.
Subsections
Which Philosophy Should be Used?
Relation of Theology & Philosophy
Need & Validity of Natural Knowledge
Scripture Upholds Nature’s Light & Law, & Reason
Reformed vs. Aquinas: Philosophy & Reason
Good & Necessary Consequence
Contra Biblicism
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 6+
Books 3
Quotes 4
Principle of Knowing Theology: Scripture, Not Reason 3
Reason’s Legitimate & Illegitimate Use 5
Sophistry 6+
History 10+
Latin 4+
.
Articles
1200’s
Aquinas, Thomas – Summa Contra Gentiles, bk. 1
ch. 3, ‘In what way it is possible to make known the divine truth’
“Therefore, all that is said about God, though it cannot be investigated by reason, must not be immediately rejected as false, as the Manicheans and many unbelievers have thought.”
ch. 7, ‘That the truth of reason is not in opposition to the truth of the Christian faith’
“…it is impossible for the aforesaid truth of faith to be contrary to those principles which reason knows naturally….
Now, the knowledge of naturally known principles is instilled into us by God, since God himself is the author of our nature. Therefore, the divine wisdom also contains these principles. Consequently, whatever is contrary to these principles is contrary to the divine wisdom. Therefore, it cannot be from God. Therefore, those things which are received by faith from divine revelation cannot be contrary to our natural knowledge…
God does not instil into man any opinion or belief contrary to natural knowledge… Yet, because it [the word of faith] surpasses reason, some look upon it as though it were contrary to reason; which is impossible.”
ch. 8, ‘In what relation human reason stands to the truth of faith’
ch. 9, ‘Of the order and mode of procedure in this work’
“…we do not believe what is above human reason unless God has revealed it.”
“Seeing, then, that we intend by the way of reason to pursue those things about God which human reason is able to investigate…”
.
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – ‘The Use of Reason in Matters of Faith’
‘The Use of Reason in Matters of Faith’ (1636) in Select Theological Disputations, vol. 1 in Willem J. van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism (RHB, 2011), Appendix 2, pp. 225-47
‘On Human Reason in Matters of Faith’, pp. 32-41 in Select Theological Disputations, vol. 1, pt. 1 tr. by AI by Onku (Utrecht: Johannes a Waesberg, 1648) Latin
Manton, Bates, Case, Baxter, Fairclough, etc. – The Judgment of Non-Conformists of the Interest of Reason in Matters of Religion in which it is Proved against Make-Baits that both Conformists & Non-Conformists, & All Parties of true Protestants are herein really agreed, though unskilful speakers differ in words (London: 1676) 21 pp. This was signed by 15 non-conformist English puritans.
On pages 8-16 the divines give 28 points wherein they “have reason to believe that not only Conformists and Non-conformists, but all true Protestants are agreed.” On pages 16-19 they list 10 points “all true protestants” reject. Below is their delineation of the things “reason” may stand for, or the various parts of reason.
“By ‘reason’ we mean: I. Ex parte objecti [out of the part of the object]; such evidence of truth which human reason may discern. This is three-fold:
I. Evidence of the thing itself, which is either:
1. Sensible evidence, as the very thing is objected to the senses, and so as sensate represented to the intellect.
2. Evidence immediately intelligible, by which the thing itself is objected to the intuition of the mind; so some say, with [William] Occam, that the In∣tellect knoweth its own acts, and spirits…
II. Evidence of the medium, from whence, by reason, we may infer the verity of the thing. And this is:
1. Of an ordinary Natural Medium (as a natural cause is known by the effects, and the effects by the cause: e.g. There is a sun, therefore there is motion, light, and heat: or, There is motion, light and heat; therefore there is fire.
2. Or of a Supernatural Medium, such as is divine revelation by vision, inspiration, miraculous attestation.
III. There is Evidence of Consequence, that the conclusion certainly follows the premises…
II. Ex parte subjecti vel agentis [out of the part of the subject or of the agent]; And so reason is taken:
1. For the reasoning Faculty.
2. For the mental Exercise, or Act in the actual reasoning of the mind.
3. For a Habit of Facility, and Promptitude in Reasoning.
4. For expressive Reasoning by argumentation or discourse, by word or writing.
The reasoning Faculty is considered in man: I. As in statu informato vel instituto. II. In statu deformato seu destituto. III. As in statu reformato seu restituto.
