Biblical Psychology: 3 Reason Christian! I

Table of Contents

1 The Human “Heart”

2 Misconceptions of the “Heart”

3 Reason Christian! I

4 Reason Christian! II

5 Desires of the “Heart”

6 Emotions of the “Heart”

7 Transforming the “Heart”

8 Whole-hearted Worship

9 Whole-hearted Prayer

10 A History of Half-hearted Spirituality

11 Modern Half-hearted Spirituality

12 Devil-darkened Reason

13 The Insanity of Humanity I

14 The Insanity of Humanity II

15 From Darkness to Light I

16 From Darkness to Light II

Appendix A Detailed Contents

Chapter 4.3

Reason Christian! I

The Importance of Reasoning in the Christian Life

Overall Objective
To demonstrate the philosophical and practical importance of reason in a God-pleasing Christian life.
Table of Topics

A) The Nature of Human Reason

A.1) A Computer of Beliefs

A.2) Conscious vs. Subconscious Reasoning

A.3) Moral vs. Logical Reasoning

B) Reason & Holiness

B.1) A Neglected Relationship

B.2) The Conscience Reasons

B.3) Reason & Repentance: Roman 12:1-3

B.4) Reason & Self-control

B.5) Reason & Spiritual Warfare: Ephesians 6:10-18

C) Reason, Faith, Hope, Peace & Love

D) Reason & Edification

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points
  • Reason can be categorized as moral (conscience) and logical (reason).
  • Reason operates much like a computer.
  • The battle of personal holiness is won or lost in the mind, because it is our moral reasoning which dictates our ethics, and therefore our moral attitudes and subsequent actions.
  • Our sanctification depends on reasoning because of its central place in repentance, avoiding deception, and transformation.
  • Reasoning rightly is at the bottom of the cardinal Christian virtues of faith, hope, and love.
  • There is no such thing as Christian edification without reasoning.

A) The Nature of Human Reason

A.1) A Computer of Beliefs

While “heart” is a biblical term used to refer to the faculty of reason, other words are used to refer to the process of reasoning as well. This process is often referred to in the Hebrew as hāšab and in the Greek as dokeō (think), phronēsis (thought) or logizomai (reason). Concerning the latter, the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT) says, “The concept implies an activity of the reason which, starting with ascertainable facts, draws a conclusion.” [1] Webster’s defines reasoning as: “the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways.” [2] The seventeenth century English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704), in his famous and very influential Essay Concerning Human Understanding defined reasoning as:

[T]he discovery of the certainty or probability of such propositions or truths, which the mind arrives at by deduction made from such ideas, which it has got by the use of its natural faculties; viz. by sensation or reflection. [3]

Along these lines, Yandall Woodfin, former Professor of Philosophy of Religion at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary wrote:

All knowing, regardless of its sphere or point of reference, comes as one . . . organizes his sense impressions [or memory] into patterns of meaning and understanding. . . . Though reason is as elusive as the structure of personality itself, it may be described as that mental faculty which possesses a degree of spontaneous, self-evident power of comprehension. It is capable of receiving and projecting various relationships between ideas and thus extending knowledge beyond the conditions of possible experience. [4]

Reasoning is what you are doing even now as you contemplate what kind of name is Yandall Woodfin. Reasoning is what we have discussed elsewhere as human research, [5] and private judgment. [6] Reasoning is what every human being does every time they make a decision about anything, whether it is to include anchovies on your pizza (which would be bad reasoning), or to receive Jesus Christ as your Savior. Reason is what you are using right now to understand, interpret, and evaluate the value and accuracy of what you are reading here. While so many dismiss or depreciate it, reasoning is something no human can escape, or at least should not strive to do so. [7]

While we discuss the epistemological importance of reason more specifically elsewhere, [8] we need only to remember that it is the God-given faculty by which we process information into knowledge which becomes beliefs which in turn are the foundation of everything else we do. As we have discussed elsewhere, knowledge is what we understand and belief is the knowledge we think is true with various levels of certainty. [9] Accordingly, Webster’s defines belief as: “Conviction of the truth of some statement . . . based on examination of evidence.” [10] Therefore, reasoning is how our mind operates in order to produce our beliefs.

How does this process work? First of all, it needs to be said that the operation of our reasoning is just as mysterious as how the brain itself works. [11] While our suggested explanation will necessarily be rather simplistic, we think it might be helpful to enlist computers as an analogy. [12] Along these lines, psychologist David Myers writes:

Since the brain is composed primarily of neurons, and since neurons seem to function primarily as dynamic conveyors of information, it seems to follow that we must understand the activities of the mind primarily in terms of information processing. [13]

Likewise, theologian Gregory Peterson has written: “[T]he history of cognitive science has shown that computational models have been enormously fruitful for thinking about the mind and brain.” [14]

Therefore, it can be simply suggested that we receive “data” through various sources including divine revelation, memory, experiences, research, and our senses including sight, hearing, and touch. [15] This data is processed by the God-given system software imbedded in our reason by the Creator, which contains rules, laws, and constructs of logic and morality. [16] With these imbedded paradigms humans are enabled to process data into beliefs which result in desires and decisions. [17]

Accordingly, even infants automatically process the data they are exposed to, transforming it into moral and logical beliefs, and demonstrating a built-in “system software” which enables them to interpret, evaluate, categorize, and synthesize information from the day they are born and even before. [18]

Specifically concerning the logical reasoning of the mind, the imbedded “processing code” used has been described as rules of logic. [19] Dr. Buswell wrote: “Logic is the study of how we ought to think if we think correctly.” [20] The innate rules of logic are demonstrated in what are called syllogisms, which metaphorically speaking, are the binary computer code for our reasoning. [21]

An example of this is: 1) All men are mortal, 2) John is a man, therefore, 3) John is mortal. This is the essence of how we think, and the basic process by which we gain all of our knowledge. [22] These laws of logic include the laws of identity, contradiction, the excluded middle, and causality.

Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest demonstrate some of these laws in the following comment:

Paul, arguing that Israel’s election was by grace, not works, says, “If it were [by works], grace would no longer be grace” (Rom. 11:6). Here Paul presupposes classical logic’s three laws of thought: (1) the principle of identity: A is A, grace is (unmerited) grace; (2) the principle of the excluded middle: A is not non-A, (unmerited) grace is not nongrace (or works with merit); and (3) the principle of noncontradiction: a thing cannot be both A and non-A at the same time, God’s choice cannot be according to both grace and nongrace (works). [23]

The beliefs that reason processes are then stored in our memory. In other words, after we have processed something in our reason, we need not do so in the future, but simply extract the previous result from our memory. For example, if we have ever been burned by a hot stove, we no longer need to enter a long process of reasoning in the future of whether or not to do so, but rather, need only to remember the result we had reasoned to before. Remembering is a very important part of our relationship with God, particularly in the areas of Scripture memorization and meditating on the past acts of God in order to bolster our faith in Him. [24]

A.2) Conscious vs. Subconscious Reasoning

Defining human reason is notoriously difficult. [25] However, understanding it can be enhanced by differentiating some aspects of it. First, any discussion of human reasoning must take into account the differences of both its conscious and subconscious aspects. Simply put, the thoughts in our conscious mind are those we are aware of, while we are unaware of our subconscious thoughts, until they are brought into our conscious mind. For example, our breathing normally operates in our subconscious, but if and when we “think” about it, this rather automatic human process enters the conscious part of our mind.

Here again the analogy of a computer is helpful. We are consciously aware of only a very small fraction of the immense amount of data we have stored in our mind. Accordingly, the subconscious mind is much like the hard drive on a computer. In order to use the information there it must be brought into the random access memory (RAM) of the computer, which simulates our conscious mind.

The conscious part of our mind is normally what we think of (no pun intended) and will be discussed further below and in subsequent chapters. Here we will take the opportunity to offer a few important thoughts concerning the subconscious.

