Reason Is Not The Principium But Instrument Of Faith

The question is not whether reason is the instrument by which or the medium through which we can be drawn to faith. For we acknowledge that reason can be both: the former indeed always and everywhere; the later with regard to presupposed articles. Rather the question is whether it is the first principle from which the doctrines of faith are proved; or the foundation upon which they are built, so that we must hold to be false in things of faith what the nature light or human reason cannot comprehend. This we deny.

. . . If reason is the principle of faith, then first it would follow that all religion is natural and demonstrable by natural reason and natural light. Thus nature and grace, natural and supernatural revelation would be confounded.

. . . A ministerial and organic relation is quite different from a principial and despotic.

. . . We must observe the distinction between an instrument of faith and the foundation of faith.

. . . The Lutherans falsely object to us that we hold reason to be the principle and rule of demonstration in controversies because we sometimes draw arguments from reason, and argue from reason against the ubiquity of Christ’s body. For we assign to reason only a ministerial and instrumental, not a principal office. And if, in compound questions, we use reason for the purpose of proof, it bears the relation not of a principle but of means from which the theologian argues; and the are not with us primary arguments, but only secondary and auxiliary forces. Besides, while the theologian uses arguments drawn from reason, he does it rather as a philosopher rather than as a theologian. As to the ubiquity of the body of Christ, we reject this doctrine both philosophically and theologically, because it is absurd and contradicts the first principles of theology and philosophy.

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.8.4, 5, 6, 24


RESOURCES

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization


Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


2 comments

  1. If reason is the principle of faith, then first it would follow that all religion is natural and demonstrable by natural reason and natural light. Thus nature and grace, natural and supernatural revelation would be confounded.

    I’m not sure this is sound. Natural reason (which I take to mean logic) and natural light (which I take to mean natural revelation) are not one and the same. Natural reason is well-understood apart from the gospel since the greeks, and certainly in other societies as well. Natural revelation contains the observations (facts, data) upon which natural reason can operate. These two alone are not sufficient to faith; additional observations/facts/data are also required from supernatural revelation, but I would contend that it is natural reason that is sufficient to operate on those additional supernaturally-revealed observations, not some supernatural/enhanced reason.

    Even granted that the details of the birth, life, teachings, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ are historical facts that are part of natural revelation for eyewitnesses, and even for us by studying their accounts, is it God’s grace to apply saving faith via supernatural reason, or supernatural revelation of the truth of those facts, so that we believe?

    • I don’t see how you disagree with Turretin. You seem to be discussing something other than Turretin, who discussing the principium of faith. Faith is not built on reason, as he explains. It involves reason but reason is the master (magister) but the ancilla, servant or minister. Turretin agreed that natural reason can apprehend the facts of redemption but faith in the sense in which he’s using it here, is not built on what natural reason does with natural revelation.

Comments are closed.