the Scripture are truly God's revelation to
man and which are not.
The crux of
this outlook is established in the fact that revelation must be scrutinized by
human reason. We scrutinize revelation, not to verify if it is indeed
revelation, but in order to fathom and relate that revelation to our lives.
This view is fragile in that it can lead to the idea that human reason is gifted
to judge whether something is revelation, such as the resurrection of Christ
and miracles in general. This can also lead to several diverse claims of
revelations.
2.4
REVELATION OVER REASON’S RAMIFICATION
Tertullian
said, "I believe because it is absurd." He did not indicate he
believes in that which makes no logic. The Latin word translated as
"absurd" means "foolishness." He was not adjacent to reason
because he spoke against those who were "satisfied with having simply
believed, devoid of complete assessment of the grounds of the traditions"
they believed. [31] But his
comment does illustrate the pre-eminence that revelation held over his capacity
to reason through that revelation and it to make sense to the human mind. Reformed theologians reject the ability of reason.
This outlook
clings to idea that the believer reasons about revelation, but
never aligned with it. Kant held to "revelation within the
limits of reason," but Tertullian held to "reason within the limits
of revelation."
Cornelius
Van Til held that reason is reliant on revelation. Moreover many Christians position
God in reason as an alternative of reason in God. God is creator of the human
race, consequently all reason must be His servant.[32]
Reason stands under God’s judgment but never in judgment of God.
This outlook
is accurate in an ontological sense. Revelation is earlier to reason
ontologically. Before one can reason concerning revelation and truth, they must
know it. Certainly one cannot reason about something they do not know. Apart
from God giving us revelation, human reason as driven by the fallen nature,
will obviously lead to blunder. God is higher to all things, including human
reason. This outlook’s flaw is that it tends to demean human reason, commonly
viewing it as a rival to God. It undermines reason and does not give ample notice
to man's reason as part of the image of God in us, and something which should
be utilized to its fullest extent, even in proclamation of the truth.
2.5 RATIONAL
FIDEISM[33]:
THE PERFACT BLEND OF REVELATION AND REASON
Revelation
and reason are not contradictory concepts. The object of reason is seen and
object of faith is unseen. Augustine held that one can reason for revelation,
but never adjacent to it.[34]
The thoughtful Christian should endeavor to give the plausible intelligible. He
said that "faith is understanding’s step that opens one to meaningful
reason." Devoid of faith one would never get nearer to a complete
understanding of God’s truth. He founded this off of the Septuagint reading of
Isaiah 7:9 which say, "Unless you believe, you will not understand."
No one should believe a revelation which he has not first critiqued by reason
to be creditable of belief.
Augustine
also taught that "understanding is faith’s reward."[35]
Because one accepts God’s revelation, he is rewarded with a fuller
understanding than he could have had otherwise. A fractional understanding is essential
for one to know by reason in order to believe, but after believing, a fuller
understanding will draw closer.
Thomas
Aquinas believed in the total depravity of man, but still believed that our
human rationality was not damaged altogether. If it was damaged altogether, he
reasoned, we would no longer be capable of sinning, or at least being held blamed
for our sins.[36]
The finest
that reason can do for us is display that God exists, but divine
revelation is the only ground for believing in God. Reason leads to
our belief that something is truth, while revelation is the only source
for belief in that truth. Even the Scripture says that demons believe
that God exists, but they do not believe in God [37]
Even though
one cannot reason to belief in God, he can find
reasons for it. The believer finds logical support for his faith in
experiential and historical evidences and miracles, and philosophy. Faith is former
to reason philosophically, for no non-Christian ever presented evidences for
God’s existence. Yet reason is former to faith personally; for one does
not believe in God or His assumed Word if he has no evidence that it
is true. It has been shown that reason devoid of synthetic data is incapable of
itself in acquiring knowledge. In this sense, then though reason may function
as the faculty of understanding, it cannot claim superiority over revelation or
on which it itself is dependent. Neither reason can be considered to be
superior to experience and verbal testimony. Therefore, role of revelation as a
hypothesis cannot be disregarded.[38]
This
outlook’s potency is set up in that it gives suitable weight to both reason and
revelation, understanding that each effort together to convey the believer not
only truth but also understanding. Without reason the concept of faith is demeaned
to a sheer confession or dogmatic commitment to a list of non-intelligible
"facts." Only when we reason about revelation can it truly be
understood, and only then can we truly have well grounded faith on that
revelation we assumed by faith to be true. All other outlooks besides ‘perfect
blend revelation and reason’ construct logical complications concerning
salvation. The thought that one can move only from faith to understanding and
never from understanding to faith is lacking for reasonable support.
