 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Reason and Revelation | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 2/3/2003 5:21 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi all, I've been reflecting on the relationship between reason and revelation and would like to engender some discussion on the topic if possible.
My thoughts:
A few months ago an LDS acquaintance of mine loaned me a copy of a book called "The Lord's Way" by Mormon apostle Dallin Oaks. Curious, I read the first three chapters. In chapters 2 and 3 Oaks argues basically that Revelation always trumps Reason. That is, whenever reason and empirical evidence suggest that there are problems with Mormon doctrine, Mormons should always stick to the doctrine and reject opposing arguments even if they have no refutation of those arguments. Let's call this the "Revelation wins" approach.
A major consequence of this approach is that it completely insulates Mormon teaching from any possibility of refutation or critique. One reason why Mormons are hard to evangelize is that they are continually taught and encouraged to look to their own private revelation--"the burning in the bosom"--to assauge any rational doubts that may arise.
Another approach that has been adopted by many (e.g., the "Jesus" Seminar) is to say that whenever Revelation and Reason conflict, Reason wins. Thus since it is supposedly irrational, or methodologically unsound, for modern researchers to believe in the miraculous, whenever the Bible relates a miracle or a fulfilled prophecy, we must reject the Biblical account as erroneous, demythologize it, or something like that.
On this "Reason wins" view, Revelation is never allowed to challenge or modify our plausibility assumptions. Methodological naturalism is the inviolable framework within which rational thought must take place.
It seems to me that neither of these views is tenable. Both insulate some privileged position against possible refutation--the first protects Revelation from Reason, the second protects Reason from Revelation. The correct position, it appears, is that Reason and Revelation should be on the same level--neither categorically trumping the other. Rational arguments can and should be allowed to challenge our confidence in and interpretation of Revelation. But Reason cannot operate in a vacuum. It is the data of Revelation (both general and special) that provides Reason something to work with. What we ultimately seek is a kind of "reflective equilibrium" in which both Reason and Revelation are given full respect.
If I am right, then it is wrong for Christians to dismiss a position (any position) on the grounds that it illegitimately exalts "fallible human reason" over "God's infallible revelation". I do not deny that God's revelation is infallible, but why should anyone think that? Because there is good (albeit fallible) reason to think so. And, of course, any attempt to interpret God's revelation must employ fallible human reason in the process.
At any rate, that's my position. Any feedback appreciated.
Blessings to y'all,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
 |
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 2/3/2003 5:31 PM (GMT -6) | | I think you say it very well, Alan (no surprise, coming from you!). In my mind, reason and revelation have a kind of symbiotic relationship. God expects us to use our reason to process his revelation, and it is revelation that gives reason the capacity for fulfillment.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 2/3/2003 10:45 PM (GMT -6) | | In my experience, the Mornom "protect revelation" approach is the one taken by the vast majority of people of faith in religions that claim a revealtion. (Peirce called it "the way of authority"). I suspect this is because a) this is encouraged by leadership to insulate followers in the religion they espouse and b) most believers are driven by a need for security, and this is the only way to gaurantee it. In the way of authority, people are more than happy to think -- so long as it supports and reconfirms what they already think.
BUT, of course, it means that WHAT one believes is pretty much a matter of sheer luck -- viz. where you were born, who you happened to hear the "revelation" from, what group got to you first, etc... The CAUSE of their belief is basically their REASON for belief.
To the extent that someone wants to transcend sheer luck, they HAVE TO strive to think about their faith rationally. Of course, rationality is never in a vacume. It is conditioned by a number of arbitrary contingent factors (viz. luck): e.g. a persons intellectual abilities, how they were raised, the basic personality they were given, how they were raised, the belief systems they inherited "as true," etc... But, at least methodologically, striving for rationality is the only way to have any hope of rising above the arbitrariness of "the luck of the draw" approach to faith.
So I agree with you Alan.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
fyodor
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 2/4/2003 4:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Isn't reason self-revealed in Christ? Is Christ not both the Word and the Revelation, the rhyme and the reason? It seems to me that in his revelation, Christ abolished the need for reason, by becoming reason. Only he who abides in the revelation can recognize the revelation.
Isn't the nature of the word revelation or apokalypsis the essence of our ability to reason for Christ. We confess because we know, we know because it has been revealed.