While several theologians throughout Church history have written a considerable amount on our conscious reasoning (e.g. Augustine, Aquinas, Edwards, and Clark), few, if any, have written extensively on the subconscious. Nonetheless, Pastor Dave Bovenmyer finds several biblical references to it:

[A]lthough the word “subconscious” is nowhere found in the Bible, the Scripture alludes to hidden or unnoticed motives, attitudes, and thoughts that would be considered “subconscious.” For example, in Psalm 19:12, David prays, “Who can discern his errors? Acquit me of hidden faults.”  Evidently David was not consciously aware of any outright disobedience to God, yet He was concerned that he might have hidden attitudes, motives, and faults that he was ignorant of or refusing to notice and admit.

In Psalm 51:6, a prayer of repentance after committing adultery and murder, David prays to God, “Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being, and in the hidden part You will make me know wisdom.” Evidently David discovered that he had been dishonest (lacked truth), not only with others, but also with himself in his “innermost being.” He realized that he needed God’s wisdom, not only as an outward confession of faith, but also in the “hidden part” of his soul. Evidently God was making him aware of previously unacknowledged pride, selfishness, and errant affections, and he prayed for God’s help to “Create in me a pure heart, O God” (vs. 10).

In Psalm 139: 23-24, David again asks for God’s help concerning his inner heart, “Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me and know my anxious thoughts; and see if there be any hurtful way in me, and lead me in the everlasting way (vs. 23-24).”  He assumes that he does not and cannot fully know the depths of his heart and asks for God’s help to expose hurtful attitudes, desires, and motivations and to bend his heart toward the way of righteousness.

In Hebrews 12:15, the author of Hebrews warns, “See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled.” A root is a structure that is hidden and covered up, yet supports and nourishes the part of the plant that is visible.  So, buried anger can seethe under the surface of our hearts, largely hidden from our conscious thinking, yet powerfully shaping and directing the course of our lives in destructive ways.

Proverbs 18:8, 20:27 and 20:30 view the heart as deep, using the Hebrew word cheder, “inner chamber” to speak of the hidden places of the heart.  For example, Proverbs 20:27 says: “The lamp of the Lord searches the spirit of a man; it searches out his inmost being (cheder)” ( NIV).

Finally, Romans 1:18-32 shows evidence of the subconscious.  Here Paul describes sinful man’s repression of the knowledge of God within his heart as he exchanges the truth of God for a lie.  As mankind didn’t approve (dokimazo) acknowledging God any longer, God gave them over to an unapproved (adokimos) mind (Romans 1:28).  Yet sinful man still retains some knowledge of God and His ways, being “God haters” (vs. 30) and knowing full well that God’s ordinance demands death for such wicked behavior (vs. 32).  Conscious repression of the truth of God causes man to lose much of that truth, yet the knowledge of God cannot be entirely eliminated.  Deep within, a shadowy, yet persistent knowledge of God remains, so that mankind remains actively rebellious against a continued inner, partially-repressed knowledge of God’s existence and commands.

Indeed the scriptures do speak of an “innermost being” and “hidden parts” of the heart.  King David’s prayers for God’s help to create in him a clean heart, to search his heart, and to lead him in the everlasting way show that our subconscious desires, perspectives, and attitudes are important and worthy of our notice, attention and prayer. [26]

Perhaps the clearest reference to the subconscious mind in our opinion is when David writes: “Surely You desire truth in the inner parts [tūhôt: “to cover”]; You teach me wisdom in the inmost place [27] [sātam: “hidden”]” (Ps 51:6). While words for mere “mind” were available to the psalmist (e.g. lēb), David seems to use wording to suggest an “inner mind.” OT scholars C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch write that David is referring to “the hidden part of his mind.” [28]

From a more scientific view of the subconscious mind, David Myers writes:

[R]ecent cognitive science reveals a fascinating unconscious mind-another mind backstage . . . More than we realized over a decade ago, thinking occurs not on stage, but off stage, out of sight. . . .

[S]tudies of “automatic processing,” “subliminal priming,” “implicit memory,” “heuristics,” “spontaneous trait inference,” right-brain processing, instant emotions, nonverbal communication, and creativity unveil our intuitive capacities.

Thinking, memory, and attitudes all operate on two levels (conscious and deliberate, and unconscious and automatic)-dual processing, today’s researchers call it. We know more than we know we know. [29]

More mystical Christians suppose that a strong, insightful thought “out of the blue” is a direct “inspiration” of the Holy Spirit. However, M. Blaine Smith makes the important point that some of our most influential human “inspirations” come from our subconscious mind:

The fact is that our intuition often does a much better job processing information and reaching conclusions than our conscious mind does. Problem solving can occur on a purely conscious level, to be sure. Yet when an answer to a problem or decision is not reached quickly, a subconscious process typically takes over. The subconscious mind mulls the matter over, perhaps for weeks, months or years. Eventually a solution may make its appearance on the conscious level with all the impact of a divine revelation-the “eureka, I’ve found it!” sensation.

This experience leads many-Christian and non-Christian alike-to conclude that God has spoken directly to them. But usually there is a psychological explanation. The subconscious mind has been working on the problem unnoticed, finally reaching a conclusion which has bubbled to the surface in the form of a conscious inspiration. I’m convinced that this explains many-probably most-of the experiences of intuition and inspiration which we typically have as Christians. . . .

Understanding this, more than any other single factor, helps to put the matter of inward guidance into meaningful perspective. Our bursts of intuition about what we should do often reflect an internal gestation process which has been going on for some time. [30]

In addition, Christian counselors in growing numbers are discovering the vital importance of addressing the subconscious beliefs of their clients in order to truly help them “be transformed by the renewing of [their] mind” (Rom 12:2). [31] It would seem that an abundance of truth can be processed by the conscious mind by way of even memorizing Scripture. But if there are suppressed areas of our subconscious mind that have not “accepted” such truth, we will continue to act contradictory to what we “believe” and know in our conscious mind. Christians are learning that when the Apostle pointed to the mind as the center for spiritual renewal (Rom 12:2) and the King spoke of loving Him with all of our mind (Matt 22:37), that these critical aspects of spirituality include the subconscious part of our mind.

Pastoral Practices

  • Do you have a way of addressing subconscious beliefs in your counseling of people? Far too much counseling merely addresses the conscious part of the person, and therefore is often too superficial to make a valuable and lasting difference in the person’s life. We want to do more than give someone temporary encouragement, but rather, have them “be transformed by the renewing of [their] mind” (Rom 12:2). This involves painful, unresolved experiences of people’s past which have been suppressed, but which still affect their thinking in major ways. For a basic explanation of this process carefully read chapter 4.7.

A.3) Moral vs. Logical Reasoning

Another helpful way to understand human reason is to distinguish between moral and logical reasoning. While both occur in the mind, their different objects and results can be distinguished. Moral reasoning operates in order to determine ethics and distinguish between right and wrong. This aspect of reasoning has been distinguished to such a degree as to suggest a separate faculty labeled the “conscience.” While there is no harm in such a label, it should be remembered that the term does not relate to a different faculty or part of the mind than that which performs any of our reasoning. As pointed out in the previous chapter, the difference is the object and result of the reasoning, but all reasoning is performed by the mind. [32]

Nevertheless, the Apostle uses the word syneidesis to refer to moral reasoning when he speaks of the “consciences” of the “Gentiles” in Romans 2:14-15 (cf. Rom 13:5; 1 Cor 8:7). Accordingly, the NT scholar Gordon Fee defines syneidesis as: “a kind of inner moral referee that pronounces on the rightness or wrongness of one’s actions (as in, “Let your conscience be your guide”).” [33]

On the other hand, the mind also engages in what may be termed as logical reasoning determining facts and distinguishing between true and false. To illustrate both their differences and interaction we could say logical reasoning will decide how much tax you owe. Moral reasoning will decide whether or not you will pay your taxes. However, even in this example, we can see that the these different types of reasoning may certainly affect one another, as a rather logical “cost/benefit” analysis (what’s my chances of getting caught?) in the mind, may enter into the moral decision of whether or not to cheat. Likewise, our morality may affect how accurately we calculate our tax debt. [34]

Moral reasoning is a very important concept in Scripture and an integral part of human life. While we devote a whole chapter to it elsewhere, [35] we will demonstrate here that the biblical words for “heart” are used to refer to the conscience. For example, we read in 1 Samuel, “And it came about afterward that David’s conscience [lēb] bothered him because he had cut off the edge of Saul’s robe” (1 Sam 24:5 NASB). This is moral reasoning taking place in the human “heart” being referred to as the conscience. Likewise, the Apostle uses kardia in the NT as synonymous with the conscience when he writes that the Gentiles: “show the work of the Law written on their hearts [kardia], their consciences [syneidesis] bearing witness” (Rom 2:15 NASB [36]).