3. EPISTEMICAL
AND ONTOLOGICAL DISSECTION OF REASON
Reason precedes
faith as a system of knowing the existence of God. One cannot believe in a God
in whom they have no knowledge of, and cannot truly know something without
reasoning about that which is to be known. A definite amount of knowledge (and
thus reason) must be known of God if one is to have saving or empirical faith.
One may have knowledge without faith, but one cannot have faith without
knowledge.[39] In
the epistemological sense, reason is earlier to revelation, since reason must
be used to evaluate whether or not the Bible is indeed revelation.[40]
First, how can we accept that “divine
revelation” is indeed a communication from God (that is, actually “divine”)
unless we presuppose the existence of God? And since “divine revelation” is
used to prove the existence of God and yet presupposes the existence of God, it
is a circular argument. It also begs the question of how the believer knows
that he can understand God, that he is communicating with God and not Satan,
and so on and so forth.[41]
Second, how can the theist claim that
“divine revelation” is a correct principle if he cannot hold any principles at
all? God could very well decide to transform his “communications” into
delusions or schizophrenia, without the believer being able to make the
difference. Without a necessary standard, the theist is ultimately forced to
nihilism.[42]
We do not
have to crucify our intellect in order to believe. Faith may sometimes go ahead
of our capacity to know something or comprehend it to the fullest scope, but
faith is not unreasonable. Healings may seem illogical to some, but we know
from God’s Word (revelation) that He heals, and therefore can believe (reason)
that He will heal. And the same is with scientists of the entire fields, they
first, presuppose by faith that certain experiments would bring about certain
results even without any certainty.[43]
Michael
Bauman put it well; saving faith is not without its necessary
prior theological content. To become a Christian requires one to come to at
least some rudimentary conclusions about God, about Christ, about one’s own
spiritual status and need. In other words, it requires (correct) theology. Adherents
to such a view … do not seem to realize that their position actually eliminates
the possibility of saving faith because it asserts that saving faith
is the sine qua non of theology. [44]
The truth, however, is quite the
opposite because correct theology of some sort (however primitive and
unsophisticated it might be in the case of some new converts) is the sine
qua non of saving faith.
Reason and revelation function together.
God offers faith simultaneously with our understanding. Suppose that a believer
tells you that he accepts divine revelation as an epistemic standard, and that
this permits him to hold a belief in God as true.
By rejecting either revelation or reason, or under-emphasizing either side, we
are abandoning part of the apparatus that God has bestowed on us to know Him.
Only by emphasizing both revelation and reason can we cut the truth straight. So
in the end reason precedes revelation to identify that there is God, the author
of revelation and then revelation requires faith to come to it with proper obedience,
which is fairly reasonable.
4. THE PROBLEM WITH BIBLICAL REVELATION ALONE
As mentioned earlier, the doctrine of revelation
has become problematic in recent centuries because of the declining authority
of the Bible. Until the Enlightenment, nearly all Christians accepted the
Scriptures from cover to cover as the infallible Word of God. This notion has
been widely attacked and generally been abandoned by modern theologians in all
of the main-line denominations.
