Not long before his death in 1274 Thomas Aquinas wrote: “All that I have written seems like straw to me.”[1] This seems to be the lot of many of those seeking, by wisdom and intellect, to fathom the depths of the divine through reason and logic—and this from a man who wrote, by hand, over a million words. Of course, to suggest that ‘reason’ and ‘logic’ have no place in the task of the apologist is nonsense—of course they do [that is] because the Christian faith is a ‘reasonable faith’—and yet, ‘…we walk by faith, not by sight.’(2 Corinthians 5:7). But, the words of the apostle Peter (1 Peter 3:15) remind Christians that they are to be ready to give an account for the reason for their faith in the eternal Son of God, and in His glorious, redeeming, gospel.
In this article, we shall take a brief look at the relationship between faith and reason in [a bit of] the history of apologetics—with the idea of producing a small amount of ‘joined up writing’ id est between Faith and Reason
Before giving examples of those ‘ancients’ who lived by faith, the writer to the Hebrews states the following: “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists.” (Hebrews 11:1 and 11:6 NIV).[2]
Preachers often refer to the allegedly true story of a young boy’s definition of faith—that, ‘Faith is believing something you know isn’t true’ [3] This is, of course, a travesty—a total distortion of the biblical definition of faith. Faith is not an irrational leap in the dark neither is it believing something that has no bearing on facts—historical or otherwise. Biblical faith is, I suggest: believing the truth. It is because of the defence of truth that we have apologetics. Faith need not be an irrational leap in the dark—a leap into the unknown maybe—but that is not the same thing at all. In relation to the ‘leap in the dark mentality’ Francis Schaeffer [’68—prophetically][4] suggests that modern man [now post-modern man] has come to his [present] position because he has accepted a new attitude to truth.
Of course, any new attitude to anything does not arise in a vacuum—it happens over time—in this case through the influence of academics and intellectuals—and, of course, let’s not forget the Media (NB. I am writing this #Post Brexit #Trumped). In order to see this new attitude to truth in perspective Francis Schaeffer
(NB. written in the sixties) made these truly prophetic comments:
The modern view of truth drives a wedge between the Greek and Jewish views, but it does so at the wrong point. Those who hold the modern view would picture the Greeks as holding to rational truth and the Jews as being existentialists…The Jewish concept is separated from the Greek in that the Jewish was rooted in space-time history and not just a balanced system.
![Francis_Schaeffer [pic]](https://djwimago.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/francis_schaeffer-pic.jpg?w=300&h=357)
Faith and obedience, as the form of all true human knowing of God are a gift bestowed by God in the event of revelation itself. Here too, though, we are dealing not with a permanently bestowed condition of receptivity and response, but with a capacity created in the happening of divine self-giving. God, through the creative agency of the Spirit, draws us into communion with himself, and in doing so lifts us up beyond the limits of our own natural capacity into the self-transcending circle of the knowledge of God. Faith, that is to say, as and when it arises, is not a capacity which we bring to and with which we meet and respond to God’s revelation: faith is itself a form which that revelation assumes within the reality of historical existence. No satisfactory account can be given of its possibility in purely human or historical terms. Apart from God’s creative and redemptive act it has no existence.[6]
Barth has an incredible way of stating the obvious, particularly in terms of God’s sovereignty: how ‘the gift of faith’ transposes to the individual: ’Faith is a gift of God’. Barth does this without the danger of being accused, by the [then] ‘liberal elite’, of making absolute claims for the inerrancy/ historical reliability of the Scriptures. One could, in fact, argue that this was the genius of Barth. Indeed, I am rather enamored by Barth’s captivating use of theological discourse to make his position as a reformed theologian clear. I am aware, of course, that Barth was/is considered to be a Liberal by some.
