The problem with Christian rationalism. According to Van Til, the difficulty with other Christian views of faith and reason is that they exalt reason over God. They ground God in reason, rather than recognizing the truth that reason is based on God. The existence of the sovereign God of Christianity is the most basic assumption in a Christian system of
philosophy. God is the creator of human reason. Hence, all reason must be His humble servant, not His master. Reason stands under God’s judgment but never sits in judgment of God. God’s revelation, then, will always be over man’s reason, never the reverse.
God is not subject to laws of logic. The view held by many Christians that God is subject to the law of non-contradiction is rejected by Van Til. Logic applies only to the created, not to the Creator. God is sovereign over all—even over the laws of thought. According to Van Til, the Christian must never capitulate the transcendence of God to anything, even to the most fundamental rules of human reason.
The proper use of human reason. If one must presuppose the truth of revelation and hold that the law of non-contradiction does not apply to God, how does Van Til escape the
“revelation only” position? What rule is there for reason as it relates to divine revelation?
Van Til claims that God’s revelation is not God. Since God transcends His revelation, it is not inconsistent to hold that logic applies to the revelation but not to God Himself. Further, Van Til uses reason as a servant of the revelation and even, to borrow the title of one of his books, “In Defense of the Faith.”
In a succinct summary of his position, called “My Credo,” Van Til argued that other Christian thinkers were not sufficiently rational. That is, they did not carry reason far enough. He declared, “The traditional method … compromises God himself by maintaining that existence is only ‘possible’ albeit ‘highly probable,’ rather than ontologically and
‘rationally’ necessary.”
In view of this, many followers of Van Til see his system as a kind of transcendental argument which contends that it is absolutely necessary to presuppose the divine revelation in the Bible before one can consistently think, communicate, do science, or make any sense out of life or his world. It does seem most fair to understand Van Til as one who does not negate reason but simply exalts revelation above it. What Van Til is vigorously opposed to is the opposite, that is, exalting reason above revelation. Human reason must never stand in judgment of God or His revelation in Scripture.
Revelation and Reason
The last category comprises those Christians who believe there is an interrelationship between revelation and reason. Two great thinkers stand in this tradition: Augustine and Aquinas. The difference between them is largely a matter of emphasis.
Saint Augustine
Augustine (354–430) came to Christianity from a background of Platonic philosophy, while Aquinas wrote in an Aristotelian tradition. Both men, however, believed the scriptural injunction (from the Septuagint, Isaiah 7:9), “Unless you believe, you will not understand.” The basic relation of reason and revelation is that the thinking Christian attempts to render the credible intelligible. He tries to reason about and within his revelation. There is even a sense in which one can reason for revelation, though never against it.
Faith is understanding’s step. In Augustine’s words, “faith is understanding’s step.”
Without faith first one would never come to a full understanding of God’s truth. Faith initiates one into knowledge. In this sense Augustine fully believed that faith in God’s revelation is prior to human reason. On the other hand, Augustine also held that no one ever believes something before he has some understanding of what it is he is to believe. In fact, Augustine asserted that no one should believe a revelation which he has not first judged by good reason to be worthy of belief. He said, “Authority demands belief and prepares man for reason. … But reason is not entirely absent from authority, for we have got to consider whom we have to believe, and the highest authority belongs to truth when it is clearly known.” But since Augustine believed that faith is prior to reason, it seems best to entitle his view “revelation and reason.”
Understanding is faith’s reward. While Augustine believed that “faith is understanding’s step” he also held that “understanding is faith’s reward.” The reward for accepting God’s revelation by faith is that one has a fuller and more complete understanding of truth than he could have otherwise. Indeed, taking from revelation insight into the nature of the unchangeable God and man’s mutable mind, one can devise a valid proof for God’s existence which borrows no premise from God’s revelation. The proof “stands on its own two feet” philosophically, although one would perhaps never understand this proof apart from the revelation of God in Scripture. The “proof” goes something like this:
(1) My mind understands some immutable truths (such as 7 + 3 = 10).
(2) But my mind is not immutable.
(3) A mutable mind cannot be the ground of immutable truths.
(4) Hence, there must be an Immutable Mind (that is. God).
The philosophical “understanding” of God that comes via this proof is by no means the only kind of understanding into which one is inaugurated by faith, but it is one kind.