For example, in a systematic theology textbook
prepared at a Methodist seminary, a whole chapter is devoted to the topic
"The Fallibility of the Bible." Six
kinds of evidence are given to show that the Scriptures are not an infallible
book.[45]
It includes statements based on disproved mythology
and false science. The Bible assumes that all diseases are caused by demonic
possession, and Genesis records the folktale that snakes have no legs because
Satan took that form to tempt Eve. The Scriptures also suggest that the earth
is immovable and that the universe is earth-centered. The Bible contains
morally unworthy passages. In 1784 Wesley omitted some of the Psalms from his
Methodist prayer book because as he put it, they were "highly improper for
the mouths of a Christian congregation." The Scriptures record a gradual
evolution of ethics, and the moral standards of one part of Scripture are far
inferior to another part. Jesus did not accept the infallible authority of the
Old Testament. As the Sermon on the Mount indicates, he "unhesitatingly
and repeatedly" rejects some Old Testament teachings.[46]
According to DeWolf, this evidence proves that we
cannot believe in the verbal inspiration or infallible authority of the Bible
as a guide to either faith or morals. All one can truly say is that the
Scriptures as a whole are inspired because some passages are literary
masterpieces, some parts are religiously elevating, some of its ideas are
magnificently true; therefore the book has had an unparalleled influence over
mankind. The supreme evidence of the Scriptures’ inspiration is that they have
caused men to seek and find God.[47]
For many, modern scholars, the hold of divine authorship
of the Bible show that they have never studied it carefully or seek to
"improve" it by ingenious rationalizations. In any case, careful
Biblical scholarship for over a century has tended to undermine its authority
as literal revelation. So we need a proper use of reason to weed off the
discrepancies of the Bible and show the truth out of it more consistently and
accurately.
5. BEST
COMMUNICATION OF REVELATION NECESSITATES REASON
Professor L. Harold DeWolf of Boston University
criticized the neo-orthodox disparagement of reason in matters of doctrine. [48] We need reason, and
its function in religion is indispensable. Reason serves revelation in four
ways:
1. Reason is
required to accept revelation, because revelation comes to a rational creature
who has to relate its truth to other truths which are received through natural
means.
2. Reason is needed to decide when revelation has
occurred. Apart from reason an individual cannot decide that the authority of
the revelation he accepts is superior to other alleged revelations.
3. Reason is
required to interpret revelation and apply it to changing human situations.
4. Reason is
necessary in order to transmit (communicate) revelation to others. We have to
show that our revelation is true, and only a reasonable defense can overcome
doubts or opposition.
DeWolf is right about religion's need for reason.
For example, note how Philo of Alexandria used reason to explain the Mosaic
revelation in the Graeco-Roman world or how Justin Martyr and other early
Church Fathers relied upon reasonable explanations of their Christian beliefs
to persuade pagans.
If we claim to have new revelation beyond that
accepted by traditional Christianity, it is imperative to recognize the value
of reason. We have to show how new revelation is not completely irrational. We
must demonstrate its rational superiority to what is generally accepted. We
must point out its logical applicability to a variety of serious human
problems. Thus, for the best communication of this revelation necessitates
reason, to show the rationality and validity of Christian concept of
revelation.
6. REASON IN APOLOGETICAL
CONFRONTATION: A BIBLICAL PROBE
The task of apologetics
is not only to defend but communicating gospel more effectively to modern mind.
The Apostle Paul understood this well. In 1 Thessalonians he commands us to
"examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good".[49] This
is a remarkable passage. So certain was Paul of the reasonableness of
Christianity, he actually challenges believers to test its truth claims against
all others. If another is more rational, then you should believe it instead!
Rationality therefore becomes an important part of Christian apologetics and
Christianity in general.
The theology of revelation
requires the apologetical confrontation of speculation theories of reality and
life. The proper application of the laws of logic assists in this task. When
through apologetics alternatives theories disparage or exaggerate the nature of
reason and language, rational divine revelation reasserts the intelligibility
of the divine disclosure.