In the state of Created Integrity, the state of lapsed Pravity; and the state of Sanctification, or Recovery.” – pp. 3-4
Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1992), vol. 1, 1st Topic
8, ‘Is human reason the principle and rule by which the doctrines of the Christian religion and theology (which are the objects of faith) ought to be measured? We deny against the Socinians.’ 23
9, ‘Does any judgment belong to reason in matters of faith? Or is there no use at all for it?’ 28
10, ‘May the judgment of contradiction be allowed to human reason in matters of faith? We affirm.’ 32
11, ‘Is there any use of the testimony of the senses in mysteries of faith; or ought it to be entirely rejected? We affirm the former and deny the latter.’ 34-37
12, ‘Are the Doctrines of Faith and Practice to be Proved Only by the Express Word of God? May they not also be Legitimately Proved by Consequences Drawn from Scripture? We Affirm the Latter.’ 37-44
13, ‘Is there any Use of Philosophy in Theology? We Affirm.’ 44-48
.
1700’s
Witsius, Herman – An Essay on the Use & Abuse of Reason in Matters of Religion tr. John Carter (d. 1708; Norwich, 1795) 31 pp.
Venema, Herman – Translation of Hermann Venema’s inedited Institutes of Theology tr. Alexander W. Brown (d. 1787; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1850)
1. Of Reason, pp. 8-20
ToC: Defined, Conscience, Judgment, Innate Ideas, Atheists, Arguments for God’s Existence
pp. 66-73 in ch. 3, Of the Scriptures
Venema (1697-1787) was a professor at Franeker. Venema “maintained the fundamental line of confessional orthodoxy without drawing heavily on any of the newer philosophies… and maintained a fairly centrist Reformed position. Venema… evidence[s] the inroads of a rationalistic model…” – Richard Muller
.
1800’s
Elias, John – 2. ‘On the Use of Reason’ in John Elias: Life, Letters & Essays (Banner of Truth, 1973), Essays, pp. 343-49
Elias (1774-1841) was a Welsh, Calvinistic Methodist minister.
Thornwell, James H. – ‘The Office of Reason in Regard to Revelation’ in Collected Writings, ed. Adger & Girardeau (Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1873), vol. 3, pt. 1, Rationalist Controversy, pp. 183-220
.
Books
1600’s
Philologus – A Seasonable Discourse of the Right Use & Abuse of Reason in Matters of Religion (London: Passinger, 1676) 223 pp. ToC
Wilson, John – The Scripture’s Genuine Interpreter Asserted [which is Scripture, not Reason], or, A Discourse Concerning the Right Interpretation of Scripture, wherein a late Exercitation entitled, Philosophia S. Scripturæ Interpres, is examined, & the Protestant doctrine in that point vindicated… to which is added an Appendix Concerning Internal Illumination & other operations of the Holy Spirit upon the soul of man, justifying the doctrine of Protestants & the Practice of serious Christians Against the Charge of Ethusiasm & other unjust criminations… (London, 1678) 263 pp. ToC
.
1800’s
Girardeau, John – The Ultimate Source Rule & Judge of Theology in Discussions of Theological Questions (d. 1898; Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1905), pp. 73-392 ToC Most of this is against Rationalism in its various forms.
Girardeau was a southern presbyterian minister in Charleston, SC.
.
Quotes
Order of Quotes
Aquinas
de Mornay
London Presbyterians
Anderson
.
1200’s
On Aquinas
Robert Schmidt, The Domain of Logic according to S. Thomas Aquinas (Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1966), ‘Conclusion’, pp. 318-19
“It is the end of reason to know the real; and logic serves as the internal guide of reason in this pursuit. It is the part of reason to arrange and put things in order to order things to their end: ‘rationis enim est ordinare ad finem.’ By logic reason does this for itself. Therefore logic studies order in the acts of reason. But order is relation. For this reason logic studies relations in knowing or in things as known…
Because we must go from indistinct knowledge to distinct, we must make distinctions in reason. But a distinction made by reason is a relative distinction, and such a distinction is constituted by the relation itself. Not only does relation distinguish, however, but it also unites; for, as has been seen, correlatives are known together…
Thus relation in thought is a means and an instrument to greater distinctness and greater unity, to deeper penetration and a broader view. It brings reason to a fuller knowledge of truth.”
.
