What is the purpose of Reason?

[TomUK]

Reason is a tool for using the other two. Remember the Reason of this Age has determined there is no God. The Reason of this age has determined thatlife is meaningless and void.

That's not reason, that is deception.

 

[ContraMundum]

Holy Reason is what St. Augustine of Hippo writes about proper interpretation of Scripture in his book, On Christian Teaching.

It is essentially utilizing all available resources (science, history, linguistics, philosophy, religious studies, geography, government and civics, etc) logically in reverence and in a prayerful style. Through this, the Holy Spirit will guide us.

It has nothing to do with undermining things nor is it lesser than Scripture or Tradition. The fact that Reason has been used by the Church Fathers since the first century should tell us that it is a powerful and authoritative instrument in which Truth may be assertained...

...after all, there wouldn't have been Nicaea I, etc, without it!

Funny that the same Augustine that teaches us about "holy reason" is the same one that you accuse of being a heretic, because his "holy reason" teaches total depravity and predestination to salvation, which you claimed was "manichean". Perhaps he was wrong then about reason, or at best his own "holy reason" was off target?

I think Luther was right.

 

[Wiffey]

Whether we acknowledge it or not, reason has always had a role. If reason= the human capability to understand and perceive God, then it was the reasoning of the early church (their human ability to interpret the movings of the Holy Spirit) that produced both the canon of written scripture and tradition.

To exclude reason now would be tantamount to saying that humans are permanently relegated to the best understanding available in say, the 8th century.

Personally, I would not go to a doctor who limited him or herself to 8th century methods...or to a church that would deny that God continues to reach out to us and relishes the process of human growth and evolution that allows us to perceive things in new ways over time.

Some would have us believe that scripture and tradition landed on earth wrapped in a neat little bundle, all perfect and complete for all time...and our job is to preserve rather than to grow. Alas, scripture and tradition were indeed shaped by human reason...the reason available in a certain time, by certain individuals in a particular cultural framework. A good guidepost, but certainly not (IMO) to serve as a substitute for reason, intellect and free will.

 

[Colabomb]

Whether we acknowledge it or not, reason has always had a role. If reason= the human capability to understand and perceive God, then it was the reasoning of the early church (their human ability to interpret the movings of the Holy Spirit) that produced both the canon of written scripture and tradition.

To exclude reason now would be tantamount to saying that humans are permanently relegated to the best understanding available in say, the 8th century.

Personally, I would not go to a doctor who limited him or herself to 8th century methods...or to a church that would deny that God continues to reach out to us and relishes the process of human growth and evolution that allows us to perceive things in new ways over time.

Some would have us believe that scripture and tradition landed on earth wrapped in a neat little bundle, all perfect and complete for all time...and our job is to preserve rather than to grow. Alas, scripture and tradition were indeed shaped by human reason...the reason available in a certain time, by certain individuals in a particular cultural framework. A good guidepost, but certainly not (IMO) to serve as a substitute for reason, intellect and free will.

So you would say that

1) Scripture is not perfect.

2) Tradition is not perfect. (one I would agree with, although I give it more weight than reason)

3) That Reason is above both?

How do you come out with Christianity if you have no basis to begin with that you consider True?

Although I disagree with Staunch Anglo-Catholics who say that Tradition and Scripture are of equal value, I at least admire that they are standing on something other than their own whims.

 

[higgs2]

So you would say that

1) Scripture is not perfect.

2) Tradition is not perfect. (one I would agree with, although I give it more weight than reason)

3) That Reason is above both?

How do you come out with Christianity if you have no basis to begin with that you consider True?

Although I disagree with Staunch Anglo-Catholics who say that Tradition and Scripture are of equal value, I at least admire that they are standing on something other than their own whims.

Perhaps she is saying something more along the lines of "our understanding" of scripture is not perfect. Would you disagree with that? Is your understanding of scripture perfect?

 

[Colabomb]

Perhaps she is saying something more along the lines of "our understanding" of scripture is not perfect. Would you disagree with that? Is your understanding of scripture perfect?

No, my understanding of Scripture is not perfect. That is why I often Pray and go to Tradition and use Reason to help understand it.