When ambiguities abound
as part of the postmodern zeitgeist as to the certitude of an
authoritative word from God, revelational epistemology proclaims that an
authoritative word exists and provides for its determination.[50]
Because apologetics at
its central part deals with truth claims, apologists are persistently examining
questions about the truth. "Is Christianity true?" "Did Jesus truly
rise from the dead?" "How can I know if God exists?" These are
all questions that ask about definitive realities. Of course there are many
people today who deny the existence of an absolute truth, but they run into larger
problems (for more on this, see our article "What is Objective
Truth").[51]
For the others, people inherently understand that the truth should be
consistent and not contradictory. In fact, contradiction is a sign that someone
is not telling the truth. Therefore, if something is true, then it will be
rational. Thus, we find bible has ample support for reason in support for
communication of the truth.
7. HISTORICAL
APOLOGETICAL APPROACHES TO THE CONFLICT
Fundamental to classical
apologetics and evidentialism are their respective approaches to epistemology,
or the theory of knowledge. Putting the matter rather broadly, classical
apologetics is indebted largely to the rationalist tradition in Western
philosophy, while evidentialism is indebted to the empiricist tradition. Now
this characterization immediately requires qualification. Few if any classical
apologists have been pure rationalists, and few (though some) evidentialists
have been thoroughgoing empiricists.[52]
Nearly all apologists of both approaches today would favor some epistemology
that combined elements of rationalism and empiricism and avoided the extremes
of both theories.
Reformed apologists, on
the other hand, believe a different approach to epistemology is in order. They
typically reject not only rationalism and empiricism but also any epistemology
that seeks to combine the two theories, as all these epistemologies in their
different ways treat human knowledge as self-sufficient or autonomous.[53] That
is, rationalism, empiricism, and other such epistemologies attempt to explain
how human beings can gain knowledge without reference to God and man’s
relationship to God. According to Van Til, there are ultimately only two kinds
of epistemologies: those that make all human knowledge dependent on God and
those that do not.[54]
However, C. Stephen Evans[55]
rejected Van Til’s Fideism as irrational fideism and to Alvin Plantinga responsible
fideists[56]
Although fideists refute
that human reason can establish or justify Christian beliefs, they do not
conclude that we should present no respond to the apologetic questions and
challenges posed by non-Christians. The irrationalist may reject such
challenges with non-replies like “Just believe,” but this is not what we mean
by fideism.[57]
Rather, fideists answer those apologetic challenges by explaining why reason is
incompetent to offer a satisfactory answer and then showing that faith does
provide a way to deal with the problem. Thus, it is known as Rationale Fideism.
8. CHRISTIAN REASONING: A
TOOL FOR AN EFFECTIVE DEFENSE AND COMMUNICATION OF THE UNIQUE
TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL
No one
has issued a more forceful challenge to Christians to become intellectually
engaged than did Charles Malik, former Lebanese ambassador to the United
States, in his address at the dedication of the Billy Graham Center in Wheaton,
Illinois. Malik emphasized that as Christians we face two tasks in our
evangelism: saving the soul and saving the mind, that is to say, not only
converting people spiritually, but converting them intellectually as well. And
the Church is lagging dangerously behind with regard to this second task. Our
churches are filled with people who are spiritually born again, but who still
think like non-Christians.[58]
If the
church loses the intellectual battle in one generation, then evangelism will
become immeasurably more difficult in the next. For the sake of greater
effectiveness in witnessing to Jesus Christ Himself, as well as for their own
sakes, evangelicals cannot afford to keep on living on the periphery of
responsible intellectual existence.
For William
Lane Craig, thinking about your faith is certainly a virtue, for it helps you
to better understand and defend your faith. But thinking about your faith is
not equivalent to doubting your faith.
Reason
can be used to guard our faith by formulating arguments for the existence of
God or by refuting objections and false belief systems against Christian faith.
But though the arguments so developed serve to back up the truth of our faith,
they are not properly the foundation of our faith, for that is supplied by the
witness of the Holy Spirit Himself. Even if there were no arguments in justification
of the faith, our faith would still have its firm foundation.