1600’s
Philip de Mornay
A Work concerning the Trueness of the Christian Religion… (London: Cadman, 1587), Preface, no page number
[In answer to those that would say Christianity] “ought not to be proved or declared by reason… because [Christian doctrine] consists in many things which exceed the capacity of man, and therefore that he which should measure them by reason, should diminish the dignity and greatness of them…
But in this they deceive themselves, that they imagine us to uphold, that we should believe no further than reason can measure and comprehend. For what a great way does the truth of things extend further than man’s reason?
But we say that man’s reason is able to lead us to that point; namely, that we ought to believe even beyond reason, I mean the things whereunto all the capacity of man cannot attain. And likewise, that when things are revealed unto us, which reason could never have entered into nor once imagined, no not even when it was at the soundest; the same reason (which never could have found them out) makes us to allow of them: the reason I say (whereunto those mysteries were invisible afore) makes them credible unto us:
Surely even after the same manner that our eye makes us to see that in the visible things, which we ought to believe of the invisible, without the which the visible could have no being: that is to wit, the invisible God, by the visible Son, and also to see many things when the sun is up, which were hidden afore in darkness: not that the eyesight was of less force, or the thing itself less visible afore: but because the Son is now up, which lightens the air with his brightness, which is the mean both whereby the eye sees and whereby the thing is seen.”
.
London (Presbyterian) Provincial Assembly
A Vindication of the Presbyterial-Government & the Ministry… (London, 1650), pt. 2, pp. 105-6
“3. Whatsoever doctrine tends to the lifting up of nature corrupted, to the exalting of unsanctified reason and gives free will in supernatural things to a man unconverted is a doctrine contrary to the Gospel.”
.
2000’s
Owen Anderson
‘Natural Theology & the Clarity of General Revelation’ (2022)
“Warfield, following the Scottish Reformation, made the case that all humans can use reason to know God. This isn’t a statement about the noetic effects of the fall but a statement about reason. Reason makes God known.
Reason is that by which we understand anything at all. It is not simply a first principle because we use reason even to form first principles. Reason is transcendental, meaning it cannot be questioned because it makes questioning possible. We use reason to form beliefs about nature, and we use reason to form beliefs about scripture. Humans are fallen having a darkened mind meaning they have rejected reason and for that they are without excuse. Reason and argument are still there to reveal their condition in unbelief and its consequences.
Warfield is speaking of reason as the laws of thought (right reason), Kuyper of man’s reasoning process. Warfield’s definition is more basic. It is the failure to correctly define reason that allowed the challenges of Hume and Kant to the knowledge of God.”
.
OnScripture as the Principle of Knowing Theology & Not Reason
Order of Quotes
Voet
Hoornbeek
Turretin
.
Gisbert Voet
Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum Pars Prima (Utrecht: Apud Joannem Waesberge, 1658), pp. 3-4 & 7 as quoted in Johannes Hoornbeeck, ch. 1, ‘On Theology’ in Institutions of Theology Set in Order from the Best Authors (1658) tr. Charles Johnson
“We say that no human reason is the principle by which (or through which), or from which (or why) we believe, either the foundation or the law or the norm of the things that are to be believed, from the dictates of which we judge. And therefore, not just anything that is not grasped by the light of nature or human reason from its prior and more salient principles, either for a more precise definition, or for a demonstration, or both; such as the Trinity, original sin, and Christ the God-man, and his atonement, is to be judged false in matters of faith.
But on the contrary, our faith is resolved, as is indicated by what is to be believed in the Holy Scripture, and as is indicated by the act of believing in the illumination of the Holy Spirit.”
…
“Therefore, our doctrine is that in elenctic theology, or in the refutation of falsehood, e.g. Purgatory, indulgences, etc, discourse and consequences are to be employed. And if it is the case that a resolute adversary denies them, then the proving of consequences is also to be employed, not only from the Holy Bible, but also from the axioms and principles of the light of nature, known either naturally or technically, from Philosophy and Logic, so that the suitable connection of the middle term with the major term is apparent. The truth of doctrines, rather, or of middle terms, and the connection of the middle term with the minor, is to be demonstrated either from the express words, or equivalent ones, or the good consequence, of Scripture alone (except if the doctrines belong to natural theology, which are proven from Scripture primarily, and also from the light of nature secondarily).”
.
Appendix 2, ‘The Use of Reason In Matters of Faith’ in Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism ed. Joel R. Beeke & Jay T. Collier, trans. Albert Gootjes (Reformation Heritage Books, 2011)
p. 12
“When we demand the use of reason and logic, we no more turn them into the foundations, principles, and rules of faith than we do our eyes, ears, and tongues without which we can neither learn nor teach our religion, nor defend it against opponents. For us they are, therefore, means and requirements without which there is no faith or theological knowledge, but they are certainly not principles, norms, rules, and foundations.”
.
p. 230
“Having noted these presuppositions, we now say that no human reason can be the principle by which or through which, or else on the ground of which or why we believe, or the foundation, law, or norm for what must be believed, under whose direction we are to judge.”
.
Johannes Hoornbeek
From ch. 1, ‘On Theology’ in Institutions of Theology Set in Order from the Best Authors (1658) tr. Charles Johnson
“13. Reason is employed on both sides, as an instrument, not a judge or norm. So that neither are they to be listened to who defer to it more than is fair in theological matters, and demand the things of faith from its scales, who are the Socinians; nor those who pointlessly begrudge its use in theological argumentation and forming consequences, which the Verronian Papists do, and some Lutherans.”
.
Richard Muller on Turretin
Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics
“Turretin never begins with the natural or rational and then builds his theology upon it, even though his system is intentionally polemical or apologetical rather than positive or didactic; he unfailingly sets his rational arguments second in order to his biblical and theological foundations in order to show that reason serves the theological point. The system is, therefore, rational but not rationalist; reason does not compete with Scripture for the title principium cognoscendi. What is more, Turretin’s “rational” arguments frequently rest on theological and biblical assumptions.”
.
On the Legitimate Use of Reason
Order of Quotes
Polyander
Owen
A.A. Hodge
.
Johannes Polyander
Synopsis Purioris Theologiae. (Leiden: Apud Johannem & Danielem Elsevier, 1652), p. 8 as quoted in ch. 1, ‘On Theology’ in Institutions of Theology Set in Order from the Best Authors (1658) tr. Charles Johnson
“Theology is not only intelligible and meaningful, but also discursive. For it employs many arguments for the convincing of opponents, and from its principles, prior, and indemonstrable in themselves, it either draws out conclusions for proving the truth, or solutions for refuting the fallacious objections of sophists. Mt. 22:32-33; 1 Cor. 15:20-22.”
.
John Owen
The Reason of Faith… (Glasgow, 1801), ch. 6, pp. 114-116, 118-120
“1. And in the first place we, may consider that there are three ways whereby we assent unto anything that is proposed unto us as true, and receive it as such.
1. By inbred principles of natural light, and the first
rational actings of our minds. This in reason answers instinct in irrational creatures. Hence God complains that his people did neglect and sin against their own natural light, and first dilates of reason, whereas brute creatures would not forsake the conduct of the instinct of their natures, Isa. 1:3. In general, the mind is necessarily determined to an assent unto the proper objects of these principles; it cannot do otherwise. It cannot but assent unto the prime dictates of the light of nature, yea those dictates are nothing but its assent. Its first apprehension of the things which the light of nature embraces, without either express reasonings or further consideration, are this assent. Thus does the mind embrace in itself the general notions of moral good and evil, with the difference between them, however it practically complies not with what they guide unto; Jude ver. 10. And so does it assent unto many principles of reason, as that the whole is greater than the part, without admitting any debate about them.
2. By rational considerations of things externally proposed unto us. Herein the mind exercises its discursive faculty, gathering one thing out of another, and concluding one thing from another. And hereon is it able to assent unto what is proposed unto it in various degrees of certainty, according unto the nature and degree of the evidence it proceeds upon. Hence it has a certain knowledge of some things, of others an opinion or persuasion prevalent against the objections to the contrary, which it knows, and whose force it understands, which may be true or false.
3. By faith. This respects that power of our minds whereby we are able to assent unto anything as true, which we have no first principles concerning, no inbred notions of, nor can from more known principles make unto ourselves any certain rational conclusions concerning them…
And this assent also has not only various degrees, but is also of diverse kinds, according as the testimony is which it arises from, and rests on; as being human if that be human, and divine if that be so also.
According to these distinct faculties and powers of our souls, God is pleased to reveal or make known Himself, his mind or will three ways unto us. For He has implanted no power on our minds, but the principle use and exercise of it are to be with respect unto Himself, and our living unto Him, which is the end of them all. And a neglect of the improvement of them unto this end, is the highest aggravation of sin.
