Biblical Psychology: 4 Reason Christian! II

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 4.4

Reason Christian! II

Christian Decision Making

 

Overall Objective
Demonstrate the God-ordained place of human reason in decision making & protect against the errors of mega mysticism.

Table of Topics

A) Reason & Decision Making

B) Reason & Spiritual Leadership

C) Reasoning Rightly

C.1) The Limits of Reasoning

C.2) Principles of Good Reasoning

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points
  • Nothing is more important for humans than decision making and nothing is more important for decision making than reason.
  • While we certainly differ from the unregenerated in our sources of data for decision making (i.e. Scripture, New Nature), and different motives (morality), the process that regenerated Christians go through is the God-ordained process of reasoning just like all humans.
  • Right reasoning is the most important God-ordained means for making decisions for which Scripture does not give us any specific directions.
  • If we do not have an authenticated, certain divine revelation (e.g. Scripture) to act against reason, God’s will is to be wise and act in accordance with it. Our dependence on reason is so God-ordained, that it requires nothing less than a miraculous revelation from God for us to righteously and wisely go against reason.
  • Biblical wisdom is simply good reasoning.
  • Counsel is so valuable because it is the convergence of multiple people reasoning.
  • The vast majority of the time the people of the Bible did not depend on divine revelations to make their decisions, but rather, reason, just like us.
  • The moral desires of our New Nature applied by our moral reason (conscience), and the divine revelation of Scripture interpreted and applied by our logical reason are very capable of making customized applications of God’s will in virtually every circumstance, and are ordained and provided by God to do so.
  • Sound reasoning is a critical, biblical requirement for Church leaders.
  • We must be careful of sinful attitudes, such as pride, that will hinder us in reasoning rightly.

A) Reason & Decision Making

Nothing is more important for humans than decision making, and nothing is more important for decision making than reason. Contrary to the claims of mega mysticism, which emphasizes the need for personal divine “inspiration,” intuition, impulses, and “signs” in order to know God’s will, the Bible teaches that we are to use our God-given reason. In other words, the “peace of God” in decision making is not something mystical or necessarily supernatural, but rather the natural result of following good moral reasoning (i.e. conscience) which resolves guilt, and correct logical reasoning which removes doubt. [1]

Along these lines, M. Blaine Smith corrects the popular expectation that the process of Christian decision making is all that different from how wise decisions are made in the world:

We naturally think that as Christians our experience of resolving decisions will be different–perhaps dramatically so–from the process we went through as nonbelievers. Though we may not be certain exactly how it will be different, we expect it to be different nonetheless. The whole idea of receiving [divine] guidance conveys the thought of having a mystical or obviously supernatural experience. It implies the idea of instantaneous direction which removes the need for thinking through a decision.

In reality, Scripture gives little basis for this all-too-understandable assumption. In fact, the differences between Christian and non-Christian decision making are not as great as might first be thought. . . . When we look carefully at examples of decision making in the New Testament, we find pervasive evidence for this perspective. In fact, in the overwhelming majority of personal decisions noted in the New Testament, God’s will was discerned simply through a reasoned decision. Human reason was the channel through which God’s will was normally known. In most cases discerning his will boiled down to a matter of making a sound, logical choice. [2]

 

While we certainly differ from the unregenerated in our sources of data for decision making (i.e. Scripture, New Nature), and different motives (morality), the process that regenerated Christians go through is the God-ordained process of reasoning. In other words, the revelation contained in Scripture and the gift of our Spirit-liberated reason, controlled by our Spirit-inspired desires, all fully suffice to provide us the divine guidance we need.

The place of reason in decision making is perhaps its greatest demonstration of its God-given importance. Elsewhere we note reason’s importance in enabling us to decide what Scripture says. [3] Here, we will mention that right reasoning is also the most important God-ordained means for making decisions for which Scripture does not give us any specific directions. Accordingly, the OT scholar Bruce Waltke writes:

God guides us first through his Word, then through our heartfelt desires, then the wise counsel of others, and then our circumstances. At that point we must rely on our own sound judgment. . . . God gave each of us a brain, and he expects us to put it to good use. [4]

Likewise, Gary Friesen and J. Maxon, in their very good book, Decision Making and the Will of God, write:

We must agree with the conclusion of James Jauncy, “Guidance is largely consecrated and sanctified thinking.” While God can, if he chooses, lead us contrary to reason, we may trust that in such cases he will make his directions unmistakably clear. Apart from such dramatic guidance, our responsibility is to make as sound a decision as possible, trusting that he in his providence will give us all the information we need to decide within his will. [5]

One point that is being made here is that if we do not have an authenticated, certain divine revelation (e.g. Scripture, Angel, vision, etc.) to act against reason, God’s will is to be wise and act in accordance with it. We are to act according to the dictates of reason unless we know we have a divine revelation commanding us otherwise. Joshua’s instruction to merely circle Jericho thirteen times over seven days in order to demolish its walls would have been absolutely foolish, except for the fact that God miraculously and undoubtedly gave him a specific divine revelation to act against reason (cf. Josh 5:13-6:21).

Our dependence on reason is so God-ordained, that it requires nothing less than a miraculous revelation from God for us to righteously and wisely go against reason. Of course, many people today claim they have received a divine revelation to act against reason, and accordingly condone all kinds of irrational behavior in the name of God. As discussed thoroughly elsewhere, this is not biblical faith, but proud, human foolishness. [6]

God’s expectation that we use our reason to make important decisions is reflected in the OT as well when we read:

If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly [all of which require careful reasoning].

And if it is true and it has been proved [by reason] that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly [make a decision to] put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely . . . (Deut 13:12-15)

 

Notice that even in such an important decision concerning capital punishment, God did not promise some sort of direct divine revelation of His will, but rather, stated clearly that the careful and diligent use of their reason would lead them correctly (cf. Deut. 17:6; 1 Tim 5:19-20). Likewise, the Apostle Paul expected mature believers to use their reason in deciding court cases among them, with no need of divine revelation implied (cf. 1 Cor 6:1-6).

Along these lines, we should remember the high praise that wisdom receives in Scripture. One of the more common Hebrew words for wisdom is sākal which the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament defines as:

An intelligent knowledge of the reason. The process of thinking through a complex arrangement of thoughts resulting in a wise dealing and use of good practical sense. [7]

It is a reasoned wisdom that God intends, as reflected in the introduction to Proverbs:

The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel: for attaining wisdom [hokmâ] and discipline; for understanding words of insight [bin]; for acquiring a disciplined and prudent [sākal] life, doing what is right and just and fair; for giving prudence [ormâ] to the simple, knowledge and discretion [mezimmah] to the young. (Prov 1:1-4)

Here we see several Hebrew words that are used throughout, particularly Proverbs, to refer to right thinking. While godly wisdom certainly involves many things including, “the fear of the Lord” (Prov 1:7), it hardly needs to be said that it requires the use of our reasoning faculties. The Hebrew word ormâ translated above as “prudence” contains the idea of thinking, planning, and reasoning in order to come to a decision. It can be used negatively (cf. Exod. 21:14; Josh 9:4), or positively as in the following proverbs where it is translated “prudent.” Notice the emphasis on the need to use our reason:

Every prudent man acts out of knowledge, but a fool exposes his folly (Prov 13:16).

The wisdom of the prudent is to give thought to their ways, but the folly of fools is deception (Prov 14:8).

A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps (Prov 14:15).

A prudent man sees danger and takes refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it (Prov 22:3).

The repeated advice in Proverbs to obtain counsel, is nothing more than a biblical endorsement of reasoning for decision making (cf. Prov 1:5; 11:14; 12:15; 13:10; 15:22; 19:20; 20:18; 24:6). Essentially, counsel is multiplied reasoning, the convergence of the thinking faculties of more than one person, which is why it is so valuable. Along these lines, M. Blaine Smith writes:

The value of counsel, in my opinion, lies not in providing direct insight into God’s will, but in the fact that through counsel a healthy mental process occurs in which we are inspired to think more creatively, to see new alternatives and to see old alternatives in a new light. The end result is a deeper understanding of the issues at stake in our decisions. . . .

