Faith Seeking Understanding: A Christian Understanding of Reason

Written by Brad Green

In a paper such as this I can only begin to discuss the classical Christian understanding of fides quaerens intellectum ("faith seeking understanding"). But the issue must be broached. A Christian vision of higher education must take a stand on the reality of reason and its relation to Christian faith. This issue is of particular importance because here we come to grips with one point at which an evangelical understanding of Christian higher education differs from a Roman Catholic understanding of Christian higher education.{1} A Christian understanding of reason (and indeed, of the whole life of the mind), must wrestle with how the lordship of Christ is central to the whole of the Christian life.

Perhaps the key biblical text to inform such an effort is Colossians 2:8. Paul writes: "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ" (NASB). This text has often been used to cast a dark shadow over the enterprise of philosophy in general, to argue that philosophy is a non- Christian enterprise. The text need not be taken that way. However, there is a contrast that Paul is making. The contrast is not between "Christianity" and "philosophy," but rather between Christian thinking and non-Christian thinking. Paul speaks of "philosophy and empty deception," "the tradition of men," and "the elementary principles of the world," and all these are contrasted with Christ. Thus, Paul’s point appears to be that Christ is the foundation of all thought, and the Christian is not to be taken captive to any other alternative. In short, Paul is making a plea for the radical lordship of Christ.

Another key biblical text that helps inform a Christian understanding of the centrality of faith to understanding is Proverbs 1:7: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge" (NASB). Texts such as this have formed the backdrop for the position of "faith seeking understanding." There is a priority of faith in the intellectual task. Augustine could write, "I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better I to believe."{2} Similarly, Anselm could say basically the same thing, "Believe, that you might understand."

This Augustinian (and ultimately biblical) inheritance is central to any Christian understanding of education, and I believe that until it is properly understood, there will simply be no Christian college or university worthy of the name. Part of the difficulty of appropriating this insight from Augustine is that we live in such a different age. Augustine breathed different air than we breathe. Human nature remains the same throughout the ages, and indeed, there is nothing new under the sun, but there are genuine differences between Augustine’s age and ours.

Perhaps the key difference is that when Augustine speaks of "faith seeking understanding," there is no dichotomy between the two, and indeed, the two can never be separated. For modern Christians, "faith" and "understanding" are two things that must be brought together, or integrated. But we are off to a bad start if we begin this way. The truth is, "faith" and "understanding" are never separated to begin with.{3} Faith ultimately is a type of understanding, or knowledge (i.e., it is not simply a subjective feeling). At the same time, on a Christian understanding, faith is an essential part of all knowing. That is, knowledge or understanding never occurs without faith.

This has been articulated particularly forcefully in our own century by Cornelius Van Til. Van Til argues that the Christian worldview is the necessary precondition of any predication whatsoever. That is, any person who utters a sentence either knowingly or unknowingly uses the Christian understanding of the world.{4} This does not mean that the person is a Christian but simply that the only worldview that comports with the presuppositions necessary for any speaker’s utterance is the Christian worldview. As Van Til has written, "On the presupposition of human autonomy human predication cannot even get under way."{5} Indeed, "The only ‘proof’ of the Christian position is that unless its truth is presupposed there is no possibility of ‘proving’ anything at all."

One of Van Til’s chief interpreters, Greg Bahnsen, paraphrases this same contention as follows: "God’s revelation is more than the best foundation for Christian reasoning: it is the only philosophically sound foundation for any reasoning whatsoever."{6} Indeed, "only the truth of Christianity can rescue the meaningfulness and cogency of logic, science, and morality," for "only the Christian worldview provides the philosophical preconditions necessary for man’s reasoning and knowledge in any field whatever."{7} Bahnsen continues, "From beginning to end, man’s reasoning about anything whatsoever (even reasoning about reasoning itself) is unintelligible or incoherent unless the truth of the Christian Scripture is presupposed."{8} Finally, Van Til can write, "I understand no fact aright unless I see it in its proper relation to Christ as Creator-Redeemer of me and my world."{9}

Even if someone balks at Van Til’s way of stating the issue, it is essential that a Christian understanding of higher education come to terms with the fact that every act of understanding is ultimately a faithful act, in that every act of understanding presupposes any number of things that are often not consciously "proven" and indeed could never be proven by the scientific method. Take science for example. If a non-Christian student goes into the lab on Monday afternoon, he is assuming (by faith) any number of things that are not provable by the scientific method. He is trusting that the floor will support his weight, that room 25 is the same yesterday as today, that the test tube in his hands is really a test tube and not a hamburger, that his eyes are really seeing real letters and numbers on the textbook, and that his mind is really interpreting such letters and numbers, etc. All of these things are believed by faith, and they cannot be proven by the scientific or empirical method. If this is true, then all learning is, on one level, faithful learning, and there is no need of "integrating" faith and learning.