Once again, we would point out that both moral and logical reasoning occur in our reason, being two different functions, not human faculties. Also, while it may be simpler to refer to moral reasoning as a function of the conscience and logical reasoning occurring in the mind, we will avoid the inaccuracies noted elsewhere [37] by distinguishing the place of these two functions as the conscience and reason.

B) Reason & Holiness

B.1) A Neglected Relationship

Unfortunately, the vital relationship between our reason and our holiness has been neglected in our own day. Accordingly, NT scholar John Stott writes:

Many secrets of holiness are given us in the pages of the Bible. Indeed, a major purpose of Scripture is to show God’s people how to lead a life that is worthy of him and pleasing to him. But one of the most neglected aspects of the quest for holiness is the place of the mind, even though Jesus himself put the matter beyond question when he promised “you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” It is by his truth that Christ liberates us from the bondage of sin. [38]

One element of historic Christianity that has seemed to miss the importance of reason and sanctification is Pietism. Mark Noll in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology defines this movement as:

A recurring tendency within Christian history to emphasize more the practicalities of Christian life and less the formal structures of theology or church order. Its historians discern four general traits in this tendency: (1) its experiential character-pietists are people of the heart for whom Christian living is the fundamental concern; (2) its biblical focus-pietists are, to paraphrase John Wesley, “people of one book” who take standards and goals from the pages of Scripture; (3) its perfectionistic bent-pietists are serious about holy living and expend every effort to follow God’s law, spread the gospel, and provide aid for the needy; (4) its reforming interest-pietists usually oppose what they regard as coldness and sterility in established church forms and practices. [39]

Men like Philipp Jakob Spener (1635-1705) and August Hermann Francke (1663-1727) spearheaded the movement in Germany in the seventeenth century. Dr. Noll claims that there were distinct pietistic elements in English Puritanism and Methodism as well. While there were obviously many exemplary attributes of the movement, Dr. Noll points out:

At its worst the pietistic tendency can lead to inordinate subjectivism and emotionalism; it can discourage careful scholarship; it can fragment the church through enthusiastic separatism; it can establish new codes of almost legalistic morality; and it can underrate the value of Christian traditions. [40]

More specifically concerning our current topic, Gordon Clark (1902-1985) pointed out:

[I]n opposition to Pietism the contrast or even incompatibility between righteousness and rationality must be rejected. Far from conflicting with rationality, righteousness presupposes it. If righteousness requires obedience to God, this obedience depends on understanding God’s precepts. Sin is disobedience; and whatever stronger denunciations of sin are appropriate, sin can also be denounced as irrational. Then again, animals, who cannot sin, also cannot be righteous-the reason being that they are non-rational. [41]

In other words, sanctification involves more than just the moral reasoning of our conscience, but the logical reasoning of our mind in order to properly understand God’s commandments.

However, far more important than a rational understanding of God’s commands is a belief in His doctrines. Nothing will empower our holiness more than believing our God-given identity in Christ. We will act according to who we think we are. If we believe we are a sinner, we will act like a sinner. If we believe we are a child of God, we will act more like one. As we further discuss in chapter 4.7, understanding our identity in Christ is much more foundational to overcoming sin than many believe.

B.2) The Conscience Reasons

Obviously, the human conscience is the means by which we determine our moral beliefs, and like any other beliefs, our moral ones are derived through reasoning. Accordingly, we have written elsewhere:

What God gives us in our conscience is the capacity to recognize and reason what is morally right from what is morally wrong. . . . The sense of right and wrong is only intrinsic (and perfect) with God. Humans need to be trained (even wrongly) in moral knowledge.

Different experiences, including punishment and reward, provide data to our conscience which is then trained regarding what is morally right and wrong. It would not seem that our conscience has built in “data” from birth, but rather, it is simply another aspect of our God-given reason that enables us to process moral convictions, just as our logical reasoning processes logical convictions. The claim that moral knowledge is a result of moral reasoning is supported by the fact that only humans possess both, as opposed to animals. [42]

It is the moral reasoning of our minds (i.e. conscience) which dictates our moral beliefs, and therefore our moral attitudes and subsequent actions. It is clear then that reasoning is critical to our growing and living in holiness.

However, it is not only moral reasoning that affects our morality, but our logical reasoning as well. Christian philosopher Ronald Nash comments accordingly:

[A] denial of logic has consequences not only for epistemology and metaphysics, but for ethics as well. If all predications [statements] are true, there is no difference between walking to a nearby city and walking over a cliff; there is no difference between drinking milk and imbibing arsenic. But obviously there is a difference. [43]

John Stott, as well, explains the relationship between our logic and morality when he writes:

The rejection of logic means the end of morality, for morality and ethics depend on understanding. Without understanding, there can be no morality. One must understand the Ten Commandments before one can obey them. If logic is irrelevant or irreligious, moral behavior is impossible, and the “practical” religion of those who belittle logic cannot be practiced at all. . . .

The rejection of logic has become very popular in the 20th century. In matters of morality, one frequently hears that, “There are no blacks and whites, only shades of gray.” What this means is that there is no good or evil; all actions and alternatives are mixtures of good and evil. If one abandons logic, as many people in this century have, then one cannot distinguish good from evil-and everything is permitted. The results of this rejection of logic-mass murder, war, government-caused famine, abortion, child abuse, destruction of families, crime of all sorts-are all around us. The rejection of logic has led-and must lead-to the abandonment of morality. [44]

B.3) Reason & Repentance: Roman 12:1-3

One of the foundational elements of sanctification and spiritual growth is the biblical concept of repentance. The meaning of the word is taken directly from its Greek equivalent, metanoia, which is literally “change of mind.” Because such a concept is behind a foundational and biblical perspective of sanctification such as repentance, it should not surprise us that the Scriptures have much more to say along these lines as well. Repentance is simply a change of belief, resulting in a change of desires and actions, all of which are decisions of reason.

Indeed, Christ’s promise that when you simply “know” (ginōskō; recognize, understand) the truth . . . the truth will make you free” (John 8:32), is a powerful promise of life transformation. And how will we “know the truth” apart from our reason?

While it is popular to disparage merely cognitive methods for life transformation, the Scriptures emphasize them. This is why the Apostle repeatedly appealed to Timothy and Titus to preach and teach Scripture. It was such cognitive teaching that the Apostle himself gave his life to and described when he wrote: “We proclaim Him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. To this end I labor . . .” (Col 1:28-29).

Likewise, this vital relationship between knowledge and righteousness is precisely what the Apostle is communicating when he introduces himself as, “Paul, a servant of God and an Apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God’s elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness” (Tit 1:1). Along these lines, the great Puritan theologian John Owen (1616–1683) wrote: “[I]n Scripture the deceit of the mind is commonly laid down as the principle of all sin.” [45]

Accordingly, it is to the Christian that the writer of Hebrews warns that our “heart” can be, “hardened by sin’s deceitfulness” (Heb 3:13). This is why selfishness impedes good reasoning and love enhances it. This is precisely what the Apostle is speaking of when he writes: “And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight [aisthēsei: perception], so that you may be able to discern [dokimazein: “analyze”] what is best” (Phil 1:9-10). Holy love comes from our reason producing the right beliefs and desires, and this love in turn is critical to reasoning rightly so that we may be holy.