But at the end of the day, I have to say that those things are not as important as the Scriptures. We know the Scriptures to be True, we can't say that about Tradition, even if you give it high Regard.

And to use Reason as a source of doctrine is unwise. As I pointed out, the "reason" of this age is so contrary to the clear teachings of Scripture (I emphasized clear teachings), and the continuing witness of Tradition, that it is extrememely untrustworthy.

 

[higgs2]

No, my understanding of Scripture is not perfect. That is why I often Pray and go to Tradition and use Reason to help understand it.

But at the end of the day, I have to say that those things are not as important as the Scriptures. We know the Scriptures to be True, we can't say that about Tradition, even if you give it high Regard.

And to use Reason as a source of doctrine is unwise. As I pointed out, the "reason" of this age is so contrary to the clear teachings of Scripture (I emphasized clear teachings), and the continuing witness of Tradition, that it is extrememely untrustworthy.

Hmm. Well my thought is we shouldn't jump to conclusions about what the poster means, she can clarify. I'm not sure I can see the post promoting reason as a source of doctrine, or some of the other concerns.

 

[Colabomb]

Whether we acknowledge it or not, reason has always had a role. If reason= the human capability to understand and perceive God, then it was the reasoning of the early church (their human ability to interpret the movings of the Holy Spirit) that produced both the canon of written scripture and tradition.

To exclude reason now would be tantamount to saying that humans are permanently relegated to the best understanding available in say, the 8th century.

Personally, I would not go to a doctor who limited him or herself to 8th century methods...or to a church that would deny that God continues to reach out to us and relishes the process of human growth and evolution that allows us to perceive things in new ways over time.

Some would have us believe that scripture and tradition landed on earth wrapped in a neat little bundle, all perfect and complete for all time...and our job is to preserve rather than to grow. Alas, scripture and tradition were indeed shaped by human reason...the reason available in a certain time, by certain individuals in a particular cultural framework. A good guidepost, but certainly not (IMO) to serve as a substitute for reason, intellect and free will.

Basically meaning that we can change the rules whenever we "perceive" something we don't like in Scripture?

 

[higgs2]

Basically meaning that we can change the rules whenever we "perceive" something we don't like in Scripture?

The rules? There is a lot more to scripture than just rules. Does your rector emphasize "rules" in his preaching?

 

[Colabomb]

The rules? There is a lot more to scripture than just rules. Does your rector emphasize "rules" in his preaching?

There is indeed more to Scripture than Rules, much more, but there are still rules.

 

[Wiffey]

To clarify, I do not think any human being can understand scripture (or God) perfectly. Not due to any imperfection on God's part...God is perfect and good. But communication is a two way street. And humans are imperfect, even the very best and brightest cannot hope to fully comprehend the mind of God. God is infinite and we are finite. We can only do the best we can.

Scripture was inspired by God, yes. But written by humans. So is it perfect? IMO, no. It is a guidepost that gives us insight into:
1. God's efforts to communicate to us.
2. How the writers of scripture interpret the Holy Spirit.

What is presented is one view of how to interpret the relationship between humanity and God.

Was sexism acceptable in the 1st century? Sure. So was racism and slavery. There is a lot in scripture that refers to proper treatment of slaves. One could infer that God likes slavery, which is what white Southern slaveholders used to do. They twisted scripture to suit their agenda. Anyone can do it. But I do not believe that God created any second class citizens. I recognize that scriptural references to slavery do not represent the will of God, but rather a cultural aberration, an artifact of the society that produced the authors.

Bottom line...we are not fundamentalists. If we were truly convinced of the divine origin of every syllable of scripture, then we'd be slaveowning, tallis wearing, shrimp avoiding lovers of Leviticus.

FWIW, I am bone-tired of this silly assumption that if one doesn't totally defer to second century perspectives, then one believes only in one's own "whims".

Untrue! I believe in God. I believe that God is inherently good. I do not believe that God likes to mess with people like a surly child incinerating insects with a magnifying glass on a sunny day. I do not think he made over 50% of the population to be glorified maids & incubators for everyone else. I do not believe that slavery, under any circumstances, is OK. I do think that we, as people, have a tendency to try to understand our transcendant God in terms we can relate to, by anthropomorphizing him and ascribing petty, silly human foibles to the Divine. I do not think God ever cared about whether we immolate bulls on the altar for a sin atonement, or if we ate a grilled cheese sandwich too soon after eating meat.

