The Place of Reason in Theology and Relationship between Faith and Reason

This lesson is a continuation of the discussion about theological method. This time, our focus is the place of reason in theology. The materials covered in this lesson are taken from Cornelius Van Til’s Introduction to Systematic Theology (1974) and Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena (2003). There are four relevant subjects taken from Van Til's material, which include preliminary distinction, tendencies among orthodox theologians, epistemological qualifications to resolve the perceived conflict between faith and reason, and an appreciation and critique of Bavinck’s position. The second part in this lesson presents Herman Bavinck’s explanation of the relationship between faith and reason and the role of reason in theology. 

Cornelius Van Til 

Preliminary Distinction

Van Til claims that since theological method is properly understood as part of Christian theistic method in general, the place of reason in theology must also be understood as part of Christian epistemology in general (Van Til, 1974, p. 21). We see here the distinctive feature of Van Tilian scholarship, which is an emphasis on distinguishing between the Christian and non-Christian way of thinking including epistemology. For Van Til, non-Christian epistemology assumes that reason is everywhere the same, a conception that a reformed Christian philosopher cannot tolerate.

Tendencies among Orthodox Theologians

Next, Van Til identifies two tendencies among orthodox theologians regarding the place of reason in theology. One school is afraid of reason that results to rejecting any legitimate place for reason in theology. The other school emphasizes reason beyond its proper bounds that yield into making theology as a valid science. Though Van Til does not reject the notion that theology is a science but he is careful to distinguish his understanding of science from the popular one.

Epistemological Qualifications

In epistemological qualifications, the issues about the object and subject of knowledge are considered basic. Christian epistemology is said to be distinct from epistemology in general in its views about the object and subject of knowledge in the areas of their existence and meaning. Concerning the existence of the object of knowledge, Van Til considers the doctrine of creation provides the fundamental foundation. The Bible teaches creation out of nothing. This doctrine means that there is no pre-existing material out of which God created the world. This doctrine cannot accept the notion that both God and the world originate from the void. Creation declares that God eternally exists and the world owes its existence from Him. “The absolute and independent existence of God determines the derivative existence of the universe” (p. 22). On the other hand, the doctrine of creation also applies to the meaning of the object of knowledge. The meaning of the entire universe and everything in it cannot be understood apart from God. The Bible clearly teaches that all things exist for the glory of God (Revelation 4:11; Romans 11:36). Now, applying the above principles to the question of man’s knowledge of facts of nature, man must therefore presuppose the existence of God and his plan for the world for him to obtain true knowledge. This would mean that man’s task is to bring the knowledge of the particulars in this world in relation to the universals. 

The existence and meaning of the subject of knowledge is also derivative. As such, man’s knowledge of both God and of this world cannot be exhaustive but true. It cannot be exhaustive because man is created in God’s image. However, man’s knowledge is true simply because he is created in God’s image. Except from the fact that the existence and meaning of man’s knowledge is derivative, it is also ethically depraved. For Van Til, this point is a crucial distinction between the Christian and non-Christian view of human reason. The ethical depravity of human knowledge overturns the belief in the myth of neutrality. No man is neutral in his quest for knowledge. This distinction arises from the biblical doctrine of sin. A man under sin cannot comprehend the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:1-3). Sin affects even the mental faculty of man not only in his “spiritual” quest but including also the academic one. 

At this point, Van Til introduced his idea about the three kinds of human consciousness. He designates them as Adamic, unregenerate, and regenerate. Adamic consciousness is man’s reason before the fall. It is derivative. It is not exhaustive but true. It is in covenant with God. It receives and interprets the revelation of God. Van Til labels this knowledge as “analogical” (p. 25). Unregenerate consciousness is the reason of natural man. It claims to be comprehensive. Man is the ultimate interpreter of the world. Due to the difficulty of assessing the value of the knowledge of non-Christians, Van Til affirms that one can be safeguarded from it by understanding the essence of “absolute ethical antithesis” (p. 26). This is Van Til’s way of putting the ultimate distinction between the knowledge of Christian and non-Christian. In other words, as a whole, non-Christian misunderstood not only God, but also, everything in this world for not recognizing its relationship to Him. Another point that will help clarify our idea of human reason is the fact that the non-Christian knowledge of God needs to be understood in two senses: metaphysical and epistemological. Human consciousness testifies to the metaphysical sense of man’s knowledge of God. This is the better knowledge of God possessed by every. It is inerasable even by sin. The epistemological sense of man’s knowledge of God due to sin wants to suppress his better knowledge. This is why in non-Christian use of reason, one can always find a mixture of truth with error. The last is regenerate consciousness. This is “Adamic consciousness restored and supplemented” not in degree (actuality?) but in principle (p. 28). 