Sanctification and practical holiness is not something that simply descends upon us from on high as some spiritual annointing like some suggest, but rather is, in large part, a process that results from constantly improving our moral and logical reasoning (i. e. conscience and mind). Spiritual maturity is described as a result of consistent spiritual reasoning when we read that, “the mature” are those who, “have their senses [aistheterion: the faculty of perception, i.e. reason] trained to discern good and evil” (Heb 5:14).

The ultimate cause of sin is deception or ignorance. In any temptation we are evaluating, judging, and weighing the alternatives in order to reason to a decision on what to do. Biblically speaking, virtue is a choice and a choice that is decided with reason. Winning the spiritual battle that rages between good and evil in our hearts is a matter of how we think and reason, and sin is simply a matter of bad reasoning. This is why the Apostle says, “Clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think [pronoian: “give forethought”] about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature” (Rom 13:14). Right reasoning results in a knowledge of the truth, and sin can be understood as simply a matter of distorting, ignoring, or disobeying our reason. Therefore, the battle of personal holiness is often won or lost in our reason. Where else but our reason enables us to obey the Apostle’s command to “count [logizesthe] yourselves dead to sin,” so that we may overcome it.

It is to pursuing reason that the Apostle appeals to for a holy life when he says:

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by [because of] the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable [46] [logikēn] service.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind [nous], that you may prove [dokimazein: analyze, accept] what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

3For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think [uperphronein] of himself more highly than he ought to think [phronein: to have understanding, to think], but to think soberly [sōphronein: have sound judgment], as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. (Rom 12:1-3 NKJV).

First, the Apostle writes to motivate his readers to serve God. What does he appeal to? Reason and logic. The Apostle wants us to think and reason about what God has done for us (as explained in Romans 1-11), knowing that if we do so properly, we will decide to live for Him. Reasoning here supplies a major motivation for sanctification.

Secondly, when the Apostle commanded, “be transformed by the renewing of your mind (nous; understanding, reason)” he was not describing some mystical process that bypasses our reason. On the contrary, life transformation is essentially a process of replacing the lies we believe with the truth of God, and our reasoning faculties, the very place God created for us to discern truth from falsehood is where this life transformation occurs. Accordingly, the NLT translates Romans 12:2 as “let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think,” and the NCV has it, “be changed within by a new way of thinking.” Again, while it is popular to disparage merely cognitive methods for life transformation, the Scriptures emphasize them.

Accordingly, the Apostle describes the process by which one becomes consecrated to God. Simply put, we must exchange the worldly lies we believe with the truth of God to form new beliefs, all of which is the domain of our reason. Our life is “transformed” when the beliefs that are processed, evaluated, accepted, and stored by reason are renewed to conform to Scripture, rather than the world. [47]

Thirdly, the Apostle relates that one result of this renewing of our beliefs will be the improved ability of our reason to analyze, recognize, and accept as true, what God’s will is, as revealed in the divine revelation of Scripture.

Finally, the Apostle tells us how such a process of renewal begins: self-evaluation. He encourages us to use our reason to objectively evaluate ourselves based on the “measure of faith” God has given them.

Such self-evaluation is an important aspect of sanctification and requires reason. Accordingly, we read, “A man ought to examine [dokimazetō] himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup” (1 Cor 11:28). Likewise, the Apostle tells the Corinthians, “Examine [peirazete] yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test [dokimazetō] yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?” (2 Cor 13:5). How else would one conduct the test commanded here accept by an objective evaluation of Christian fruit in our lives with our reason?

Commenting on Romans 12:2, Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland writes:

We are so familiar with this verse that some of its oddness or peculiarity is lost on us. But to see how truly peculiar this teaching is, think of what Paul could have said but did not. He could have said, “Be transformed by developing close feelings toward God,” or “by exercising your will in obeying biblical commands,” or “by intensifying your desire for the right things,” or “by fellowship and worship,” and so on.

Obviously, all are important parts of the Christian life. Yet Paul chose to mention none of them in his most important precis [summary] of the spiritual life. Why is that? What is it about the mind that justifies Paul’s elevation of it to such a position of prominence in religious life? . . .

The mind is the soul’s primary vehicle for making contact with God, and it plays a fundamental role in the process of human maturation and change, including spiritual transformation. In thought, the mind’s structure conforms to the order of the object of thought. Since this is so, and since truth dwells in the mind, truth itself is powerful and rationality is valuable as a means of obtaining truth and avoiding error, God desires a life of intellectual growth and study for His children. [48]

Accordingly, the Apostle explains that for the Christian, “the new self . . . is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator” (Col 3:10). This was to be in contrast to others who live sinful lives because of “the futility of their thinking” (Eph 17), being “darkened in their understanding” and having “ignorance . . . in them” (v. 18). Commenting on Ephesians 4:17-24, Dr. Stott remarks, “If heathen degradation is due to the futility of their minds, then Christian righteousness depends on the constant renewing of our minds.” [49]

It is not surprising then that the Apostle describes the starting point of the downward spiral of sin in humans as being a willful suppression of their God-given reasoning faculty. He writes: “For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking [dialogismos: “reasoning”] became futile and their foolish hearts [kardia] were darkened” (Rom 1:21; cf Eph 2:3). The Apostle knows this is true of the believer as well, and therefore exhorts the Corinthians to “Come back to your senses [eknepho: “become sober-minded” NASB] as you ought, and stop sinning” (1 Cor 15:34; cf. 2 Tim 2:26). When we allow our moral reasoning to become dysfunctional, we are, “Like a city that is broken into and without walls,” because “a man who has no control over his spirit [ruah]” (Prov 25:28 NASB) has no hope of resisting sin.

B.4) Reason & Self-control

Self-control is obviously vital to a holy life and this occurs in our reason. What is self-control other than the beliefs of a biblically taught reason monitoring, evaluating, informing, and controlling our desires and decisions? It is only with our Spirit-controlled reason that we will be enabled to fulfill the critical command to, “Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life” (Prov 4:23). Accordingly, Webster’s defines self-control as: “restraint exercised over one’s own impulses, emotions, or desires.” [50] It is reason that enables us to evaluate our desires and feelings in light of the truth, convincing us to act against them if necessary. Our “heart” and all the functions in it must be conformed to the truth in order to please God, and it is our proper reasoning that does this. [51]

Accordingly, the Apostle Paul writes: “God did not give us a spirit [Spirit] that makes us afraid but a spirit [Spirit] of power and love and self-control” (2 Tim 1:7 NCV). As Christians, the indwelling Holy Spirit gives us a Spirit-liberated reason by which we have the “power” from our holy beliefs and desires to overcome sinful emotions such as fear, and exercise the “self-control” necessary to steer our emotions and desires according to God’s will. Reasoning while in the “Spirit of truth” (John 14:17) is reasoning that keeps us “in step with” (Gal 5:25) the Spirit, and therefore, holy.

There are several Greek words used in the NT to describe this very process. The nēphō word group literally means “to be free from the influence of intoxicants,” [52] and in a broader sense, “sober in the sense of clear-headed, self-controlled.” [53] The word group enkrateia means “self-control, self-restraint.” [54] The sōphrōn word group literally means “of sound mind.” [55] One Greek lexicon notes this particular term denotes “the prudent, thoughtful aspect of self-control.” [56] Another lexicon defines sōphrōn and its cognates as:

the exercise of that self-restraint that governs all passions and desires, enabling the believer to be conformed to the mind of Christ. . . . “[S]ound judgment” practically expresses the meaning; it is that habitual inner self-government, with its constant rein on all the passions and desires, which will hinder the temptation of these from arising, or at least from arising in such strength as would overbear [its] checks and barriers. [57]

The Scriptures teach clearly that such self control is essential to all Christians. The Apostle Paul writes, “So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be alert and self-controlled [nēphōmen]. . . . let us be self-controlled [nēphōmen]” (1 Thess 5:6-8). For the Apostle, the cure for “ungodliness and worldly passions” is “to live self-controlled [sōphronōs]” (Tit 2:12). The Apostle clearly describes the use of reason to check potentially misleading influences when he writes: “[I]f a man is sure in his mind that there is no need for marriage, and has his own desires under control, and has decided not to marry the one to whom he is engaged, he is doing the right thing” (1 Cor 7:37 NCV), implying that if the man’s reason had not kept “his own desires under control” he might not have done the right thing.