In a ‘lecture to philosophy students[7]: 2001’, Dr.Warwick Montgomery commented that, “Barth’s view of ‘history’ was simply that we need not look for logical events taking place in a chronological fashion. The main ‘supernatural events’—events that were crucial to the orthodoxy of the Christian faith needed not be subject to the judgement of liberal theology. According to Montgomery the reason that Barth invented his ‘Supra History’ [8] was that he wanted to protect the crucial events in Christian theology from the attacks of the prevailing liberal assault on any notion of truth. I’d call this: ‘the finer end of apologetics’.
NB.I agree with Montgomery,when he says[9] that, ‘The word of God cannot be identified with any frail human attempt to comprehend it.’
Karl Barth, for obvious ‘reasons’ and an aversion to Natural Theology—as do many[10] present-day proponents of Theistic Evolution. According to R.C .Sproul et el: “Natural theology, which is derived from general revelation, stands as a polar opposite to fideism in matters of philosophy and theology. Where natural theology asserts that people can and do gain valid knowledge of God by means of natural reason reflecting upon natural revelation, fideism asserts that God can be known only by faith. Fideism as an ‘ism’ does not merely assert that faith is crucial to Christianity. The ‘ism’ of fideism negates a knowledge of God via natural theology. It denies man’s ability to know God except by faith.”[11]
It is thought by some that Augustine of Hippo, because of his past experience with the anicheans[12] drifted into a kind of fideism[13]:
During his time as a Manichean, Augustine came to see that, although this sect had promised reasons for their teachings, in actuality he was being asked to accept some rather fantastic accounts of reality without any reasons being offered. Irrational and unverifiable tales were offered for belief solely on the authority of Mani [‘founder’] and the Manichean teachers. Augustine saw that they asked for acceptance on their authority, even while they spoke of the necessity of reason.[14]
R.C. Sproul et el[15] site Augustine’s comments in ‘Confessions’ as evidence for this—of how the Lord had been ‘drawing’ him, ‘calming’ him and ‘persuading’ him through the work of the Spirit within him ‘not by reason but by God’s Holy Spirit’. The argument is that it was, ‘possibly’, as a result of this experience, that Augustine gave the impression that he held ‘faith over reason’. Augustine does not, however, seem to subordinate reason in order to support blind faith. In one of his letters, (Epistle 120 A.D. 410)—written in response to Consentius[16] ) Augustine clearly spells out the role of reason prior to and following faith. He says that faith ought to precede reason because this itself is reasonable. Augustine further responded to Consentius by warning him not to underestimate reason—‘though ‘on the point of salvation, which we cannot grasp by reason, let faith precede reason—in the provisional sense.’[17] In other words ‘leave room for the apologetic task, which is reasonable’. If I understand it correctly Augustine does not suggest that faith has to precede reason but that it ought to precede it because of faith’s reasonableness. Of course, the object of faith has to be considered before any possibility of faith in ‘it’, doesn’t it—unless it is dropped into the ‘psyche’[18].
Faith, for some, may be a ‘fluid’ even evolutionary thing. Without doubt Augustine’s faith grew—this surely being the result of growing evidence for faith rather than the opposite.
Faith & Reason
So, what can be said when comparing reasonableness and existential leaps in the dark or ‘experiences’ that produce faith?
These experiences have been interpreted in an anti-intellectualist sense. The Pragmatist school regards reasoning as completely determined by its relevance to purpose or interest. And, again, many philosophers (Kant[19], the Modernists, and many Protestant theologians under the influence of Schleiermacher[20]) have exaggerated the dualism between head and heart. Nature is an ordered cosmos of which we form a part, so that every object in it has a ‘practical’ bearing on our lives, is connected with our rational, sensitive, or natural appetency. The known is never completely out of resonance with our volitions and emotions. To affirm anything, or to reason about a subject, is at once to take up a position before it.St. Thomas urged against the pseudo-mystics and Augustinians of all ages, volition is possible only in so far as it includes cognition; and, we may add, emotion is a mode of experience, only inasmuch as it presupposes knowledge.[21] [22] C.J. Chaput
Faith in the Christ may not be the result of intellectual enquiry or unequivocal legal evidence, it may be a step into the unknown, but it ought not to be a question of avoiding the historical quest— i.e. avoiding the facts by taking the route of the ‘supra’ history of Barthian philosophy. Rather, faith is based on, what Schaefer referred to as—‘the space time intervention of the Triune God’—id est the God who gave himself for us in the person of Jesus Christ.