The ability to reason is a gift from God. With it I can see that either the scriptures are imperfect, or God is someone who I wish to avoid, as he (IN the OT) likes randomly putting whole nations (including innocents) to the sword. I do not go to church each week to glorify a big genocidal jerk, so clearly my vote is that scripture represents an imperfect, very human interpretation of an all good and loving Creator.

 

[gtsecc]

Reason - concludes Jesus was just a man, and did not actually bodily resurect.

Reason - if I find a particular part of Christianity inviolation of the wisdom of modern society, I can ignore it.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

Reason - concludes Jesus was just a man, and did not actually bodily resurect.

Actually, I use my reason to conclude that Jesus is God, and that he did actually resurrect. This is certainly reasonable to me considering God is the creator and sustainer of the entire Universe. Additionally, reasoning, for me, comes through experience as well. And so I can conclude that the supernatural dimension exists, because I have experienced very small glimpses of it.

 

[Wiffey]

Reason tells me that I cannot solely judge the worth of Christianity by the actions of its followers. I can separate the eternal truth of God from the sometimes limited view of his followers. In this way I can still see good in the faith despite the many mistakes and atrocities that Christians have made (both individually and corporately) in the name of Christ.

Let's peruse...Crusades, Inquisition, oppressing and murdering any group that didn't fit their view (like the massacre of the Cathars), religious wars, etc.

Reason tells me that the above actions resulted from faulty interpretations of Christianity and are not an accurate reflection of Divine will. Those actions, BTW, for the most part resulted from societies that overvalued scripture and tradition to the detriment of reason, human compassion and the belief in inherent human rights (including freedom of conscience).

 

[Colabomb]

Actually, I use my reason to conclude that Jesus is God, and that he did actually resurrect. This is certainly reasonable to me considering God is the creator and sustainer of the entire Universe. Additionally, reasoning, for me, comes through experience as well. And so I can conclude that the supernatural dimension exists, because I have experienced very small glimpses of it.

Aside from Scripture and Tradition would you ever come to this conclusion by Reason alone?

No, we apply Reason to Scripture, Reason on its own is worthless.

 

[gtsecc]

Aside from Scripture and Tradition would you ever come to this conclusion by Reason alone?

No, we apply Reason to Scripture, Reason on its own is worthless.

True, but so is scripture - look at some of the cults who have abused scripture.

 

[Colabomb]

To clarify, I do not think any human being can understand scripture (or God) perfectly. Not due to any imperfection on God's part...God is perfect and good. But communication is a two way street. And humans are imperfect, even the very best and brightest cannot hope to fully comprehend the mind of God. God is infinite and we are finite. We can only do the best we can.

Agreed, but this does not mean we can't try. It also doesn't mean that when we come across something as clear as day we can't obey it.

Scripture was inspired by God, yes. But written by humans. So is it perfect? IMO, no. It is a guidepost that gives us insight into:
1. God's efforts to communicate to us.
2. How the writers of scripture interpret the Holy Spirit.

How are the Scriptures Inspired. If we can't trust what it says, why bother?

What is presented is one view of how to interpret the relationship between humanity and God.

The Christian Way. Any other way I would not like to have any part in.

Was sexism acceptable in the 1st century? Sure.

Please stop equating male priesthood with sexism. It is a doctrine that many hold to be the Truth, including the vast majority of Christian Women.

Another inconsistancy. On one hand many liberals call Paul Sexist, but on the other Paul supposedly called women Apostles.

Which is it? Did Paul Support female Priests or was he a Sexist?

Bottom line...we are not fundamentalists. If we were truly convinced of the divine origin of every syllable of scripture, then we'd be slaveowning, tallis wearing, shrimp avoiding lovers of Leviticus.

Actually the New Testament frees us from the law. So your Leviticus example does not work.

But secondly, I say every doctrine is inspired, not necessarily every syllable.

[FWIW, I am bone-tired of this silly assumption that if one doesn't totally defer to second century perspectives, then one believes only in one's own "whims".