Proverbs reminds us that, “Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control [mitsar]” (Prov 25:28), because otherwise sinful desires and emotions will destroy Him.

B.5) Reason & Spiritual Warfare: Ephesians 6:10-18

Not only does the self control that reason provides protect us from fleshly desires and emotions, but demonic ones as well. Therefore, the Apostle Peter writes: “Be self-controlled [nēphate] and alert. [Because] Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (1 Pet 5:8; cf. 1 Cor 7:5). Peter has much to say about the need for self control in the Christian life, it being necessary to “prepare [our] minds for action” (1 Pet 1:13), and to “pray” (4:7).

In general, then, it can be said that it is not the Christian’s reason that gets them into trouble with God, but their desires and emotions because, to be sensual is sinful, but to be sensible is to be Christian. Speaking of the relationship between right reasoning and holiness Susannah Wesley (1669-1742) reflected a historical view of Christianity concerning sanctification when she said:

Whatever weakens your reason, impairs the tenderness of your conscience . . . in short, whatever increases the strength and authority of your body over your mind–that thing is sin to you. [58]

We will add here that it is not only our spiritual maturity that depends on our reasoning, but our spiritual health depends on our thinking rightly as well. Long before the preachers of positive thinking perverted such teaching into a way to get what we want, the Apostle taught that positive thinking was a way for God to get what He wants. He tells the Philippian Christians: “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable–if anything is excellent or praiseworthy–think [logizesthe: “reason”] about such things” (Phil 4:8). Accordingly, Dr. Stott comments:

Self-control is primarily mind-control. What we sow in our minds we reap in our actions. This is not the self-confident optimism of Norman Vincent Peale. Peale’s way is to get us to pretend we are other than we are. Paul’s way is to remind us what we truly are, because God has made us that way in Christ. [59]

In the end then, we can say that our reason is vital to one of the most important aspects of the Christian life: growing and living in righteousness.

Not only does the sinful beliefs and habits of our flesh operate within our mind, but the deceptions of satan do as well. It is important to recognize that his only weapon against us is a lie, and how else do we recognize and defeat deception except by proper moral and logical reasoning? Accordingly, the Apostle Paul’s most detailed description of our spiritual battle against the “father of lies” (John 8:44) repeatedly tells us that our greatest defense is the truth, which is the domain of our Spirit-liberated reason. The Apostle writes:

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in His mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.

14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the Gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.

17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints. (Eph 6:10-18)

The importance of knowing, believing, and applying the truth in order to be successful against “the devil’s schemes” (v. 11), in “our struggle . . . against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (v. 12), and “the flaming arrows of the evil one” (v. 16) is clear. Buckling on “the belt of truth” (v. 14) no doubt requires the proper use of human reason, or we will process and possess no truth at all. The “shield of faith” (v. 16) is simply confronting the lies of the devil with the biblical truths we gained by reasoning upon God’s revelation in Scripture. And it is impossible to “take” up “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (v. 17) without our reasoning faculties.

While prayer is also mentioned as a defense against the devil (v. 18), the ignorant or emotional child of God can pray all they want that the devil would be defeated in their life, but unless they are able to defeat the devil’s lies with their God-given reason, they will be “devoured” (cf. 1 Pet 5:8) and controlled by his lies.

The Apostle Paul describes this process of reasoning in spiritual warfare when he writes:

For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish [mental, anti-God] strongholds. We demolish [anti-God] arguments [logismous: “reasoning”] and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we [do this when we] take captive every thought [noema: “mental perception”] to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Cor 10:3-5)

What the Apostle describes, requires careful, diligent reasoning with God’s revelation in Scripture.

In a later chapter we will illustrate the importance of reason over our emotions in our battle with the devil’s deceptions in the example of Eve:

We sense the influence of feelings on our reasoning when we read the description of the first sin. “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom [which she thought would enable her to reach the God-given human goal of happiness], she took some and ate it” (Gen 3:6). No doubt if the sight or thought of the fruit would have produced repulsive feelings, Eve would not have desired it. This is why satan works to make his temptations promise good feelings. It is emotion that can move us so strongly in a certain direction, whether it be for good or evil. Therefore, feelings do not automatically serve the purposes and glory of God but often thwart them. [60]

Indeed, if Eve had been more reasonable, remembering, reflecting, and mentally embracing the truth that God had told her, (i.e. death would result), the temptations of the evil one here would have been thwarted.

Confusion and emotion are the initial weapons satan uses because these suppress our reason allowing him to achieve full deception—and subsequently sin and bondage. This is why the King said, “If you hold to My teaching, you are really My disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31-32). Obviously “holding” to Christ’s teaching certainly requires the consistent use of our Spirit-liberated reason.

C) Reason, Faith, Hope, Peace & Love

Faith, hope, and love are considered the cardinal virtues of Christianity (cf. 1 Cor 13:13), and each of them is wholly dependent on human reasoning.

As we argue at length in Book 6, biblical faith is: an absolutely certain commitment to a correct understanding of a divine revelation, based on divine evidence, producing divine pleasure. The commitment involved in faith is decided upon by our reason, based on God-given evidence evaluated by our reason, regarding a divine revelation understood by our reason. Biblical faith is simply reasoning properly in response to a divine revelation, and therefore, reason is vital to this most important Christian virtue.

You can have biblical, God-pleasing faith without feeling emotion, but not without understanding and accepting the truth with reason. Contrary to fideism which makes faith a feeling, Scripture describes it as a rational decision of reason. So much for the popular but unbiblical idea that faith is absent or opposed to reason! [61]

Like faith, hope as well is based on the same processes of human reasoning. Hope is impossible without knowing and understanding what we are hoping in and for. We must correctly understand God’s promises with our reason, evaluate the evidence for trusting God and His promises, and make a commitment to trust Him, all with our God-given reasoning faculty. Hope has its reasons! (cf. Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 15:19-20; 2 Cor 1:7; Phil 1:19-20; Col 1:5, 27; 1 Thess 4:13-14; 2 Thess 2:16; 1 Tim 4:9-10; 2 Tim 1:12; Tit 1:1-2; Heb 10:23; 1 Pet 1:3, 21; 3:15). [62]

Finally, we argue in a subsequent chapter that love essentially depends on reason because it is essentially a decision, not a feeling. Accordingly, we write:

It may come as some surprise that real love, at least initially, often times has nothing to do with emotion at all, but is rather a rational decision made on the basis of principle, not feeling. When Jesus Christ commands us to “love your enemies” (Matt 5:44), He is not expecting us to feel like doing so before we obey this command.

No, love is an action, a decision, upon which our feelings may or may not follow. And what guides love is a rational process that recognizes, as the Apostle reminds us in Romans 12:1-2, that such love is the reasonable, moral thing to do, but not necessarily what we feel like doing. [63]

At the very least, the Apostle is saying that reason enhances our love when he writes the Philippians:

And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge [epignosei] and all discernment [aisthēsei], so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ. (Phil 1:9-10 NASB)

Another translation of the Greek puts it this way: “This is my prayer for you: that your love will grow more and more; that you will have knowledge and understanding with your love (Phil 1:9 NCV). Knowledge, discernment, and understanding come from reasoning, and knowledgeable and discerning love is better than love without such reasoning. More specifically the Expositor’s Bible Commentary notes:

Love must be intelligent and morally discerning . . . if it would be truly agape. What is encouraged here is not a heedless sentiment, but love based on knowledge. . . . In this instance it will serve to direct the believers’ love into avenues both biblically proper and pure. The discerning atmosphere in which their love should operate will require them continually “to discern what is best.” [Which is a function of reason]. [64]

Therefore, we believe Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was wrong to say, “the love of God is better than the knowledge of God.” [65] On the contrary, they are the same thing. Any lack of love for God is based on a lack of knowledge, understanding, or believing in His attributes. If we truly believed with our reason what God has revealed about Himself, we would truly love Him. We simply will not, and cannot love God more than what we understand, know, or believe about Him, all of which are the province of reason.

