By Adi Schlebusch
The Dutch Reformed Scholastic Gisbetius Voetius (1569-1676) sees the epistemology of rationalism as standing in stark contrast to Christianity, given the fact that it places ultimate authority in man himself. He writes that “reason cannot precede faith or consist of clearer knowledge, and as such, reason cannot be the foundation of faith.”[1]
His younger contemporary Petrus van Mastricht (1630-1706) echoes this sentiment when he writes that: “The light of reason exists nowhere more perfectly than in Scripture, and nothing else is a more certain foundation upon which to build knowledge. Consequently, whatever is conveyed by Scripture is to be received as true, and whatever conflicts with it, rejected as false.”[2]
True faith and true reason can never contradict one another, since natural knowledge and the truths of Scripture both have the same Source, God. As such, they must always be consistent with one another because God, the Logos, cannot contradict Himself. Whenever a thinker in his speculative reasonings arrives at a proposition inconsistent with Scripture, as Averroës did when he concluded that immortality is a myth, that thinker is necessarily in error. Moreover, reason and faith are not only in harmony, but revelation received by faith is needed as the firm basis of a rational worldview. Philosophical attempts at establishing truth apart from the Word of God always result in madness and irrationalism—think of the globally accepted Covid-19 lockdowns as but one recent example. Hence constructive thought must inescapably presuppose a divinely given reality, which entails assuming that the Bible is the Word of God.
The author is a senior researcher at the Pactum Institute.
[1] Voetius, G. 1636. Ratio humana in rebus fidei. 4.
“Ratio humana non est prior notior, cerior fidei, ergo non est eius principium.”
[2] Van Mastricht, P. 1655. Vindicae Veritatis et autoritas Sacrae Scripturae in rebus Philosophicus adversus dissertationes D. Christophori Wittichii. Utrecht: Waesberge, I.2.
“lumen rationis perfectus existerre nullibi, quam in Scriptura. Adeoque nulli principio, Solidiorem et certiorem posse superstrui scientiam, quam scripturae sacrae. Et consequenter quicquid cum ea convenit, illud tanquam verum, esse recipiendum, quod contra cum ea pugnat, ut falsum esse, reprobandum.”