But you are. You defy the Scriptures and 2000 years of Christian Teaching.

Untrue! I believe in God. I believe that God is inherently good. I do not believe that God likes to mess with people like a surly child incinerating insects with a magnifying glass on a sunny day.

Limiting the Priesthood to men is the same as torturing ants?

You are really reaching here.

I do not think he made over 50% of the population to be glorified maids & incubators for everyone else.

Yup, Barefoot Pregnant and in the Kitchen. I most definitely believe in that. I should get me a slave too.

(In case it wasn't obvious enough, that was sarcasm)

do think that we, as people, have a tendency to try to understand our transcendant God in terms we can relate to, by anthropomorphizing him and ascribing petty, silly human foibles to the Divine.

Why not just say we made God up?

If the Scriptures and Tradition are not Trustworthy, how do we know there is a God in the First place? Or even that we worship the Right one?

Lowering the Scriptures simply leads to Open Theism.

I do not think God ever cared abodut whether we immolate bulls on the altar for a sin atonement.

In Old Testament Times He sure did.

Or did Moses make that up too?

The ability to reason is a gift from God.

Amen. But reason is not carte Blanche to ignore God and His Word.

With it I can see that either the scriptures are imperfect, or God is someone who I wish to avoid, as he (IN the OT) likes randomly putting whole nations (including innocents) to the sword. I do not go to church each week to glorify a big genocidal jerk, so clearly my vote is that scripture represents an imperfect, very human interpretation of an all good and loving Creator.

So you directly claim now that the Scriptures are lying.

Why are you a Christian? If you have nothing to base your faith on but your own feelings, why bother? An open theism, or Buddhism makes people feel better.

If the Scriptures are only Trustworthy where they seem to make since, I don't want to bother with it.

 

[Wiffey]

It all comes down to how folks interpret the Scriptures. And they must be interpreted, as they are full of contradictions. In the OT, God demands all manner of sacrifices and puts whole societies to the sword, punishing innocent children for their parents' transgressions. Yet we are told that God is merciful, loving and good. (To cite one example).

You are totally free to interpret the scriptures as you see fit, and I won't snidely come up with suggestions that you should decamp to some other faith because I disagree with you.

I am Christian because I believe in Christ. I do not need to believe that all scripture is perfect in order to believe in Him. Sorry to disappoint you by not rushing off to worship Amon Ra because you find my viewpoint distasteful. I have had many wonderful conversations with my parish priest about scripture and tradition, and he seems to think I am precisely where I should be. Since he agrees with me on most of the essentials, maybe he should decamp as well.

FWIW, I love having a broad tent and have no issue with worshipping alongside anyone. It is one of the great things about the Anglican communion, the ability to come together across a wide spectrum. This idea that anyone who doesn't hold to a very narrow viewpoint should leave...sounds more RC or EO than Anglican.

 

[Colabomb]

How do you come to trust that the Gospel Story is True? If the Rest of the Scripture is so Corrupt, how do you trust the parts you agree with?

How do you know that God is Merciful? What if the Merciful portions are wrong and God is really just a despot?

On what do you base your faith?

It is an issue of Logic.

 

[Wiffey]

Fortunately, I do not believe that God is a despot. If I thought so, I wouldn't worship him. If I thought that all of Christianity was bunk, I'd be gone. To me, it is the rigid, dogmatic view of God that is illogical. Humans try to understand what is beyond their comprehension...and end up ascribing human qualities to God, who far surpasses us.

Kind of like if a squirrel monkey tried to write a book that explained humans. A squirrel monkey will never fully be able to grasp the human experience & perspective, even if a human patiently explains it in detail. So what you would get is a tome detailing the prevailing squirrel monkey wisdom regarding humans. Is this the fault of the human? No. Just that the book will have built in limitations.

Luckily, I don't just experience God from scripture...I experience God each day. Where scripture, tradition and reason all fit together and make sense, I have no issue. Where scripture seems to contradict itself, I turn to reason and what I KNOW to be true...that God is good and merciful and loving. If the scripture shows God in that light, great. If it shows an anthropomorphized version of God, a deity basically behaving like a crack addled dictator...then I think "Wow, that is sooo off base".