Accordingly, Aquinas wrote elsewhere:

Moral virtue [like love for God] [cannot] be without . . . understanding and prudence. Moral virtue cannot be without prudence, because it is a habit of choosing, i.e., making us choose well. Now in order that a choice be good, two things are required. First, that the intention be directed to a due end; and this is done by moral virtue, which inclines the appetitive faculty [desire] to the good. . . .

Secondly, that man take rightly those things which have reference to the end; and this he cannot do unless his reason counsel, judge and command aright, which is the function of prudence and the virtues annexed to it. . . .

[T]he movement of the appetite [desire] cannot tend to anything, either by hoping or loving, unless that thing be apprehended by the sense or by the intellect. Now it is by faith that the intellect apprehends the object of hope and love. Hence in the order of generation, faith [obtained by reason] precedes hope and charity. [66]

In the end, faith, hope, and love all depend, and are produced by proper reasoning in response to God’s revelation.

D) Reason & Edification

In the 18th century Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) stated the biblical and historical belief of the Church regarding the relationship between human reason and spiritual edification:

There is no other way by which any means of grace whatsoever can be of any benefit, but by knowledge. . . . Men . . . receive nothing, when they understand nothing; and are not at all edified, unless some knowledge be conveyed. [67]

This was the universal conviction of the Church until the modern “tongues” phenomenon in Charismaticism introduced a new version of the gift that supposedly edifies the self. The now popular belief that spiritual edification can occur apart from understanding is based on the Apostle’s statement that “anyone who speaks in” an uninterpreted “tongue [glossa: language]” cannot be understood by others, and therefore, “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself” (1 Cor 14:2, 4). Obviously, the issue of tongues is a complicated one, which we discuss thoroughly elsewhere. [68] In addition, in chapter 4.8 we discuss specifically whether or not the practice is actually self-edifying or edifying at all.

God did not create us to be spiritually edified apart from our reason, because all spiritual edification comes from an understanding and belief of the truth. Which is why the Apostle is so repetitive and insistent on the need for teaching in the Church throughout the Pastoral Epistles. It is because truth edifies Christians, that the King Himself taught the truth, and that the Apostle says the edification of the Church comes through truth-giving gifts (cf. Eph 4:11-15).

Extras & Endnotes

A Devotion to Dad

Our Father, we again have the opportunity to thank you for the incredible gift of our minds. When we think of the remarkable complexity and abilities of our physical bodies we are in awe of Your creativity. We think of how the Apostle said, “Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to Him as instruments of righteousness.” (Rom 6:13). We offer You our minds, just like our arms, legs, and mouth, to be instruments of righteousness and service to Your glory. Amen.

Gauging Your Grasp

1) What biblical evidence do we give that God is not only love, but logic? Do you agree or disagree and why?

2) Why do we suggest reasoning is such an essential attribute of God?

3) What are some significant differences between divine and human reasoning?

4) What helpful analogy to we use to describe human reasoning? Do you agree or disagree and why?

5) What is the difference between moral and logical reasoning?

6) What is the difference between conscious and subconscious reasoning?

7) What is one Scripture that we use to claim that the battle of personal holiness is dependent on good reasoning?

8) Why do we claim that good reasoning is the foundation of the cardinal Christian virtues of faith, hope, and love?

9) Why do we claim that there is no such thing as Christian edification without reasoning? Do you agree or disagree and why?

Recommended Reading

  • The rest of Knowing Our God Book 4: Biblical Psychology.
  • Knowing Our God chapter 2.4 on the philosophical (epistemological) importance of human reason.
  • John Stott, Your Mind Matters (InterVarsity, 1973). A succinct, timely, and insightful treatise on the place of reason in the Christian’s life.

Publications & Particulars

  1. J. Eichler, “Think,” NIDNTT, III:823. ↑

  2. Webster’s Dictionary, online at http://www.webstersdictionary.org. ↑

  3. John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, A. S. Pringle-Pattison ed. (Clarendon Press, 1967), iv. 18. 2. John Locke was a champion of the use of regenerated reason in the Christian life, whose teachings had a remarkable effect on such theologians as Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, and B. B. Warfield. ↑

  4. Yandall Woodfin, With All Your Mind: A Christian Philosophy (Abingdon, 1980), 22, 25. ↑

  5. For further discussion on the important epistemological concept of human research see section 2.5.D and chapter 2.6. ↑

  6. For further discussion of the vital concept of private judgment see section 3.1.C and chapter 3.3. ↑

  7. For further discussion on how the God-given place of human reason is disparaged in Christianity see section 2.4.A.2. ↑

  8. Regarding the epistemological centrality of human reason see chapter 2.4. ↑

  9. For further discussion of belief see chapter 2.3. ↑

  10. Webster’s. ↑

  11. James Sire even takes the mystery a step further when he comments, “The major mystery of the mind is not how reasoning is conducted by the conscious mind; it is rather how the brain [even] has a mind, how consciousness arises.” (Habits of the Mind, [Intervarsity, 2000], 234). ↑

  12. Admittedly, enlisting a computer to describe how the human brain operates has its limitations. For example, while a computer will rather automatically act upon the knowledge it has processed, humans will not. Therefore, it should be noticed that our model of learning relates to how we gain knowledge, not how we make decisions. This is because we do not always act according to our knowledge because other parts of our “heart” including our desires and feelings can influence our decisions and beliefs in spite of what we know.

    Theologian Gregory R. Peterson has a lengthy discussion of the comparison between our reason and computers and comments:

    The second problem arose within Al [artificial intelligence] research itself. Known as the “frame problem,” it became increasingly apparent that for a computer to perform many of the most basic human actions, such as going to a restaurant and ordering from a menu, requires the writing of programs so complex as to be impossible to put into practice. Too frequently, the computer would come to a situation that the programmer did not (and in many cases could not) anticipate, and it would simply stop running. . . .

    But the history of cognitive science has shown that computational models have been enormously fruitful for thinking about the mind and brain and for inspiring research programs and ideas, even though the models themselves are flawed and sometimes misleading. Philosopher Barbara Von Eckardt has argued that, while some have taken and do take computational models literally, such models have been most beneficial as inspirational metaphors.

    The brain can be understood as an information processor, and to realize that this is a major function of the brain is an important insight. Nevertheless, it is a mistake to limit our understanding of the brain and mind by the still modest computers of our day. (Gregory R. Peterson, Minding God (Theology and the Sciences) [Augsburg Fortress, 2002], 38, 41.

    Therefore, while there are limitations to comparing human reason with human-made computers, there are some helpful similarities, partly because computers were designed and invented by human reason itself. Computers are made in our image, although not nearly as well as we are made in God’s image. ↑

  13. David Myers, Intuition: Its Power and Perils, (Yale University Press, 2002), 4. ↑

  14. Peterson, 41. ↑

  15. Regarding these different sources of data and knowledge see chapter 2.5. ↑

  16. Norm Geisler writes a good summary and a potential apologetic for human reasoning when he summarizes the view of Aquinas:

    Aquinas makes a significant contribution to epistemology. By a unique synthesis, he unites both the a priori and a posteriori elements of knowledge. Humans have an innate, natural capacity or form for the truth of first principles [i.e. laws of logic] that is ingrained into their very nature by God. They have first principles in a kind of virtual and natural way as a precondition of all cognitive activity. And when this innate capacity is filled with the content of sense experience, we are able by conscious reflection to come to a knowledge of the very first principles, which as a fundamental part of our nature, enable us to have a consciousness of them.