Those who adhere to a presuppositional kind of ‘apologetic’ may be said to—go beyond reason to faith. A Christian presuppositionalist is one who presupposes God’s existence and argues from that perspective to show the validity of the Christian gospel, presupposing the truth of the Christian Scriptures. Presuppositionalism relies on the validity and power of the gospel to change lives. This could be said to mean that no matter how convincing the evidence or good the logic, an unbeliever could not come to faith because his fallen nature would distort his perception of the truth. The only thing that could possibly change him would be regeneration[23]; to this end, the presuppositionalist seeks to change a person’s presuppositions to be in conformity with biblical revelation. This is where ‘grace may abound’ or ‘may not’! [24]
Aristotle’s Influence:
By about 1270 Aristotle had become established as ‘the philosopher’.His ideas came to dominate theological thinking. Through the influence of such as Aquinas and Scotus[25] Aristotle’s ideas became established as the best means of consolidating and developing Christian Theology. A. McGrath [26]
In his lectures on the history of apologetics Warwick Montgomery confirms Aquinas’ commitment to the ‘ideas’ of Aristotle, stating that by the thirteenth century, there had been a shift in prevailing philosophical opinions. Plato had been replaced by Aristotle as the prominent philosopher. Aquinas, then, was deeply committed to Aristotle’s thought.[27] With regard to the influence of Aristotle on Aquinas, McGrath [‘98] [28]states that, “If you can agree with the Aristotelian ideas presented in this writing, then you ought to become a Christian.”
Scotus does not, as is often asserted, maintain that science and faith can contradict each other, or that a proposition may be true in philosophy and alse in theology and vice versa. Incorrect, also, is the statement that he attaches little importance to showing the harmony between scientific knowledge and faith and that he has no regard for speculative theology. Quite the contrary, he proves the dogmas of faith not only from authority but, as far as possible, from reason also. Scotus simply believes that many philosophical and theological proofs of other cholars are not conclusive; in their stead he adduces other arguments. He also thinks that many philosophical and theological propositions can be proved which ther scholastics consider incapable of demonstration.[29]
So, we may ask of men like Aquinas and Scotus: Were they defending Aristotelian reason or were they defending the faith as given in the Apostle’s creed[30] ? McCarty suggests that, “Scotus is no precursor of Luther; he emphasizes ecclesiastical tradition and authority, the freedom of the will, the power of our reason, and the co-operation with grace.”
The apostle Paul gives a stern warning in 1 Corinthians 1:12-15: that we all have to give an account—even the wise men of this age and any other! Thomas Aquinas ‘regarded thought as an alloy’[31]: of the teaching of the bible, the traditions of the church and philosophy; especially that of the recently rediscovered Aristotle (whom Aquinas obligingly but regularly refers to as the philosopher. It’s not that Aquinas, in his writings, denies the need for faith, indeed elsewhere in Aquinas’ writings it is clear that, truth, faith and reason must go hand in hand. For Aquinas faith is the act of self-commitment, which in turn ‘puts a man into a right relationship with God[32].