CONCLUSION
Bearing in
mind that God has the capability to reason, and we are created in His image, it
follows that God has wished-for for us to utilize our reasoning capacity to
ascertain and contemplate truth (revelation). Ultimate truths, however, can
only come via revelation. Revelation and reason cannot be alienated from the
life of the Christian. That we cannot dissociate reason from our lives in
support of ‘revelation only’ is evident from the fact that those who hold to a
‘revelation only’ view must give logical and reasonable arguments for their
standpoint. They call upon reasoning capacities to establish that their outlook
is truthful.
On the
backside, any endeavor at pure rationalism broken up from revelation is also an
unsuccessful attempt since not everything can be established by it alone.
Something is always assumed or simply believed behind every verifiable belief. That reason is essentially associated to revelation is
supported by the truth that we are called upon to choose true revelation from
counterfeit revelation (testing the spirit).[59]
How can we carry out such differentiations apart from reason, even if it is
reasoning from the Scriptures? It must be kept in mind that there is
dissimilarity between reasoning to see whether something is
revelation, or to determine what in the Bible revelation is. The
earlier one is a good attempt[60],
while the latter is not. Belief is blind and undeserving unless it
verifies whether something is revelation or not.
The
bafflement of the concept can be solved and determined by presenting the issue
from two diverse perspectives: first is epistemologically (what we know) and
second is ontologically (how we know). There is dissimilarity between the
way we discern reality and what we discern about reality.
Thus at this
time, when the wave of postmodernism attacks us from every front, every
Christian, instead holding onto their orthodoxy, need to come out from closed
worldview and take the challenge of defending their hope in Christ, as told in
Peter[61]
with all humility, thinking reason as a God-given gift, as we are created in
His image, since He is not irrational, so we are restored back in the same
image and having it proclaimed with validity and rationality and thus the truth
of the gospel message is dispensed with relevance to postmodern mind with the
evident witness of the Holy Spirit. Whereby, the great commission given by Lord
Jesus Christ comes to fulfillment when seasoned and presented with help of
Reasonable approach of Christian apologetics.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akin, Daniel
L. A Theology for the Church,
Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2007.
Bauman, Michael Pilgrim Theology, Zondervan:
Grand Rapids, 1992.
Bahnsen, Greg L. Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and
Analysis Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian
& Reformed, 1998
Copan, Paul. Is
Everything Really Relative?, Norcross: Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, 1999.
Evans, C. Stephen.
Faith Beyond Reason: A Kierkegaardian Account, Reason & Religion, Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Grenz, Stanley J. 20th-Century
Theology: God & the World in a Transitional Age, USA: Intervarsity,
1992.
Grenz, Stanley J. Revisioning Evangelical Theology,
Michigan: Intervarsity Press, 1993.
Marbaniang, Domenic. Epistemics
of Divine Reality, 2007.
Richardson, Alan.
“Fideism,” A Dictionary of Christian Theology, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969.
Rupp, George. Culture-Protestantism:
German Liberal Theology at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1977.
Williams, Rodman.
Renewal Theology: Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective, Michigan: Zondervan, 1996.