    That is to say, we can only know first principles if we are exercising first principles to know them, otherwise, we would have no means by which they could be known. We have them by way of operation before we know them by way of consciousness. (Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal [Baker, 1991], 90)

    Elsewhere we argue that while logical laws are “preprogrammed” by the Creator, enabling us to distinguish true from false, moral laws are programmed by our culture and life experience. For further discussion see chapter 2.8. ↑

  17. Regarding the process by which we gain beliefs see section 2.3.D. We do not claim to be able to accurately specify what data may be “preprogrammed” software and “preprogrammed” data because 1) We cannot know, and 2) It is not important. Still, there has been a great deal of debate in recent years over positions such as foundationalism, empiricism, and Reformed epistemology, all of which concern what beliefs or belief constructing mechanisms God has created us with.

    As usual, there is probably some truth to many of these positions. Our analogy of a computer with built in system software reflects our own understanding of the issues and others can label this perspective in various ways. For a brief discussion of the various philosophical views of how we know what we know see Norm Geisler and Paul Feinberg, Introduction to Christian Philosophy (Baker, 1980), 103-118. For a fuller discussion see Gordon R. Lewis, Testing Christianity’s Truth Claims (Moody, 1976). For a defense of our view against Reformed epistemology see chapter 2.8. ↑

  18. For further discussion on the process of developing human morals see section 2.5.C. ↑

  19. For a test of your logic you can visit http://www.begriffslogik.de/ logiktest_en.html. ↑

  20. Buswell, 21. ↑

  21. For more discussion on the particular importance of logic, see especially sections 2.4.B-C. Also, John Frame, Professor of Theology at WTS recommends Introduction to Logic by I. M. Copi, (Macmillan, 1961). ↑

  22. Not surprisingly, there are much more involved descriptions of the reasoning process. Yandal Woodfin writes:

    The path toward reason therefore appears to follow this pattern: Sense impressions provide the initial spatial and temporal occasions or points of contact through which the mystery of thought begins to become tangible and take shape in one’s awareness, or apprehension. When this consciousness of some confrontation emerges in greater intensity and becomes increasingly distinguishable from other shades of apprehension, it may be designated as a recognizable perception. Once a perception is clear enough to be imaged or verbalized it can be considered a concept, or idea.

    The process of consciously relating ideas coherently and consistently is called reasoning. Rational thinking therefore consists in drawing inferences that correspond appropriately to given data, or premises, and developing purposeful, legitimate conclusions. (26).

    Stephen Davis describes the process of reasoning as follows:

    When a proposition is suggested and we must determine how much credence to place in it, (1) we first determine what kind of proposition it is and the context in which it is stated. (2) We then take into consideration the criteria of adequacy of evidence conventionally accepted for that sort of proposition in that context, that is, we consider what type, amount, and weight of evidence are required. (3) We then consider the actual evidence at hand for or against the proposition and measure it against the arrived-at standards of adequacy. (4) Finally, on the basis of the first three steps, we assign a degree of belief or unbelief to the proposition. (Faith, Skepticism, and Evidence: An Essay in Religious Epistemology [Associated University Press, 1978], 21).

    Finally, Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli explain:

    The inherent structure of human reason manifests itself in three acts of the mind: (1) understanding, (2) judging and (3) reasoning. These three acts of the mind are expressed in (1) terms, (2) propositions and (3) arguments. Terms are either clear or unclear. Propositions are either true or untrue. Arguments are either logically valid or invalid.

    A term is clear if it is intelligible and unambiguous. A proposition is true if it corresponds to reality, if it says what is. An argument is valid if the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. If all the terms in an argument are clear, and if all the premises are true, and if the argument is free from logical fallacy, then the conclusion must be true. These are the essential rules of reason, in apologetics and in any other field of argument. (17).

    In addition, human reasoning has been categorized as either deductive or inductive. Norm Geisler explains:

    Simply put, deductive reasoning is arguing from the general to the particular. If all horses are four-legged animals (the general), and Black Beauty is a horse (the particular), then it follows that Black Beauty is also a four-legged animal. This series of propositions is called a syllogism, the standard form of deductive argument. . . . Inductive reasoning is just the reverse, that is, arguing from the particular (for instance, all observable elements of a wall are stone) to the general (the whole wall is stone). (Introduction to Christian Philosophy [Baker, 1980], 40-41.

    Elsewhere, Dr. Geisler further explains:

    Deductive logic starts with the cause and reasons to the effect, while inductive logic starts with the effects and attempts to find the cause. That is why deductive reasoning is called a priori (prior to looking at the facts) and inductive reasoning is called a posteriori (after seeing the evidence). [Deductions] are more philosophical, and inductive arguments are more scientific. The biggest difference, though, is that deductive arguments yield necessary conclusions (that is, the conclusions are necessarily true if the premises are true and the inferences are valid), but inductive reasoning yields only probable conclusions. (Logical Thinking, 22-3). ↑

  23. Demarest and Lewis, I:32. ↑

  24. For further discussion of the importance of remembering in relation to faith see section 6.12.C.3. ↑

  25. Bernard Ramm remarks:

    Reason is capable of many definitions as any one familiar with the history of philosophy knows. It is not the simple candle of the Lord burning in the soul, which every man intuitively recognizes, as the deists thought. The reason of Plato is not the same as the reason of Aristotle, and the reason of Locke is far removed from the reason of Hegel. Any writer who claims to follow reason must be prepared to state carefully his definition of reason. (The Pattern of Authority [Eerdmans, 1957], 44-5).

    Likewise, Ronald Nash notes:

    [Reason] has had several meanings in the history of philosophy. Thomas Aquinas used “reason” to mean that which is opposed to revelation; for Hume it meant that which is opposed to sense experience. “Reason” for [Gordon] Clark means simply logic, the forms of thought, the laws of valid inference, or reasoning correctly. (The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark, Ronald Nash, ed. (Presbyterians and Reformed, 1968).

    Our own use of the term reason would parallel Clark’s. ↑

  26. Dave Bovenmyer, “The Heart and Emotions”; online at: http://davebovenmyer.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/emotions-and-the-heart. ↑

  27. W. E. Vine notes that the idea of “separation” is implied in some instances of sātam, making the translation “hidden part” or “place” accurate. (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W.E. Vine, [Thomas Nelson, 1996], 111). ↑

  28. C. F. Keil and F.Delitzsch, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM (Findex.com, 2000), Ps 51:6. ↑

  29. Myers, 4. ↑

  30. M. Blaine Smith, Knowing God’s Will (Intervarsity, 1979, 1991), 169. Smith goes on to relate examples of such human “inspiration.”:

    Creative thinkers from all fields have stressed the importance of this internal gestation process, and I find their testimonies of greatest interest. Consider, for instance, Amy Lowell’s reflection on her process of writing poetry:

    How carefully and precisely the subconscious mind functions. I have often been a witness to it in my own work. An idea will come into my head for no apparent reason; “The Bronze horses,” for instance. I registered the horses as a good subject for a poem; and, having so registered them, I consciously thought no more about the matter. But what I had really done was to drop my subject into the subconscious, much as one drops a letter into the mail-box. Six months later, the words of the poem began to come into my head, the poem-to use my private vocabulary-was “there.

    Or author Jean Cocteau’s description of an inspiration in play writing:

    The play that I am producing at the Theatre de l’Oeuvre, The Knights of the Round Table, is a visitation. I was sick and tired of writing, when one morning, after having slept poorly, I awoke with a start and witnessed, as from a seat in a theater, three acts which brought to life an epoch and characters about which I had no documentary information and which I regarded moreover as forbidding. Long afterward, I succeeded in writing the play and I [discerned] the circumstances that must have served to incite me.’