The apostle says: “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and the ruler of the kingdom of the air….” [Ephesians 2:1] “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not of yourselves, it is a gift of God…” [Ephesians 28]
Alister McGrath[33] sites Anselm[34] as being the man who gave (added) to the fundamental belief that the Christian faith was indeed rational[35] or within reason. It was Archbishop Anselm who gave Christian apologetics two important sayings: fides quaerens intellectum [faith seeking understanding] and credo ut intellegam [ I believe in order that I may understand]. It is my own personal conviction that we can argue from an intellectually respectable position and from a Biblical perspective—should there be a distinction. Surely there is no contradiction when our Christian faith—based on truth—seeks knowledge of its reasonableness; nor is there a conflict of intellectual interest when, with Anslem, we state that we believe in order to understand. Sure, we may not have explored all the avenues of ‘humanistic reason’ before committing to faith but we had, at least some of us, received information of the object of faith—though that was not my particular experience at all. Indeed, my atheistic world-view (presuppositions) would not have, on the surface, allowed me to engage with any reason whatsoever—especially as, from my materialistic perspective, there is no ‘reason’ whatsoever to suppose that ‘life’ was anything other than directionless—and nothing but the ‘sum total of atoms and particles’—‘driven along’ by the unseen hand of chance and necessity. Yet, there has to have been a reasonableness of the proposition of faith—something that ‘broke through’ into my cherished world-view. It wasn’t, as I’ve already alluded to, that I was able to accept the resurrection of Christ or of any likelihood of postmortem existence for myself—yet there was a reasonableness to the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth that provoked my interest and led to my professing faith in Christ. My belief in the resurrection and my love for apologetics came later—as indeed did my use of the expression ‘High Probability Faith’—an expression that I use when referring to the veracity of the apologetic argument. Moreover, there was a certain winsomeness in the lives of those who gave their love and time to one who was a ‘most unlikely candidate’ for faith. It follows then that having faith in the person of Christ, and seeing—albeit incomprehensively—‘through a glass darkened’ (as the apostle Paul suggests in 1 Corinthians 13:12) yet reasonably—that there is, indeed, substance to ‘believing in it’, we move in our walk of faith—moving from the shadows of past uncertainties into the ever increasing encouragements proffered by historical evidences and clarifications made through the lens of scientific enquiry—encouraged by our ‘encounter with the living Lord Jesus Christ’—we move on, by God’s grace, to understand more than we did before making the commitment of faith. The apostle Paul says, “Who hopes for what he already has?”[Romans 8:24 NIV]. The writer to the Hebrews says that faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. [Hebrews 11:1]
Endnotes:
[1] McGrath. A [1998] Historical Theology (p115) Blackwell quoted from Summa Theologiae [1266]
[2] Interestingly, according to Matthew it was Christ himself who chastised those with ‘little’ faith (Matthew 6:30).
[3] unknown source
[4] Schaeffer. F A [1968] Escape from Reason (92) IVP
[5] The problem of the credibility of the biblical narrative is still with us albeit from a post-modern perspective. Of course, unbelief is nevertheless unbelief – the dead are still dead.
[6] Hart. Trevor [1999] Regarding Karl Barth (p 16) Paternoster Press
[7] The author being one such student—BA Hons Philosophy & Apologetics (1st Class)
[8] Latin for:above,beyond, before time
[9] Montgomery. J.W The Suicide of Christian Theology (105) Trinity Press
[10] It is, in my opinion, the majority of persons (scientists or otherwise) who hold to a theistic-evolutionary view of ‘creation’,that have great difficulty in offering an account of the ‘natural world’ that allows room for any kind of intervention by an ‘outside source’—even with regards to any possible goal (telos) by the Deity.
[11] Sproul. R C,Gerstner. J & Lindsley. A [1984] Classical Apologetics (p.27) Zondervan
[12] Manichaeism: a kind of 3rd century pluralism, which taught that there were various ‘men of God’ – with authority – with an anointing and an unquestionable authority. Dualistic.
[13] Fideism: the teaching that faith precedes reason with regard to actual knowledge of God; reason being considered metaphysically incompetent – latter protagonist Louis Bautain 1796-1867.
[14] Sproul. R C,Gerstner. J & Lindsley. A [1984] Classical Apologetics (p.190) Zondervan
[15] ibid
[16] Consentius: a monk who had written to Augustine concerning Christological and Trinitarian questions. Consentius held to the view that ‘divine faith was to be grasped by faith rather than by reason
[17] Sproul. R C,Gerstner. J & Lindsley. A [1984] Classical Apologetics (p.192) Zondervan
[18] This is not meant to be a facetious remark. The writer is a firm believer in the mystery of regeneration.