None of the proverbs listed above say we must accept counsel as unerring divine leading. . . . The proverbs simply are not that specific. They stress that there is an advantage to many advisers and imply that through counseling we’re helped to think more deeply, and we’re strengthened to make wiser decisions. [8]

The NT as well illustrates the importance of reason in decision making. For example, the Apostle Paul writes: “Be wise [sophia] in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity,” (Col 4:5) a process which requires careful reasoning.

Likewise, we read:

Be very careful [blepete: “discern mentally, perceive, cf. 7:23 [9]], then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise [sophoi], making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand [suniete] what the Lord’s will is. (Eph 5:15-17)

To “be very careful” of anything obviously requires reasoning. NT scholar Peter O’Brien remarks that, “The adverb rendered ‘carefully’ signifies something done accurately, precisely, or after close attention has been given.” [10] Likewise, “making the most of every opportunity” for God’s purposes, foremost requires both moral and logical reasoning. So does understanding “what the Lord’s will is.” Accordingly, NT scholar F. F. Bruce (1910–1990) commented, “The doing of his will is not a matter of irrational impulse but of intelligent reflection and action.” [11] Accordingly, the Apostle says the way in which we will “understand what the Lord’s will is” is to “not be foolish,” suggesting the need for wise, rational thinking, not mystical impulses as some claim. We like the NLT rendering of verse 17 which reads, “Don’t act thoughtlessly.”

The Apostle Paul recognizes that moral and logical reasoning is the process by which we make many important decisions, as he implies when he says, “One man considers [krino] one day more sacred than another; another man considers [krinei: judges] every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind [nous]” (Rom 14:5).

Likewise, the significant decision of how much to give to the needy is portrayed as something we determine through reason. The Apostle writes, “Each man should give what he has decided [proērētai: “intend considerately” [12]] in his heart to give” (2 Cor 9:7). Likewise we read in Acts, “The disciples, each according to his ability, decided [ōrisan] to provide help for the brothers living in Judea” (Acts 11:29). All of the Greek words used in the NT to refer to decision making simply mean to determine with reason. [13]

The place of reason in decision making even applies to the important decision of marriage. Along these lines, Dr. Stott explains:

[T]ruths about God’s general will regarding marriage Scripture will tell you. But Scripture will not tell you whether your wife is to be Jane or June or Joan or Janet! How then are you to decide this major question? There is only one possible answer, namely by using the mind and the common sense which God has given you. [14]

Dr. Stott reflects the teaching of the Apostle Paul who encouraged someone considering marriage to simply settle, “the matter in his own mind [kardia]” and to make up “his mind [kardia],” (1 Cor. 7:37). Accordingly, Friesen and Maxon relate:

In a variety of ways Paul explains that the choice of celibacy or marriage is based upon spiritual expediency. He does not use the word “expediency,” but his expressions are well summed up in that term. His procedure is to enumerate some of the advantages and disadvantages that characterize both states.

Paul’s stress is upon the values of singleness. His reasons for this preference are as follows:

1. To avoid unnecessary worry (7:20-21)

2. To avoid needless troubles (7:28)

3. To make better use of limited time (7:29-31)

4. To be free from concern (7:32)

5. To be able to give undistracted attention to “the things of the Lord” (7:32)

6. To promote personal happiness (7:40)

Paul sums up the reasons for his recommendation of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7:35: “And this I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is seemly, and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.” That is spiritual expediency! [15]

And it illustrates the use of our reason to make one of the most important decisions of our lives.

Another important decision in the Christian life is the choosing of Church leaders. Is this accomplished through a mystical direct revelation of who is called? Not in Scripture. Accordingly, we read in Acts:

So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them. (Acts 6:2-3)

It was not a direct divine revelation that told “the Twelve” that it “would not be right” to “neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables.” Rather, they no doubt used their reason to recognize the problem and decide on a solution. They in turn encouraged the “brothers” to use their reason, based on certain criteria, to “choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom.” And it should be noticed that the good reasoning abilities that are necessary for wisdom was a requirement for the men chosen for the task at hand.

On this issue, M. Blaine Smith writes:

There is another area where we’re given some helpful insight into Paul’s practical approach to guidance, and that is his appointment of leaders in the early church. We find a wealth of evidence that his selection of leaders was normally based not on supernatural calls but upon rational considerations. Although Paul himself received a dramatic call to the ministry, there is no indication that he ever required this same experience of others. When, for instance, he gives instructions about how to choose church leaders in I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9, there is absolutely no mention of need for a special call. Judgment is to be based purely on one’s ability and the quality of one’s Christian example. Likewise, where we see Paul choosing leaders himself, there is no indication he required a specific call.