Berkhof, Louis What
Is The Word Of God? http://www.bible- researcher.com/berkhof1.html accessed on 06/08/14
Barth,
Karl Preaching http://www.christthetruth.org.uk/preachingandbarth.htm accessed on 06/08/14
Berkhof, Louis What
Is The Word Of God? http://www.bible-researcher.com/berkhof1.html accessed
on 06/08/14
Craig,
William Lane A challenge to Christians to intellectual engagement. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/in-intellectual-neutral
accessed on 16/08/14
Desantis,
Anthony John Philosophical Precursors to the Radical Enlightenment:
Vignettes on the Struggle
Between Philosophy and Theology From the Greeks to Leibniz With Special Emphasis on Spinoza http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4262&context=etd accessed
on 09/08/14
Fideist Apologetics: By
Faith Alone https://bible.org/seriespage/fideist-apologetics-faith- alone accessed on 15/08/14
Farinaccio, Joseph R. Faith
With Reason: Why Christianity Is True http://www.religioustolerance.org/faith_with_reason.pdf accessed on 15/08/14
Fiorenza,
Francis Schussler Systematic Theology: Task and Methods http://store.fortresspress.com/media/downloads/0800662911Chapter1.pdf accessed on 06/08/14
Goldsworthy,
Graeme Biblical Theology and Hermeneutics http://www.sbts.edu/resources/files/2010/07/sbjt_102_sum06-goldsworthy.pdf accessed
on 01/08/14
Guisepi, Robert Philosophy: An analysis of the
grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental
beliefs http://history-world.org/philosophy.htm
accessed on 03/08/14
George,
Timothy The Awesome Disclosure Of God http://www.firstthings.com/web- exclusives/2013/10/the-awesome-disclosure-of-god.html accessed on 05/08/14
Henry, Carl The
Drift of Western Thought, 104 cited in Ronald Nash, Revelation and Epistemology, http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-04022009- 184205/unrestricted/04chapter5.pdf accessed on 06/08/14
Journal of
Biblical Apologetics http://0101.nccdn.net/1_5/1c2/27f/2fb/JBA09.pdf
accessed on 07/08/14
Jones, Steve Calvinism Critiqued http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/calvinism.html
accessed on 06/08/14
Kim, Young Oon Unification Theology: Reason and Revelation http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/books/utheo/Utheo-2a.htm
accessed on 12/08/14
Kant, Emmanuel and Hume, David
“Morality”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-morality/
accessed on 03/08/14
Kim, Young Oon
Unification Theology: Reason and Revelation http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/books/utheo/Utheo-2a.htm accessed on 12/08/14
Mavrodes, George I. Revelation
and Epistemology
Moussa, Mark Clement Of
Alexandria:The Original Christian Philosopher http://www.coptic.net/articles/clementofalexandria.txt accessed on 09/08/14
Smith, Joseph Emil
Brunner’s Theology of Revelation http://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/index.php/landas/article/viewFile/333/329 accessed on 07/08/14
Swindal, James “Faith and
Reason”, Internet Encyclopedia Of Philosophy, http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/f/faith-re.htm
accessed on 02/08/14
Til, Cornelius Van Copernican
Revolution
http://www.christianciv.com/VT_Diagrammed.htm accessed
on 09/08/14
Thilly, Frank Romanticism
and Rationalism https://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Thilly/Thilly_1913.html accessed
on 03/08/14
Vicent, Peter Faith
and Reason: There Is Really No Conflict When Reason and Rationalism Are Defined Properly with Logic http://www.biblicalphilosophy.org/logic/reason_full_definition.asp accessed
on 04/08/14
Wright Doyle, G.
Reflections on Biblical and Christian Philosophy http://www.biblicalphilosophy.org/Critiques_Christians/CFH_Henry_by_Wright_Do yle.asp
accessed on 04/08/14
Woolford, Thomas Natural theology and natural philosophy
in the late Renaissance https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/242394/T%20A%20WOOL FORD%20PHD%20DISS%20%20Hardbound.pdf;jsessionid=7FE9F7E77DF218901 5D323 A0DD096AB2?sequence=1 accessed on 06/08/14
Wade, Rick Justin Martyr: Defender for the Church http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4226681/k.AD5C/JustinMartyrDefe nderfortheChurch.htm accessed on 09/08/14
[1] Graeme Goldsworthy Biblical Theology and Hermeneutics http://www.sbts.edu/resources/files/2010/07/sbjt_102_sum06-goldsworthy.pdf (accessed on 01/08/14).