[19] Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant is among the most influential philosophers of the enlightenment period. Kant was professor of logic and reason at the university of Konigsberg,Germany. Among other works Kant produced ‘The Critique of Pure Reason’.
[20] Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher 18th Century German theologian, philosopher, and biblical scholar known for his attempt to reconcile the criticisms of the Enlightenment with traditional Protestant Christianity. Schleiermacher is known as the ‘father’ of modern liberalism
[21] Living the Catholic Faith : Rediscovering the Basics
by Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop Charles, O.F.M. Cap
[22] Charles Joseph Chaput, a graduate of philosophy and psychology, is the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Philadelphia, USA.
[23] D.J. White: Regeneration & The Baptism in The Spirit [paper 2017] :
Palingensia: The word simply means ‘new birth’ palin (again) gensia [genesis] (birth). Palingensia is used of spiritual regeneration in, Titus 3:5 – meaning the communication of new life. Regeneration is the theological term for the Christian’s “new” or “second” birth in Christ. By definition, regeneration is the act of God by which He imparts divine life to man upon the single condition of faith in Jesus Christ as personal Saviour. The same word is used in Matthew 19:28, but isn’t used in any other that may be taken to refer to this ‘regeneration’. Several words and phrases in the Bible express the concept of regeneration. The following passages show how frequently the doctrine of regeneration is found in the Bible: John 3:7 the words “born again” express regeneration. Ephesians. 2:5, the words “made alive” refer to regeneration, the new life.2 Corinthians. 5:17, the words “new creation” speak of the new birth 1 John 3:1,2, the expression “children of God” refers to regeneration.
[24] NB. I hold to the view of God’s sovereign choice in election—because of the teaching of Scripture and because of my conviction of the fallen nature of Imago Dei: man’s inability to save himself.
[25] Duns Scotus, John 1266-1308
[26] McGrath. A [1998] Historical Theology (118) Blackwell
[27] lectures by Dr Warwick Montgomery on ‘The History of Apologetics Through the Ages’
[28] McGrath. A [1998] Historical Theology (119) Blackwell
[29] PARTHENIUS MINGES Transcribed by Rick McCarty
[30] The Apostle’s Creed
[31] It’s interesting to note the origin of the word ‘alloy’ – from alligére, [to combine] from ligére – meaning ‘to blind’ Collins English Dictionary (Millennium Edition)
[32] This isn’t the place to consider the order of salvation
[33] McGrath. A [1998] Historical Theology (118) Blackwell
[34] Anselm was a monk and abbot of Bec in Normandy before becoming the Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093-1109. Anselm’s major works included: ‘Monologion’,’Proslogion’ and ‘Why God Became Man’. He coined the phrase Cogito Ergo Sum (I think therefore I am) as well as Dubito Ergo Sum (I doubt therefore I am).’Anselm of Canterbury The Major Works’ is an Oxford World’s Classic published by OUP
[35] From the Latin ratio [reason]. I take this to mean an object that is reasonable – not beyond reason.
[1] McGrath. A [1998] Historical Theology (p115) Blackwell quoted from Summa Theologiae [1266]
[1] Interestingly, according to Matthew it was Christ himself who chastised those with ‘little’ faith (Matthew 6:30).
[1] unknown source
[1] Schaeffer. F A [1968] Escape from Reason (92) IVP
[1] The problem of the credibility of the biblical narrative is still with us albeit from a post-modern perspective. Of course, unbelief is nevertheless unbelief – the dead are still dead.
[1] Hart. Trevor [1999] Regarding Karl Barth (p 16) Paternoster Press
[1] The author being one such student—BA Hons Philosophy & Apologetics (1st Class)
[1] Latin for:above,beyond, before time
[1] Montgomery. J.W The Suicide of Christian Theology (105) Trinity Press
[1] It is, in my opinion, the majority of persons (scientists or otherwise) who hold to a theistic-evolutionary view of ‘creation’,that have great difficulty in offering an account of the ‘natural world’ that allows room for any kind of intervention by an ‘outside source’—even with regards to any possible goal (telos) by the Deity.