According to Augustine, faith is a prerequisite for the full understanding of God’s revelation. A partial understanding of the basic content of the gospel is, of course, necessary before one can believe it, but the full understanding of Christian truth is subsequent to saving faith. Fallen man’s sinfulness obscures his ability to see the truth before saving faith is exercised.
Thomas Aquinas
Aquinas (1224–1274) considered himself to be a faithful follower of Augustine. Many philosophers hold that the basic difference between them is that Aquinas took the Christian truth of Augustine and put it in the terminology of Aristotle (rather than the terminology of Plato which Augustine used). In addition to this there does appear to be a shift in emphasis, for Aquinas does stress the role of reason more than Augustine; at least he speaks more about it.
God’s existence can be proven. Aquinas recognized that not all men can prove the
existence of God. This is so for many reasons. First of all the mind is finite, and second it is fallible. In addition most men do not have the time or inclination to engage in the arduous task of elaborating a philosophical proof. For these reasons, said Aquinas, it is necessary for men to first believe in God’s existence—otherwise few men would possess the
knowledge of God. According to Aquinas, belief that God exists is necessary because “the investigation of the human intellect for the most part has falsity present with it. … That is why it was necessary that the unshakeable certitude and pure truth concerning divine things should be presented to men by way of faith.” In short, Aquinas held that man is subject to the noetic effects of sin, that is, the influence of sin on his mind. “We are bound to many things that are not within our power without healing grace—for example to love God or neighbor. The same is true of believing in the articles of faith.” But, continues Thomas, “with the help of grace we do have this power.”
Despite the influences of sin, by faith in God’s revelation man receives the God-given ability to overcome this deficiency. For “sin cannot destroy man’s rationality altogether, for then he would no longer be capable of sin.” Aquinas held that with the aid of revelation man can come to understand certain truths about God and even “prove” them
philosophically.
Thomas listed “Five Ways” God’s existence can be proven, most important of which is the following “Cosmological Argument.”
(1) Finite, changing things exist.
(2) Every finite, changing thing must be caused by another.
(3) There cannot be an infinite regress of these causes.
(4) Therefore, there must be a first uncaused cause of every finite, changing thing that exists.
Aquinas believed this argument stood validly on philosophically justifiable premises which were not borrowed from revelation. The fact is, however, that no philosophy has ever devised such a proof for the Christian God without first being influenced by the revelation of God in the Bible.
Supernatural truths are known only by faith. Not only is faith prior to reason or understanding God’s nature, but some truths of God, such as the Trinity and other
mysteries of the faith, are knowable only by faith. We may know that God exists by reason, but we know that there are three persons in one God only by faith.
Revelation alone is basis for belief in God. Aquinas is emphatic that the only true basis for believing in God is divine authority or revelation. According to Thomas, “It is necessary for man to receive by faith not only things which are above reason, but also those which can be known by reason. …” The best that reason can do is to show that God exists; divine
authority is the only ground for believing in God. Reason and evidence bear on “belief that,
“ but not on “belief m.” Aquinas held that one “would not believe [that] unless he saw that [the revelation is] worthy of belief on the basis of evident signs or something of the sort.”
On the other hand, neither unbelievers nor demons believe in God, even though they believe that God exists.
Reasonable evidence is support for belief. Faith in God is not based on evidence but on the authority of God Himself through His revelation. Nevertheless, the believer does find reasonable support for his faith in experiential and historical evidences and miracles. As we
have noted (chap. 5), faith is more meritorious (Heb. 11:6) but reason is more noble for a believer (Acts 17:11). Even though one cannot reason to belief in God, he can find reasons for it. In fact faith may be defined as “the ability to reason with assent.” In this way, Aquinas was apparently in accord with Augustine concerning the interrelated-ness of reason and revelation.
Faith is prior to reason philosophically; no non-Christian ever offered proofs for the Christian God. Yet reason is prior to faith personally; one does not believe in a God or His alleged Word if he has no evidence that it is true.
Conclusion
In the final analysis there is an essential agreement among Christians on the relationship between faith and reason. Most believers attempt to render the credible intelligible. Most reason about or for their faith, even if they do not claim to reason to it.
