Contact: nikhilrajgupta09@gmail.com

Love in the Supreme Ethics

Tuesday 19 May 2015

RISING PREDICAMENT OF REASON AND REVELATION CONFLICT: HIGHLIGHTING THE USAGE OF RATIONAL FIDEISM IN CHRISTENDOM FOR AN EFFECTIVE APOLOGETICAL COMMUNICATION OF THE GOSPEL




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]
Immanuel Kant held to this view. He believed that we must sieve the Scripture through reason.[23] This necessitated his denial of miracles, demon possession, the resurrection of Christ, etc. so same did the Bultmann, known as De-mythologization.[24]
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.
At the same time, it is idiotic to believe everything without involving reason to check its believability or reliability, but likewise it is egotistical to presume that everything must be believed by our reason before it can be accepted as God’s Word, or truth.
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
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
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.
[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)

[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: