I am currently reading K. Scott Oliphant’s book Reasons {for Faith} which deals, in part, with the role of reason in faith. In chapter2, Oliphint discusses the proper use of reason “to the truth given in Christianity.” One is “to judge the consistency and coherence of biblical truth,” and to judge what is contridictory or not (via the law of contradiction). Reason here, however, is to be understood as properly functioning only after salvation and is “enlightened … giving its decisions from the word” (22).
To take this further, reason alone is not to decide what is possible or impossible. Oliphint then quotes Van Til from the cd-rom titled The Works of Cornelius Van Til to illustrate the difference of reason for Christians and that for non-believers, illustrating the use of the “law of contradiction”:
It is therefore pointless of Christians to tell non-Christians that Christianity is “in accord with the law of contradiction” unless they explain what they mean by this. For the non-Christian will take this statement to mean something entirely different from what the Christian ought to mean by it. The non-Christian does not believe in creation. Therefore, for him the law of contradiction is, like all other laws, something that does not find its ultimate source in the creative activity of God. Accordingly, the non-Christian will seek to do by means of the law of contradiction what the Christian has done for him by God. For the Christian, God legislates as to what is possible and what is impossible for man. For the non-Christian, man determines this for himself. Either positively or negatively the non-Christian will determine the field of posibility and therewith the stream of history by means of the law of contradiction (Oliphant, 22, quoting Van Til).
Filed under: Philosophy Books, christian life, philosophy | Tagged: Christianity, faith, K. Scott Oliphint, law of contradiction, Philosophy of Religion, reason, Reasons {for Faith}, Van Til