The Impossibility of Total Separation
Any attempt to totally disjoin reason and revelation seems unfruitful if not impossible. Even those who hold strongly to a “revelation only” view provide arguments or reasons of some kind to support it. By the same token, any attempt at pure rationalism is frustrated by the fact that everything cannot be proved; something is always presupposed or simply believed.
The pure revelationist must recognize that there must be some way of distinguishing a false revelation from a true one. Even the Bible commands the believer to “test the spirits”
and “beware of false prophets.” But how can one “test” for truth without some truth test?
There is, however, an important distinction to make between the use of reason to
discover whether something is a revelation of God or not (which is legitimate) and the use of rationalism to determine what in the Bible is revelation and what is not (which is not
legitimate). Belief is unworthy and blind unless it tests whether, but it is unjustifiably dogmatic if it attempts to determine what in the revelation is or is not true. For it is foolhardy to believe everything without reason, and it is arrogant to assume everything must be acceptable to our reason before we can accept it as God’s Word.
The Basic Confusion: Belief In and Belief That
It seems that much of the debate among Christians concerning which view of faith and reason is correct depends on which view of “faith” one takes. Those stressing “faith in” seem to be correct that one needs no reason for it. If God Himself is not a sufficient ground for believing in Him, then no amount of rational proof will help. The only “reason” anyone should believe in God, say these Christians, is that He is God. On the other hand, if one is speaking about “faith that” God exists, it would seem that evidence or reason does bear on this question. For how does one know that it is God speaking (rather than one’s own imagination) unless he has some way to distinguish truth from falsity?
“Belief that” seems to be logically prior to “belief in.” Surely no thinking person should
“believe in” something if he has no reason to “believe that” it is. Who would march down a
church aisle and say “I do” (belief in) before a congregation if he has no evidential or rational grounds for “believing that” someone he loved stood next to him at the altar?
Epistemology and Ontology
There is a difference between the way we know reality (epistemology) and what we know about reality (ontology). The “revelation only” proponents appear to be ontologically correct that God is the ground of all truth. If God exists and is the source of all truth, then of course all truths come from “the top down.” However, epistemologically we must start from “the bottom up” and discover whether or not God does indeed exist. In the epistemological sense, then, reason is prior to revelation, since reason must be used to evaluate whether or not the Bible is indeed a
revelation. Once this question is settled, then reason cannot be legitimately used to reject any of that revelation. Reason must take its place under revelation and not stand in judgment over it.
There is some truth in all of the basic views on reason and revelation:
(1) “Reason is over revelation” is correct in that reason is epistemologically prior to revelation. The alleged revelation must be tested by reason.
(2) “Revelation is over reason” is right in the ontological sense. God created reason and it must be His servant, not His master.
(3) “Revelation only” is correct in the sense that ultimately and ontologically all truth comes from God.
(4) “Reason only” has some truth, since reason must judge epistemologically whether the alleged revelation is from God.
(5) “Revelation and reason” is correct because it properly assigns a role to each and shows their interrelationship. One should reason about and for revelation, otherwise he has an unreasonable faith. Likewise, reason has no guide without a revelation and flounders in error.
Suggested Readings
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa contra Gentiles, 1 Augustine, St. On True Religion
Geisler, N. L. Christian Apologetics, part one Holmes, Arthur. Faith Seeking Understanding Van Til, Cornelius. Defense of the Faith
18
What Is Meant by “God”?
While most people have a belief in God, their concepts of God vary greatly. Basically, there are five different ways to view God: (1) Theism holds to a God who is both beyond and in the world (God is transcendent and immanent); (2) Deism believes God is beyond but not in the world (God is transcendent but not immanent, at least not in any
supernatural way); (3) Pantheism believes God is in the world but not beyond it; in fact.
God is the world (God is immanent in the universe but not transcendent over it); (4) Panentheism contends that God is in the universe the way a soul is in a body. That is, the universe is God’s “body” and God is the “soul” of the universe; (5) Finite godism believes that God is beyond the universe but is not in supreme control of it (as opposed to theism);
the universe is not God’s “body” (as opposed to panentheism).
There are, of course, many variations within these five basic categories of belief. For example, some finite godists believe there is only one finite god (finite monotheism); others believe there are many finite gods with one who is supreme among them (henotheism); and still others believe there are many finite gods, each with his own sphere of activity
(polytheism). But for purposes of classification we may think primarily about five different concepts of “God.”