It is an aggravation of sin when men abuse the creatures of God otherwise than He has appointed, or in not using them to his glory; when they take his corn, and wine, and oil, and spend them on their lusts, Hos. 2:8… But the height of impiety consists in the abuse of the faculties and powers of the soul, wherewith we are endowed purposely and immediately for the glorifying of God. Hence proceed unbelief, profaneness, blasphemy, atheism, and the like pollution of the spirit or mind. And these are sins of the highest provocation. For the powers and faculties of our minds being given us only to enable us to live unto God, the diverting of their principal exercise unto other ends, is an act of enmity against Him, and affront unto Him.
…
He does not reveal Himself by his word unto the principles of natural light, nor unto reason in its exercise. But yet these principles, and reason itself, with all the faculties of our minds, are consequentially affected with that revelation, and are drawn forth into their proper exercise by it…
And concerning these several ways of the communication or revelation of the knowledge of God, it must be always observed that there is a a perfect consonancy in the things revealed by them all. If any thing pretends from the one what is absolutely contradictory unto the other, or our senses as the means of them, it is not to be received.
The foundation of the whole, as of all the actings of our souls, is in the inbred principles of natural light, or first neceflary dictates of our intellectual rational nature. This, so far as it extends, is a rule unto our apprehension in all that follows. Wherefore if any pretend in the exercise of reason, to conclude unto anything concerning the nature, being, or will of God that is directly contradictory unto those principles and dictates, it is no divine revelation unto our reason, but a paralogism [fallacious reasoning] from the defect of reason in its exercise.
This is that which the apostle charges on, and vehemently urges against the heathen philosophers. Inbred notions they had in themselves of the being and eternal power of God; and these were so manifest in them thereby, that they could not but own them. Hereon they set their rational discursive faculty at
work in the consideration of God and his being. But herein were they so vain and foolish as to draw conclusions directly contrary unto the first principles of natural light, and the unavoidable notions which they had of the eternal being of God, Rom. 1:21-24. And many upon their pretended rational consideration of the promiscuous event of things in the world, have foolishly concluded that all things had a fortuitous beginning, and have fortuitous events, or such as from a concatenation of antecedent causes are fatally necessary, and are not disposed by an infinitely wise, unerring, holy Providence. And this also is directly contradictory unto the first principles and notions of natural light, whereby it openly proclaims itself not to be an effect of reason in its due exercise, but a mere delusion.
So if any pretend unto revelations by faith which are
contradictory unto the first principles of natural light , or reason in its proper exercise about its proper objects, it is a delusion. On this ground the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation is justly rejected, for it proposes that as a revelation by faith, which is expressly contradictory unto our sense and reason in their proper exercise about their proper objects. And a supposition of the possibility of any such thing, would make the ways whereby God reveals and makes known himself, to cross and interfere one with another; which would leave us no certainty in anything divine or human.
But yet as these means of divine revelation do harmonize and perfectly agree one with the other, so they are not objectively equal, or equally extensive, nor are they co-ordinate, but subordinate unto one another. Wherefore there are many things discernible by reason in its exercise, which do not appear unto the first principles of natural light. So the sober philosophers of old attained unto many true and great conceptions of God, and the excellencies of his nature, above what they arrived unto who either did not or could not cultivate and improve the principles of natural light in the fame manner as they did.
It is therefore folly to pretend that things so made known of God are not infallibly true and certain, because they are not obvious unto the first conceptions of natural light, without the due exercise of reason, provided they are not contradictory thereunto. And there are many things revealed unto faith that are above and beyond the comprehension of reason, in the best and utmost of its most proper exercise. Such are all the principal mysteries of Christian religion. And it is the height of folly to reject them, as some do, because they are not discernible and comprehensible by reason, seeing they are not contradictory thereunto.
Wherefore these ways of God’s revelation of himself are
not equally extensive, or commensurate, but are so subordinate one unto another, that what is wanting unto the one is supplied by the other, unto the accomplishment of the whole and entire end of divine revelation; and the truth of God is the same in them all.”
.
A.A. Hodge
Outlines of Theology 2nd ed., enlarged (Bible Institute Colportage Association, 1878), ch. 3, ‘The Sources of Theology’, p. 62
“14. What is the legitimate office of reason in the sphere of religion?
1st. Reason is the primary revelation God has made to man, necessarily presupposed in every subsequent revelation of whatever kind.
2d. Hence Reason, including the moral and emotional nature, and experience, must be the organ by means of which alone all subsequent revelations can be apprehended and received. A revelation addressed to the irrational would be as inconsequent as light to the blind. This is the usus organicus [organic use] of reason.