    Or mathematician Henri Poincard’s testimony about how he reached a critical discovery:

    For fifteen days I strove to prove that there could not be any functions like those I have since called Fuchsian functions. I was then very ignorant; every day I seated myself at my work table, stayed an hour or two, tried a great number of combinations and reached no results. One evening, contrary to my custom, I drank black coffee and could not sleep. Ideas rose in crowds; I felt them collide until pairs interlocked, so to speak, making a stable combination. By the next morning I had established the existence of a class of Fuchsian functions, those which come from the hypergeometric series; I had only to write out the results, which took but a few hours. (169-70) ↑

  31. For further information concerning the subconscious in Christian counseling see chapter 4.7. ↑

  32. For a correction to the idea that “conscience” is a separate human faculty instead of function see section 4.2.E. ↑

  33. Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, (Eerdmans Publishing, 1987), 380. ↑

  34. Particularly those adopting “faculty psychology” would disagree with our claim that the work of the conscience is simply reasoning. For further discussion see section 4.2.E. ↑

  35. For further discussion regarding the human conscience see chapter 3.2. ↑

  36. The NIV rendering may be misleading as it states: “the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness” The addition of “also,” which is not in the original Greek text, may imply that the Apostle views the “heart” as something separate from the “conscience.” This is not so. ↑

  37. For a hopefully clarifying discussion on the terminology used to refer to the functions of the mind see chapter 4.2. ↑

  38. John Stott, Your Mind Matters by John Stott (InterVarsity, 1973), 39. ↑

  39. Mark A. Noll, “Pietism,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (EDT), Walter Elwell ed., (Baker, 1984), 855-6. ↑

  40. Ibid., 858. ↑

  41. Gordon H. Clark in The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark, Ronald Nash ed. (Presbyterians and Reformed, 1968), 74. ↑

  42. Quoted from section 2.5.C.1. ↑

  43. Nash, Mind, 107 ↑

  44. Stott, 22-24. ↑

  45. Stott, 39. ↑

  46. Regarding Rom 12:1, Douglas Moo admits that, “The meaning of logikēn is notoriously difficult to pin down.” (The Epistle to the Romans [Eerdmans, 1996], 751). In classical Greek logikos meant intellectual, rational, reasonable. Most modern translations (e.g. NIV, NASB, ESV) have chosen to translate it “spiritual.” However, the KJV renders it “reasonable” and we think this is the best meaning.

    First of all, it was the universal meaning of the word in Greek. Schreiner points out that at times pneumatikos (“spiritual”) was placed alongside logikos, but the meaning of the latter was not to be confused with the former (Romans [Baker, 1998], 645). Schreiner notes as well that if the Apostle had meant “spiritual” he certainly would have used pneumatikos as he had many times elsewhere.

    Schreiner suggests one reason why some have shied away from the Greek usage:

    Some scholars hesitate to endorse the meaning “rational” since the term was common in Greek philosophy, fearing (I think) that they would impose foreign categories on Paul. Using the term with the meaning “rational,” however, does not yield the conclusion that Paul was Aristotelian or Stoic. All that needs to be said is that Paul used the term with the meaning “rational” or “reasonable,” as was common in the Greek language. (Ibid.)

    This being the case, Philo’s use of this term in his Special Laws becomes significant where we read:

    That which is precious in the sight of God is not the number of the [sacrificial animal] victims immolated but the true purity of a rational spirit [pneuma logikon] in him who makes the sacrifice.” (Moo, 752).

    In conclusion, we would suggest that the modern translations miss the fact that the Apostle is intentionally focusing on human reason here as the place where such a decision will be made. Schreiner (in agreement with Barnes, Cranfield, Fitzmyer, MacArthur, Mounce, and Murray; and against Moo and Barclay) puts it well when he comments:

    Paul is not merely saying that sacrifices are spiritual in nature. His point is that it is eminently reasonable, given the mercies of God, for believers to dedicate themselves wholly to God. . . . Since God has been so merciful, failure to dedicate one’s life to him is the height of folly and irrationality. (Romans, 645). ↑

  47. Concerning the important place that reason plays in the Apostle’s statement in Romans 12:2, NT scholar Douglas Moo writes:

    Paul’s teaching about the Christian’s source for finding the moral will of God in this verse deserves attention. Paul has made clear earlier in the letter that the Christian no longer is to look to the OT law as a complete and authoritative guide for conduct (see Rom. 5:20; 6:14, 15; 7:4). What, Paul’s first readers and we ourselves today might ask, is to be put in its place? Paul answers: the renewed mind of the believer. Paul’s confidence in the mind of the Christian is the result of his understanding of the work of the Spirit, who is actively working to affect the renewal in thinking that Paul here assumes (cf. Rom. 8:4-9). (757)

    Unfortunately, neither a growing number of conservative Evangelicals, nor postmoderns share “Paul’s confidence in the [Spirit-liberated] mind of the Christian.” ↑

  48. Moreland, 65, 67. ↑

  49. Quoted by Peter T. O’Brien in The Letter to the Ephesians (Eerdmans, 1999), 331. ↑

  50. Webster’s, 1065. ↑

  51. For further discussion of reason’s affect on desires and emotions see sections 4.1.B-C; 4.4.C; 4.5.C; 4.6.C.2. ↑

  52. Vine’s, 583. ↑

  53. George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, (Eerdmans, 1992), 19. ↑

  54. H. Baltensweiler, “Discipline,” NIDNTT, I.494. ↑

  55. Vine’s, 583. ↑

  56. Knight, 159. ↑

  57. Vine’s, 583. ↑

  58. Reference unavailable. ↑

  59. Stott, 29. ↑

  60. Quoted from section 4.6.C.2. ↑

  61. For further discussion of faith and its dependence on reason see chapters 6.12-14. ↑

  62. The Apostle’s reference to “the peace of God which transcends all understanding,” (Phil 4:7) could be taken as a rebuke of the peace that comes from proper moral and logical reasoning. On the contrary, we believe Dr. O’Brien is correct to understand the Apostle as referring to how wonderful this peace is, not its suprarationality:

    Paul describes God’s peace by means of a participial expression that is capable of being understood in two ways: (1) his peace accomplishes more than any human forethought or scheming can achieve, and so is far more effective in removing anxiety than any reasoning power (NEBmg); or (2) the peace of God is completely beyond all power of human comprehension (cf. RSV, GNB, JB, NIV, Moffatt, and Phillips [PME]).

    The Greek may be interpreted either way, and although both renderings make good sense, it has been argued that (1) is more in harmony with the context. Human reasoning results in continued doubt and anxiety; it cannot find a way out of the dilemma (cf. v. 6). God’s peace, by contrast, is effective in removing all disquietude. If, however, in explaining the nature of God’s peace Paul is focusing on its uniqueness rather than its relative superiority to human ingenuity [or reasoning], then (2) is the correct interpretation.

    The participle [uperechousa], with the rendering ‘be far beyond, excel’, supports this. Further, [panta noun], which means ‘all understanding’ (or possibly ‘every thought’) rather than ‘all planning’ or ‘all cleverness, inventiveness’ leads to the same conclusion. Accordingly, Paul is telling his readers that God’s peace or salvation that stands guard over them is more wonderful than they can imagine. (Cf. Eph. 3:20, where God is invoked as the one who can do ‘immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine’.)

    Although [uperechō] is on occasion used in polemical contexts (2:3; 3:8?), there is no such polemic here-either against Paul’s enemies who had an inflated view of their own knowledge or by way of subtle rebuke to those Philippians who are thought to have wanted to surpass their fellow Christians. His point in using [uperechō] at v. 7 is quite different as he seeks to encourage his Christian friends about the wonder of God’s peace that guards their lives. (The Epistle to the Philippians, NIGTC [Eerdmans, 1991), 496-7)

    In addition, any suggestion that peace could come apart from an understanding of truth ignores the biblical concept of faith. For further discussion of faith see chapters 6.12-14. and for further commentary on Philippians 4:7 see section 14.14.E.4. ↑

  63. Excerpt from section 4.6.A.2. ↑

  64. Homer Kent, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (EBC) Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. CD-ROM (Zondervan, n.d.). ↑

  65. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (online at http://www.newadvent.org/ summa), I.82.3. ↑

  66. Ibid., I-II.58.4, 62.4. ↑

  67. Ibid., I:223. ↑

  68. For further discussion of the claim that the biblical gift of tongues was meant to edify the self see section 4.9.E. ↑