†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 2/4/2003 5:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc wrote: quote:
BUT, of course, it means that WHAT one believes is pretty much a matter of sheer luck -- viz. where you were born, who you happened to hear the "revelation" from, what group got to you first, etc... The CAUSE of their belief is basically their REASON for belief.
To the extent that someone wants to transcend sheer luck, they HAVE TO strive to think about their faith rationally. Of course, rationality is never in a vacume. It is conditioned by a number of arbitrary contingent factors (viz. luck): e.g. a persons intellectual abilities, how they were raised, the basic personality they were given, how they were raised, the belief systems they inherited "as true," etc... But, at least methodologically, striving for rationality is the only way to have any hope of rising above the arbitrariness of "the luck of the draw" approach to faith.
In light of this situation, aren't we compelled to be very inclusivist about salvation? As Pinnock argues, there must be a "wideness in God's mercy." Right?
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 2/5/2003 7:39 PM (GMT -6) | |
BJS: In light of this situation, aren't we compelled to be very inclusivist about salvation? As Pinnock argues, there must be a "wideness in God's mercy." Right?
Doc: The awareness of how conditioned our thinking is by genes, social situation, inner needs etc. certainly creates tension with the view that the specific content of our thinking is what saves us (viz. that one must consciously accept Jesus as Lord to be saved). Its very difficult to see God revealed in Christ wagering the eternal destiny of people on factors utterly outside their control, such as when and where they were born, the genes they were born with, the experiences that formed their outlook, etc... This is ONE factor that increases the plausibility of inclusivism. But there are many other compelling factors as well (e.g. scriptural arguments).
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 2/7/2003 7:27 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
"...reason and revelation have a kind of symbiotic relationship.
and
quote:
The CAUSE of their belief is basically their REASON for belief
Right. I have always had a hard time at seeing revelation and reason as being antithetical to each other. I guess one would need a definition of what they mean by "revelation" and "reason." Because it seems to me that revelation will take full advantage or use of our reasoning abilities.
In the case of Alan's Mormon acquaintance, "the burning in the bosom" is nothing more emotional engergy or what have you. I would hardly put that on the same level as quote:
"...whenever the Bible relates a miracle or a fulfilled prophecy, we must reject the Biblical account as erroneous, demythologize it, or something like that"
where reasoning is very much involved in understanding revelation though at times it may be paradoxical, transcending of reason, etc.
Brandon
"Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it."--Todd Flanders/ Pascal: Talkin' 'bout My Generation
Edited by - BBBCanada on 02/07/2003 12:30:31 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
S.B.G.
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 143
| Posted 2/7/2003 7:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg, I’d like to hear more supporting scripture/ arguments re: inclusivism. The doctrine that people are damned who have not consciously accepted Jesus due to circumstances out of their control is upsetting to me. Particularly in the knowledge that people who hold this view also believe in an eternally burning hell. I personally believe the lost will burn until consumed, but even in that case, it’s unloving to deny eternal life to someone who had all the cards stacked against him. Yet, I hear this from so many Christians (and many include Lutherans and Catholics in this lot).
I have a Muslim friend who is a marvelously loving and compassionate individual. He has actually quoted Christ in describing his views/opinions and didn’t even realize it. (until I told him  ) He has obviously been brainwashed, yet the Spirit has given Jaman some Christ-like instincts. In order for Jaman to believe, he will almost have to be reprogrammed, this may or may not happen before he dies, but God knows Jaman’s heart. (His favorite movie is The Matrix by the way!) What about someone like him?
S.B.G.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 2/7/2003 10:20 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
...I’d like to hear more supporting scripture/ arguments re: inclusivism.
The best (ie most systematic across Scripture, theology and tradition) defense of inclusivism comes from the work of John Sanders, in my opinion. Of his works I'm familiar with, his book No Other Name is the most comprehensive, covering not just inclusivism but all views in the Christian tradition on the destiny of those who come, for whatever reason, to neither explicit, conscious acceptance nor denial of Jesus, because they lack knowledge of him (what Sanders broadly calls "the unevangelized"). These views include exclusivism (which you're familiar with), universalism, and various "wider hope" views in-between, including inclusivism but also others like post-mortem salvation.
Sanders presents the material from an inclusivist position, in general arguing from Scripture that the proper view on the destiny of the unevangelized has not been precisely revealed to us, but that inclusivism is indicated more so than other views, including exclusivism. You might want to check out this book.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/8/2003 7:15 AM (GMT -6) | | I am not the brightest man, but is this your review on Amazon.com?