3d. Hence no subsequent revelation can contradict reason acting legitimately within its own sphere. For then (1) God would contradict Himself, and (2) faith would be impossible. To believe is to assent to a thing as true, but to see that it contradicts reason, is to see that it is not true.”
.
On the Illegitimate Use of Philosophy & Reason
Quote
Canons of Dort (1618/1619), Article 4
“There is, to be sure, a certain light of nature remaining in man after the fall, by virtue of which he retains some notions about God, natural things, and the difference between what is moral and immoral… But this light of nature is far from enabling man to come to a saving knowledge of God and conversion to Him – so far, in fact, that man does not use it rightly even in matters of nature and society. Instead, in various ways he completely distorts this light, whatever its precise character, and suppresses it in unrighteousness.”
.
History of
Quote
J.A. Schlebusch, Cartesianism & Reformed Scholastic Theology: A Comparative Study of the Controversy a Master’s thesis (Univ. of the Free State, South Africa, 2013), p. 30
“Cartesianism’s breakthrough in the Netherlands was partially due to the great concentration of Cartesians at Leiden, the most influential university in the republic at the time. Adriaan Heereboord (1614-1659), an influential teacher there at the time, pleaded for the freedom and independence of philosophy from theology, a freedom he justified by the principle that philosophy should be subject to reason alone.
Despite fighting for Cartesianism, Heereboord never made any statements regarding the implications of Cartesian philosophy for Bible interpretation. This was, however, to be the major issue facing the Dutch Cartesians of the seventeenth century, such as himself, Christoph Wittich and Abraham Heidanus (1597-1678) (Frijhoff 2004:306-309).”
.
On Sophistry
Order of Contents
Quotes 7
Article 1
.
Quotes
Order of
Rainolds
Geneva
Gillespie
Baxter
Turretin
Mastricht
.
1500’s
John Rainolds
The Sum of the Conference between John Rainolds & John Hart touching the Head & the Faith of the Church… (London: Bishop, 1584), p. 44
“It was a common practise amongst the young students of our universities in the time of the Dunses [after John Duns Scotus] (and is yet amongst too many, whom spots of Dunsery have stained), that if in disputation they were brought to an inconvenience, were it never so absurd, they would haue a distinction, though void of brain and sense, yet a distinction to maintain it. If a man will be perverse, it is no mastery to do it.
But as a wise and learned man does say of them, that they are base wits which are so affected, whereas ingenuous minds and natures well-given will rather seek how true that is which they hold than how they may defend it, making greater price of verity than victory: so I may say (yea much more in matters of religion, of faith, of life eternal) a Christian wit and godly mind will search and weigh rather what should be said truly than what may be said probably or colourably at the least.”
.
1600’s
Geneva, Pastors & Professors
ed. John Quick,Synodicon in Gallia reformata, or, The Acts, Decisions, Decrees & Canons of those Famous National Councils of the Reformed Churches in France (London: Parkhurst, 1692), Synod 21, of Tonneins, 1614, ch. 19, A Letter from the Church of Geneva. To the National Synod of the Reformed Churches of France assembled at Tonneins, p. 444
“And we thank you heartily for your kind acceptance of our affection, expressed, in sending so great a number of your scholars to study in our university, which is a very great honor to us, and we shall do our utmost endeavors by all means to fit them for your future service, by molding them into the form of sound words, and into that doctrine, which is according to godliness, weaning and withdrawing them as much as in us lies from that vanity of Jesuitical knowledge, wherein to our great grief so many gallant hopeful wits have through vain curiosity and affectation been wretchedly ensnared, especially in the endless mazes and labyrinths of metaphysical terms and questions, the true seminaries of all novelties and heresies.”
.
George Gillespie
English Popish Ceremonies (1637), 2nd pt., ch. 9, p. 44
“The Dr. holds him upon kneeling in receiving the sacramental elements, and denies that it is scandalous or any way inductive to spiritual ruin. But (if he will) he may consider that the ruder sort who can not distinguish betwixt worshipping the bread and worshipping before the bread, nor discern how to make Christ the passive object of that worship and the bread the active, and how to worship Christ in the Bread, and make the worship relative from the bread to Christ; are by his example induced to bread-worship, when they perceive bowing down before the consecrated bread in the very same form and fashion wherein Papists are seen to worship it, but can not conceive the nice distinctions which he and his companions use to purge their kneeling in that act from idolatry.