[2]Robert Guisepi, Philosophy: An analysis of the
grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs http://history-world.org/philosophy.htm (accessed on 03/08/14)
[3] James
Swindal, “Faith and Reason”, Internet Encyclopedia Of Philosophy, par. 1
(2001 [cited 1 May 2002] ) ; available from the World Wide Web at http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/f/faith-re.htm
(accessed on 02/08/14)
[4] Kant and Hume “Morality”,
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-morality/ (accessed on
03/08/14)
[5] Frank
Thilly, Romanticism and Rationalism https://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Thilly/Thilly_1913.html (accessed
on 03/08/14)
[6] Peter
Vicent, Faith and Reason: There Is Really No Conflict When Reason and
Rationalism Are Defined Properly with Logic http://www.biblicalphilosophy.org/logic/reason_full_definition.asp
(accessed on 04/08/14)
[7] G.
Wright Doyle, Reflections on Biblical and Christian Philosophy http://www.biblicalphilosophy.org/Critiques_Christians/CFH_Henry_by_Wright_Doyle.asp
(accessed on 04/08/14)
[8] Paul
Copan, Is Everything Really Relative? (Norcross: Ravi Zacharias International
Ministries, 1999), 24-26.
[10] By J. Rodman Williams,
Renewal Theology: Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective (Michigan: Zondervan, 1996), 86.
[11] Stanley J. Grenz, Roger E. Olson, 20th-Century Theology: God & the World in a Transitional Age
(USA: Intervarsity, 1992), 292.
[12] Stanley J. Grenz
Revisioning Evangelical Theology (Michigan: Intervarsity Press, 1993),
79.
[13] Timothy George, The Awesome Disclosure Of God http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/10/the-awesome-disclosure-of-god.html (accessed on 05/08/14)
[14] Carl Henry, The Drift of Western Thought, 104 cited in
Ronald Nash, Revelation and Epistemology, http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-04022009-184205/unrestricted/04chapter5.pdf (accessed on 06/08/14)
[15] Francis Schussler Fiorenza, Systematic Theology: Task and
Methods http://store.fortresspress.com/media/downloads/0800662911Chapter1.pdf (accessed on 06/08/14)
[16]
Ramification: Complex result or consequence of an action or event. (Oxford
Dictionary)
[17] Louis Berkhof What
Is The Word Of God? http://www.bible-researcher.com/berkhof1.html (accessed on 06/08/14)
[18] Karl Barth, Preaching http://www.christthetruth.org.uk/preachingandbarth.htm (accessed on 06/08/14)
[19] Joseph
Smith, Emil Brunner’s Theology of Revelation http://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/index.php/landas/article/viewFile/333/329 (accessed on 07/08/14)
[20] Journal of Biblical Apologetics http://0101.nccdn.net/1_5/1c2/27f/2fb/JBA09.pdf (accessed on 07/08/14)
[21] Steve Jones, Calvinism Critiqued http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/calvinism.html (accessed on 06/08/14)
[22] Louis Berkhof What Is The Word Of God? http://www.bible-researcher.com/berkhof1.html (accessed on 06/08/14)
[24] Bultmann's aim is to
make the Bible meaningful today; his method is to interpret everything in the
Bible in terms of Heidegger's existentialist philosophy. Bultmann clearly
recognizes how the authority of the Bible has been weakened in our time. He
realizes that the traditional explanation of verbal revelation of Bible has no
meaning for modern man. Many agree with his goal but they do not accept
Heidegger's existentialism. Consequently, Bultmann advocates a radically new
Christianity which preserves the revealed message of the Judeo-Christian
tradition but expresses it in a form which contemporary men can understand.
However, many feel that the existentialist reinterpretation of Scripture he
works out overlooks some essential dimensions. In other words, his goal is
right but his method of attaining it seems inadequate.
[25] Thomas Woolford, Natural theology and natural philosophy
in the late Renaissance https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/242394/T%20A%20WOOLFORD%20PHD%20DISS%20%20Hardbound.pdf;jsessionid=7FE9F7E77DF2189015D323A0DD096AB2?sequence=1 (accessed on 06/08/14)
[26] RickWade Justin
Martyr: Defender for the Church http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4226681/k.AD5C/Justin_Martyr_Defender_for_the_Church.htm (accessed on 09/08/14)
[29] Mark Moussa, Clement Of Alexandria: The Original
Christian Philosopher http://www.coptic.net/articles/clementofalexandria.txt (accessed on 09/08/14)
[30] Anthony John Desantis, Philosophical Precursors to the
Radical Enlightenment: Vignettes on the Struggle Between Philosophy and
Theology From the Greeks to Leibniz With Special Emphasis on Spinoza http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4262&context=etd (accessed on 09/08/14)
[32]
Cornelius Van Til, Copernican Revolution http://www.christianciv.com/VT_Diagrammed.htm (accessed on 09/08/14).