But we must push our case further and affirm that all learning by all persons (Christian and non-Christian alike) takes place against the backdrop of a belief in the triune God of Scripture. That is, we trust that our eyes see things, our minds can grasp reality, etc., because God has made and sustains such a world and because it is impossible to live in this world and not see the handiwork and see certain attributes of God. Indeed, according to Romans 1:18-20, every person knows God, but the unbeliever suppresses such knowledge. There are no atheists, according to Paul. Thus, all persons think, reason, and learn against the backdrop of a belief in God. But some are nonetheless engaged in their intellectual tasks against the backdrop of a willful rejection of the knowledge of God who made them-the willful rejection of what they know to be true. The Christian, however, has been redeemed from such suppression of the knowledge of God because God has shone in his heart to give him "the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ" (2 Cor. 4:6 NASB).

The puzzling thing is this: if Christians have been redeemed, and if they have come to such a "knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ," why do so many Christian students and academics see little relation between faith in Christ and academic and intellectual tasks? The simplest answer is that they have not grasped the radical nature of the lordship of Christ. They function as rebels who refuse to recognize the sovereignty of God over every area of their lives-including their disciplines. Functionally, such persons live as autonomous rebels, who would rule themselves and who suppress the knowledge of God in certain areas of their lives. When this is the case, and it is the case for every Christian to some degree, there is the need for the "integration of faith and learning."

But ultimately, what is needed is for genuine Christian faith to be at the heart of the intellectual task, and for students and scholars to constantly seek to allow their faith commitments to inform and drive their intellectual endeavors. What is really needed is "taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5 NASB). All of our intellectual work flows from some faith; what is central is to constantly be asking if our scholarly endeavors, whether as students or as professors, are truly flowing from Christian faith, or is our scholarly work rooted in alien faith presuppositions that must be rooted out? The integration that must take place is the task of making sure that we are not subtly severing our academic work from the lordship of Christ. Our work will be rooted in a whole world of presupposition and faith commitments. The key task is to ensure that such work is truly consistent with our faith in Christ and our commitment to the historic Christian faith.

Hence, the work of the Christian student and scholar is the constant work of making every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. If for evangelicals the Christian church is semper reformanda (always to be reformed), then the Christian mind is semper capiens (always taking captive).{10}

References

1. I use the terms evangelical and Roman Catholic in their historic and theological sense. That is, I am using both terms to describe respective positions that have histories and that have a body of confessional literature that constitutes the central tenets of each tradition. Thus, I am not using "evangelical" simply to describe a twentieth-century phenomenon featuring such luminaries as Billy Graham, Carl F. H. Henry, etc. I am using evangelical essentially in its Reformation sense as that movement which believed it necessary to attempt to correct perceived errors in the Roman Catholic Church. This tradition has a body of confessional literature such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Formula of Concord, the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the London Confession. Roman Catholicism also has a confessional heritage that can be easily accessed through its own writings, for example, the most recent Catechism of the Catholic Church (Rome: Urbi et Orbi Communications, 1994).
2. Augustine, Sermons 43, 7, 9 (Patrologia Latina 38, 257-58).
3. See the helpful article by Ted M. Dorman, "Fides Quaerens Intellectum: The Soul of a Christian University," The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 1, no. 3 (1997): 58-67.
4. Van Til’s understanding has not been accepted by all Christian apologists and scholars. Ronald Nash accuses Van Til of "irrationality," and Van Til and Gordon H. Clark had a rather acrimonious feud over these issues. Ronald Nash’s disagreements with Van Til can be found in his The Word of God and the Mind of Man. John Frame offers a summary of the Van Til/Clark feud in Frame’s Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1995), 97-113. Cf. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. A Theology of Lordship (Philipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1987), 21-40. One of Clark’s disciples, John W. Robbins, has written a critique of Van Til, Cornelius Van Til: The Man and the Myth (Jefferson, Md.: The Trinity Foundation, 1986).
5. Cornelius Van Til, Toward a Reformed Apologetics (Philadelphia: privately printed, 1972); quoted in Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis (Philipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company, 1998), 22.
6. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, 4-5.
7. Ibid., 5.
8. Ibid., 6.
9. Cornelius Van Til, "My Credo," in Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Theology and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til, ed. E. R. Geehan (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971), 4-5; quoted in Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, 20.
10. I have not attempted in this section to tackle all the issues related to faith, rationality, and epistemology. A key work is the important text by Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff, Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God (South Bend, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983). Also see Paul Helm, Faith and Understanding (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997); Paul Helm, ed., Faith and Reason (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).

© 2008 LifeWay Christian Resources

Share your thoughts with other readers:  Post Comments   Rate this Article