As for others who have more knowledge, they are also induced to ruin, being animated by his example to do that which their consciences do condemn.”
.
James Durham
Heaven upon Earth… (d. 1658; Edinburgh: Anderson, 1685), ‘To the Readers’
“…it has been a very generally received maxim in matters of conscience that in dubiis tutius ist abstinere, in things that are doubtful (at least as to their very substance (to say so) and not only as to somewhat extrinsic to them) its safest to abstain.”
.
Richard Baxter
The Cure of Church Divisions… (London, 1670), pt. 1, Direction 57, p. 270
“There is no part of religion which Satan does not endeavor to destroy under pretense of promoting it: and his way is to overgo Christ and his apostles, and to seem more zealous than ever they were, and to mend their work by doing it better or doing more…
Satan has always two ways to destroy both truth and duty: The first is by direct opposing it; But when that will not do, the next is by overdoing and pretending to defend it… If he cannot destroy knowledge by the way of gross ignorance, he will try to spin it out into the finer threads of vain and innumerable questions and speculations, and to crumble it into such invisible atoms, that it shall be reduced to skepticism or nothing.
.
Francis Turretin
Institutes (P&R), vol. 1, 1st Topic, Q. 13, ‘Is there any use of Philosophy in Theology? We Affirm’, section 6, pp. 45-56
“VI. Many abuses can also be reckoned up:
…
(3) When philosophy assumes to itself the office of a master, in articles of faith, not content with that of a servant (as was done by the [Medieval, Romanist] Scholastics who places Aristotle upon the throne; and by the Socinians who would not admit the doctrines of the Trinity, of the incarnation, etc. because they did not seem to be in accordance with the principles of philosophy).
(4) When more new distinctions and phrases than necessary are introduced from philosophy into theology under which (oftentimes) new and dangerous errors lie concealed.”
.
Peter van Mastricht
Theoretical-Practical Theology (RHB), vol. 6, Church History, bk. 8 (Latin, p. 1,027); see also RHB, vol. 1, p. 85.
“Also together with the heresies you will not inappropriately count scholastic theology, or that philosophical theology that vitiated orthodox theology no less than any heresy.”
.
Article
Pascal, Blaise – Letter 1 in Pensees – The Provincial Letters in The Modern Library (d. 1662; NY: Modern Library, 1941), pp. 325-35
Pascal, a Romanist, relates a humorous, though sad and sick account of Parisian Jesuit Molinists who conspired with Dominicans (Thomists), through sophistry (through affirming the same term ‘proximate’, yet in different senses, while refusing to acknowledge or expalin the difference), to condemn a (Romanist) Jansenist theologian (who would not affirm the term ‘proximate’ without it being explained to him) over a doctrinal/philosophical point relating to the ability of man to keep God’s commandments proximately, though the end shows all were agreed that man could not keep the commandments without the merciful efficacious will of God.
.
Historical Theology
On the 1500’s
Articles
Haines, David – ‘Heinrich Bullinger on Natural Reason, Theology & Law’
“Bullinger (1504-1575), a Swiss reformer, was the successor of Heidrich Zwingli. He was one of the most influential of the earlier reformers… He was educated in the via antiqua [old way], learning from such greats as Aquinas and Scotus. In what follows, I provide quotes from Bullinger on the following subjects: Faith, Nature, Natural Reason, Natural Theology, and Natural Law. The quotes are accompanied only by short comments to help situate them or better understand them.” – Haines
Mallinson, Jeffrey – ch. 4, ‘The Uses & Abuses of Natural Revelation’ in Faith, Reason & Revelation in Theodore Beza, 1519-1605 (Oxford, 2003), pp. 99-142
Kirby, Torrance – ‘“Grace hath Use of Nature”: Richard Hooker & the Conversion of Reason’ in Richard Hooker & Reformed Orthodoxy (2017), pp. 127-41
.
On the 1600’s – 1700’s
Articles
Sytsma, David – ch. 3, ‘Reason & Philosophy’ in Richard Baxter & the Mechanical Philosophers (Oxford, 2017), pp. 71-104
Goudriaan, Aza – ch. 1, ‘Holy Scripture, Human Reason & Natural Theology’ in Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy, 1625-1750 : Gisbertus Voetius, Petrus Van Mastricht, and Anthonius
Driessen Pre (Boston: Brill, 2006), pp. 29-84
.