Based on the foregoing qualifications, Van Til made the following conclusion:  One, Adamic consciousness does not exist at present. Two, only two kinds of consciousness exist today: unregenerate and regenerate. However, the two kinds of consciousness cannot be maintained apart from accepting the reality of the historicity of Adam’s fall. Three, a reformed theologian cannot speak of human reason or consciousness in general except in the objective sense. To do so is to compromise the teaching of the Bible especially the doctrine of sin. Four, unregenerate reason is qualified as “monistic” (p. 29) in assumption (univocal, autonomous). Five, man is responsible for his blindness. Six, Christians are to speak and teach as well as reason with the natural man. Seven, reason must receive and reinterpret the revelation of God. For Van Til, understanding the foregoing qualifications will help us see that the conflict between reason and faith does not exist. Faith instead is “the impelling power, which urges reason to interpret aright” (p. 30).

Appreciation and Critical Evaluation of Herman Bavinck's Position

Van Til appreciates Bavinck’s emphasis on quantitative and qualitative difference between human and divine knowledge. He also admires Bavinck’s identification of faith as the internal principle (principium internum) for the reception of the revelation of God. However, for Van Til, the weakest point in Bavinck’s position is the latter’s failure to distinguish between the Christian and non-Christian basis of the certainty of human knowledge (p. 46). He said that Bavinck did not escape the Thomistic way of thinking. He classified Bavinck’s position as “moderate realism” to avoid both the extremes of realism and idealism. 

Herman Bavinck 

I took this formulation from Bavinck’s discussion on Faith and Theology: Reason Serving Faith. From the sub-title itself, we can obviously see the relationship between faith and reason, and that is, reason has to serve faith. The question is how? 

In introducing the relationship between faith and reason, Bavinck recognizes the presence of an unhealthy relationship between them. Some would assert that there is no correlation between faith and reason. Others would claim that faith is superior to reason. Bavinck calls this supra (above). Still others would argue that faith is opposed (contra) to reason. To think of independent existence of both faith and reason, is dualism, says Bavinck. Other two threats identified by Bavinck in connection to the relationship between faith and reason, are rationalism and supernaturalism. Bavinck resolves such conflict by declaring that faith is actually “a disposition or habit of reason itself” (p. 616). He also claims further that faith “is the natural breath of the children of God” (ibid.). As such, the submission of God’s people “to the Word of God is not slavery but freedom” (ibid.). “Faith is not a sacrifice of the intellect but mental health (sanitas mentis)” (ibid). Bavinck adds, faith “does not relieve Christians of the desire to study and reflect; rather it spurs them on to that end” (p. 617). This is the context where reason must serve faith. Reason (mind, thinking) needs to be prepared and trained in the study of theology. 

Reason has threefold task according to Bavinck in relation to theology. First, reason finds the material for theology. The material is not “a handful of proof texts” (ibid.). It must be built on the entire Scripture. Bavinck argues that theology “must arise organically from the principles that are everywhere present for that purpose in Scripture” (ibid.). Second, the acquired material must be intellectually processed. The important thing here is not the repetition of actual literal words found in the Scriptures but the substance, the idea, the thought of the Scriptures reflected on by the theologians even by employing “technical” terms. Lastly, the reflected acquired material for theology must be arranged and recapitulate systematically. The system must neither be externally imposed nor any intrusion of philosophical categories foreign to the Scriptures can be allowed. Instead, Bavinck explains the nature of this system as a continuous search of the mind for a system springing from the object of reflection itself. He designates this system of the knowledge of God or the unity of truth as the “supreme desideratum” of theology (p.618). 

Summing up Van Til’s twofold consciousness of man and Bavinck’s correlation between faith and reason, we observe four basic principles: First, reason is not contrary to faith. Second, reason cannot be the standard of faith. Third, faith is not superior to reason. Fourth, there is such a thing as believing reason, a reason restored and empowered by faith.


Intended Learning Outcomes: (1) To appreciate the fact that reason has a place in theological study, (2) To understand the Reformed perspective about the relationship between faith and reason.

Guide Questions for Discussion:

1. What is the distinctive feature of Van Tilian scholarship?

2. What are the two tendencies among orthodox theologians in explaining the place of reason in theology?

3. In what areas do the object and subject of knowledge in Christian epistemology differ from epistemology in general? Where did the Christian philosopher get such idea of differentiation? 

4. In what way does the doctrine of creation affect our idea of the existence and meaning of the object of knowledge? How about the idea of the subject of knowledge? 

5. Except from the fact of the derivative character of the subject of knowledge, how did Van Til describe it further? Where did Van Til get that second description of the subject of knowledge?

6. What are the three kinds of human consciousness? Briefly describe each. 

7. In what two senses does the non-Christian knowledge of God needs to be understood? Why is this important?

8. Briefly state Van Til's appreciation and critique of Bavinck's stance. 

9. Briefly describe the unhealthy relationship between faith and reason. What is Bavinck's view about the relationship between faith and reason? In what way can reason serve faith?  

10. Briefly describe the threefold tasks of reason in relation to theology.  

11. Based on this study, enumerate the four basic principles that describe the relationship between faith and reason.