[33] Rational fideism is
the philosophical view that considers faith to be precursor for
any reliable knowledge.
Whether one considers rationalism or empiricism,
either of them ultimately tends to belief in reason or experience respectively as the absolute basis for their methods. Thus,
faith is basic to knowability. However, as Domenic Marbaniang shows, faith must
be corroborated with reason and experience in order to gain knowledge.
(Wikipedia)
[35] Jason Dulle, What is the Relationship of Reason to
Revelation? http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/reasonrevelation.htm (accessed on 10/08/14)
[37] James 2:19
[38] Domenic
Marbaniang, Epistemics of Divine Reality (2007) 164-67.
[40] George I.
Mavrodes, Revelation and Epistemology
[43] Jason
Dulle, What is the Relationship of Reason to Revelation? http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/reasonrevelation.htm (accessed on 10/08/14)
[44] Michael Bauman, Pilgrim
Theology (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1992), 53.
[45] Young
Oon Kim, Unification Theology: Reason and Revelation http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/books/utheo/Utheo-2a.htm (accessed on 12/08/14)
[46] Ibid, http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/books/utheo/Utheo-2a.htm (accessed on 12/08/14)
[47] L. H. DeWolf, A Theology of the Living Church, cited in Daniel
L. Akin, A Theology for the Church,
(Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2007), 71.
[48] Young
Oon Kim, Unification Theology: Reason and Revelation http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/books/utheo/Utheo-2a.htm (accessed on 12/08/14)
[49] I
Thessalonians 5:21
[50] Joseph R. Farinaccio, Faith With Reason:
Why Christianity Is True http://www.religioustolerance.org/faith_with_reason.pdf (accessed
on 15/08/14)
[52] Greg L.
Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis (Phillipsburg,
N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1998), 73 cited in https://bible.org/seriespage/fideist-apologetics-faith-alone (accessed
on 15/08/14)
[53] Alan
Richardson, “Fideism,” A Dictionary of Christian Theology, ed. Alan
Richardson (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 129.
[54] George
Rupp, Culture-Protestantism: German Liberal Theology at the Turn of the
Twentieth Century (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1977), 109.
[55] C.
Stephen Evans, Faith Beyond Reason: A Kierkegaardian Account, Reason &
Religion (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), especially 52, 55.
[56] As here defined,
fideism (pronounced FID-ee-ism or sometimes fi-DAY-ism) is an approach to
apologetics that argues that the truths of faith cannot and should not be
justified rationally. Or, to look at it another way, fideists contend that the
truths of Christianity are properly apprehended by faith alone. The word
fideism derives from the Latin fide (pronounced FI-day), meaning “faith,” and so
in a general sense means a position that assigns some kind of priority to
faith. Although fideists often speak of Christian truth as “above” or “beyond”
or even “against” reason, they do not maintain that the truths of Christianity
are actually irrational. Rather, by “reason” they mean human reason or
rationality, the use of reason by the human mind. Essential to the case for
fideism is the belief that some truths of Christianity are beyond our capacity
to understand or express in a logically definitive fashion.
[57] Fideist
Apologetics: By Faith Alone https://bible.org/seriespage/fideist-apologetics-faith-alone (accessed
on 15/08/14)
[58] William Lane Craig, A challenge to Christians to
intellectual engagement. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/in-intellectual-neutral (accessed on 16/08/14)
[59] I John 4:1-2
[60] Acts 17:11
[61] 1 Peter
3:15
0 comments:
Post a Comment