Jorgensons
God Bless
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 2/8/2003 7:08 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I am not the brightest man, but is this your review on Amazon.com?
Jorgensons
Yes, I'm the one. If Greg Boyd is reading, he can follow that link to see what yours-truly thought of Across the Spectrum, too :-)
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
S.B.G.
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 143
| Posted 2/10/2003 3:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks guys for pointing me to that book and for the thorough review. It sounds fascinating and just what I'm looking for! I'm reading Across the Spectrum right now, but No Other Name will be next on my reading list!
S.B.G.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
CalvinnHobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 2/14/2003 11:31 AM (GMT -6) | | While I don't at this point buy into all of Aquinas, I definitely endorse his broad conception of the relationship between reason and revelation. Human reason is stained, but not destroyed. As a good creation of God, natural reason, when used correctly, can get us to some truths about God, although not all. Revelation gives us some truths attainable by reason and some unattainable by reason. Those attainable by reason, he has given us because not everyone can or will "do their homework" in order to reason their way to certain truths. Right reason and revelation should never conflict, even though some truths (trinity, creation of world from eternity) are beyond reason. Should reason and revelation appear to conflict, he would argue that the reasoning is mistaken.
I agree with what you have said as well, Alan. I hear where you're coming from concerning Mormons. A friend and I spent two months meeting once a week or so with two Mormon missionaries. We were allowing them to take us through their 6-step program. We established some trust early on, so eventually we were able to discuss things in somewhat of a critcal manner that would have turned them away immediately at the beginning.
One particular day, I had the Bhagavad Gita, the Quran, Dianetics (scientology), Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures, and some Jehovah's Witness tracts sitting by my chair during our discussion and I asked them what gives their religious experience justification over and against those who proclaim these other religious texts. The answer was the same answer I got anytime I drew attention to the subjective/objective tension--"Look, do you WANT TO KNOW IF the Book of Mormon is true? Go and ask God to show you whether it's true or not, and he will." (One of these guys even had a Mormon apologetics book. That was a first for me!) I realized that, for all practical purposes, what I was REALLY being asked was, "Do you WANT TO BELIEVE THAT it's true?" If I want it bad enough, I'm sure I could induce the belief with enough prayer.
My question for the Mormon, or anyone who shuts their ears to rational inquiry, is this: How would you ever know if your WERE wrong? I agree with Doc's comments about "luck." Avoidance renders one largely nothing more than the product of the nearest persuasive authority (Proverbs 18:17!!!).
Something has to account for the different truth-claims attatched to the various religious experiences in the global marketplace of faith out there. Unless you're prepared to endorse every religion as a valid path to God, you're probably going to have attribute the "false claims/experiences" to inaccurate INTERPRETATIONS of religious experiences. Unless, of course, you want to deny that ANY experience takes place in these instances, which I see no reason to do. SOMETHING happened to these people. The moment we, or they, start to REFLECT on and INFER from their experience, we bring reason into the game.
"The longer I live, the more I read, the more patiently I think, and the more anxiously I inquire, the less I seem to know." ~President John Adams | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 2/15/2003 3:34 AM (GMT -6) | |
Believing for huge success of 38th parallel, Shane, keep the Faith bro.
If ‘REASON’ were simply the faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes truth from falsehood, and good from evil, and which enabled the possessor to deduce inferences from facts or from propositions…
Then ‘REVELATION’ would be the act of disclosing or discovering to others what was before unknown to them; appropriately, the disclosure or communication of truth to men by God himself, or by his authorized agents, the prophets and apostles.
From harmony, from heavenly harmony, this universal frame began, comprising all the particulars…
The purpose of logic is to direct the intellect into the investigation of truth, and in communication with others, to reason well in our inquiries after truth, justly. Correct reasoning implies correct thinking and legitimate inferences, which are principles, assumed or admitted to be just. Scripture produces one conception only in the mind, and is a simple thing respecting all.
As for the nature of sin, and of that, which relates to every individual in which it is found, the revelation of reason comprehends universal ruin, universal good, and universal benevolence.
God delights in the happiness of intelligent beings. 
God is Love,
Tim
1Jo 2:16…the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father… | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:05 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|