[1] Sproul. R C,Gerstner. J & Lindsley. A [1984] Classical Apologetics (p.27) Zondervan
[1] Manichaeism: a kind of 3rd century pluralism, which taught that there were various ‘men of God’ – with authority – with an anointing and an unquestionable authority. Dualistic.
[1] Fideism: the teaching that faith precedes reason with regard to actual knowledge of God; reason being considered metaphysically incompetent – latter protagonist Louis Bautain 1796-1867.
[1] Sproul. R C,Gerstner. J & Lindsley. A [1984] Classical Apologetics (p.190) Zondervan
[1] ibid
[1] Consentius: a monk who had written to Augustine concerning Christological and Trinitarian questions. Consentius held to the view that ‘divine faith was to be grasped by faith rather than by reason
[1] Sproul. R C,Gerstner. J & Lindsley. A [1984] Classical Apologetics (p.192) Zondervan
[1] This is not meant to be a facetious remark. The writer is a firm believer in the mystery of regeneration.
[1] Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant is among the most influential philosophers of the enlightenment period. Kant was professor of logic and reason at the university of Konigsberg,Germany. Among other works Kant produced ‘The Critique of Pure Reason’.
[1] Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher 18th Century German theologian, philosopher, and biblical scholar known for his attempt to reconcile the criticisms of the Enlightenment with traditional Protestant Christianity. Schleiermacher is known as the ‘father’ of modern liberalism
[1] Living the Catholic Faith : Rediscovering the Basics
by Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop Charles, O.F.M. Cap
[1] Charles Joseph Chaput, a graduate of philosophy and psychology, is the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Philadelphia, USA.
[1] D.J. White: Regeneration & The Baptism in The Spirit [paper 2017] :
Palingensia: The word simply means ‘new birth’ palin (again) gensia [genesis] (birth). Palingensia is used of spiritual regeneration in, Titus 3:5 – meaning the communication of new life. Regeneration is the theological term for the Christian’s “new” or “second” birth in Christ. By definition, regeneration is the act of God by which He imparts divine life to man upon the single condition of faith in Jesus Christ as personal Saviour. The same word is used in Matthew 19:28, but isn’t used in any other that may be taken to refer to this ‘regeneration’. Several words and phrases in the Bible express the concept of regeneration. The following passages show how frequently the doctrine of regeneration is found in the Bible: John 3:7 the words “born again” express regeneration. Ephesians. 2:5, the words “made alive” refer to regeneration, the new life.2 Corinthians. 5:17, the words “new creation” speak of the new birth
1 John 3:1,2, the expression “children of God” refers to regeneration.
[1] NB. I hold to the view of God’s sovereign choice in election—because of the teaching of Scripture and because of my conviction of the fallen nature of Imago Dei: man’s inability to save himself.
[1] Duns Scotus, John 1266-1308
[1] McGrath. A [1998] Historical Theology (118) Blackwell
[1] lectures by Dr Warwick Montgomery on ‘The History of Apologetics Through the Ages’
[1] McGrath. A [1998] Historical Theology (119) Blackwell
[1] PARTHENIUS MINGES Transcribed by Rick McCarty
[1] The Apostle’s Creed
[1] It’s interesting to note the origin of the word ‘alloy’ – from alligére, [to combine] from ligére – meaning ‘to blind’ Collins English Dictionary (Millennium Edition)
[1] This isn’t the place to consider the order of salvation
[1] McGrath. A [1998] Historical Theology (118) Blackwell
[1] Anselm was a monk and abbot of Bec in Normandy before becoming the Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093-1109. Anselm’s major works included: ‘Monologion’,’Proslogion’ and ‘Why God Became Man’. He coined the phrase Cogito Ergo Sum (I think therefore I am) as well as Dubito Ergo Sum (I doubt therefore I am).’Anselm of Canterbury The Major Works’ is an Oxford World’s Classic published by OUP
[1] From the Latin ratio [reason]. I take this to mean an object that is reasonable – not beyond reason.
. 