On the 1600’s
Articles
Woo, B. Hoon – ‘The Understanding of Gisbertus Voetius & René Descartes on the Relationship of Faith & Reason, & Theology & Philosophy’ in Westminster Theological Journal 75, no. 1 (2013): pp. 45–63
Rehnmann, S. – ‘Alleged Rationalism. Francis Turretin on Reason,’ CTJ 37 (2002), pp. 255–269
.
On the 1700’s
Wolfe, Stephen Michael – John Witherspoon & Reformed Orthodoxy: Reason, Revelation, & the American Founding Masters thesis (LSU, 2016)
Abstract: “The dominant view in the literature is that Witherspoon’s view and use of natural theology, natural law, reason and philosophy indicate a compromise or inconsistency with his otherwise theological Reformed orthodoxy—a move towards a type of “enlightened orthodoxy” or “Christian rationalism.” After reviewing the primary and secondary sources, I contend that the literature is in need of significant correction. I provide here both a corrective and contribute to the literature by showing that Witherspoon’s thought on these subjects—which, broadly speaking, concerns the relationship of reason to revelation—is consistent with Reformed orthodoxy.”
.
On the 1800’s-1900’s
Books
Anderson, Owen
Reason & Faith at Early Princeton: Piety & the Knowledge of God (Palgrave, 2014)
Anderson has been a professor of religion and philosophy at Arizona State University.
Reason & Worldviews: Warfield, Kuyper, Van Til & Plantinga on the Clarity of General Revelation & Function of Apologetics (University Press of America, 2008) 152 pp.
Benjamin B. Warfield & Right Reason: The Clarity of General Revelation & Function of Apologetics (University Press of America, 2005)
.
Latin
Articles
1600’s
Rivet, Andrew – in The Orthodox Catholic (1630), especially the Dedicatory Epistle.
Voet references and recommends Rivet in van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, pp. 235, 244.
Voet, Gisbert – 1. ‘On Human Reason in the Things of Faith’ (1636) in Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht: Waesberg, 1648), vol. 1, pp. 1-12 This is in English in van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, appendix 2
Maccovius, Johannes – Disputation 17, ‘Whether heavenly or theological doctrine ought to be judged according to the norm of reason? Or whether human reason may be the judge to the determining of theological controversies? The Socinians affirm; we deny’ in A Theological Collection, All those things which Exist... (Franeker: Deuring, 1641), pt. 1, 6. Tract of Miscellaneous Questions, pp. 536-43
Heidegger, Johann H.
sections 5-8 in Locus 1, ‘On Theology in General’ in A Marrow of the Marrow of Christian Theology… (Zurich, 1697), pp. 2-4
sections 15-23, ‘Of the Use of Reason in Theology’ in The Marrow of Christian Theology... (Zurich, 1713), bk. 1, place 1, ‘Of Theology in General’, pp. 6-10
.
1700’s
Malacrida, Elisaeo – The Fourth of the Theological Dissertations, on Right Reason, Whether it is Sufficient to the Understanding of the Genuine Sense of Sacred Scripture? Then, the Specific Topic, Whether it is Sufficient for the Minister, for Deriving Sound Doctrine? (Bern, 1713) 32 pp.
Malacrida (1658-1719) was a reformed professor of Greek, ethics and theology at Bern.
.
Books
1600’s
Vedel, Nicolaus – The Reasonableness of Theology, or of the Necessity & True Use of the Principles of Reason & Philosophy in Theological Controversies in Three Books, for the Truth of the whole Christian Religion & Especially for the Confessions of the Evangelicals Opposite the Sophists of Recent Times (Geneva, 1628) 800 pp. ToC Index of Questions Authors
Vedel (1596-1642) was a professor of philosophy at Geneva and of theology at Franeker.
Rambour, Abraham – Theological Disputation on the Renewed Art of Ancient Heretics by which Today’s Beggars & Charletans provoking to a dispute the Ministers of the Orthodox Churches Sell Themselves, or a defense of the doctors of the Reformed Church on the authority of Scripture (d. 1651; Geneva: De Tournes, 1661)
Rambour (1590-1651)
.
.
Related Pages
Where Reformed Orthodox Writers Agreed & Disagreed with Aquinas
Lombard’s Sentences, Commentaries on Them, etc.
Contra Medieval Theology’s Errors
Church History’s Reception of Aquinas
On the Theology, Philosophy & Thought of the Medieval Church