Kenneth Pike observes two interesting examples of Paul’s using reason in leadership selection. The first is Paul’s choice of Silas and Timothy to be his missionary companions, in Acts 15:22 and Acts 161-3. From Paul’s point of view, why did he choose the two? By divine orders? . . . One finds no evidence of such, but rather sees consecrated judgment in confident action on the basis of the proved character of the two men. Silas had first been chosen by a council as trustworthy, and as one of the “leading men among the brethren” (Acts 15:22); Timothy was “well spoken of by the brethren” (Acts 16:2). These two missionary calls were based on sound judgment, not on feelings.

Regarding Paul’s disagreement with Barnabas over the selection of Mark to travel with them (Acts 16:36-41), Pike observes [that] . . . the first split of a “mission board” came on the basis of judgment over the fitness of a candidate. Neither Paul nor Barnabas argued that God had directly revealed to him that Mark should or should not go again to the field. The “sharp contention” was on the basis of judgment, since “Paul thought it not good to take with them him who withdrew from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work” (Acts 15:38). Judgment, not feeling, as to God’s guidance seems to be implied by the words “thought not good.”

It appears, then, that Paul regarded rational judgment of a person’s qualities as the prime factor constituting a call to Christian leadership. The need for a dramatic supernatural call, such as Paul himself received, was not emphasized. Likewise, our popular notion that a call may come through an inner sense of leading, without outward evidence of ability, finds no support in Paul’s teaching. [16]

It is instructive to study particularly through Acts and see how God guided His people. Of course there were several instances of miraculous, obvious, direct divine revelation, particularly for those designated as messengers of such revelation. Many today in charismaticism and mega mysticism insist such miraculous, divine leading is normative and necessary for all Christians today. Nonetheless, most of the personal guidance of the Apostles was accomplished through reasoning, not revelation.

Accordingly, Friesen and Maxon note:

The [mega mystical] view [regarding decision making] has some weaknesses at this point. The first weakness is that the number of recorded cases [in Scripture of miraculous guidance] is not sufficient to constitute normative experience. In the first thirty years of the church’s history covered by the book of Acts, there were at most fifteen to twenty instances of direct, personal [miraculous] guidance.

Many of these directions were given to the Apostle Paul. Yet within the framework of his total ministry, relatively few of his decisions were determined on the basis of such leading. Most of the time he had to weigh the apparent merits of various options before settling on a course of action. In other words, when he had a decision to make, he had to decide (cf. Acts. 15:36; Acts 20:16; Romans 1:10-13; 1 Corinthians 16:4-9; 2 Corinthians 1:15-2:4). The cases of direct [miraculous] guidance are clearly the exception to the rule, even in Paul’s case. [17]

 

For example, against those who would suggest that the Apostles were primarily guided by supernatural visions and impulses, Luke records, “Then the Apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided [edoxe: “to think”] to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas” (Acts 15:22). The Greek here literally means it simply “seemed good” to them. [18]

The Apostle implies decision making based on reasoning, not a divine revelation when he says, “So when we could stand it no longer, we thought it best to be left by ourselves in Athens” (1 Thess 3:1), “I think it is necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus” (Phil 2:25), and “If it seems advisable for me to go also, they will accompany me” (1 Cor 16:4).

While many in the Church today believe we need some sort of mystical peace, strong intuition, or divine sign in order to decide where to go, the Apostle’s own travel planning reveals simply careful reasoning. The Apostle’s use of human reason, not divine revelation is clearly implied in such remarks as:

Because the Jews made a plot against him just as he was about to sail for Syria, he decided [gnōmes] to go back through Macedonia. . . . Paul had decided [kekrikei: “to judge”] to sail past Ephesus to avoid spending time in the province of Asia, for he was in a hurry to reach Jerusalem, if possible, by the day of Pentecost” (Acts 20:3, 16).

Along the same lines, the Apostle tells the Corinthians:

Because I was confident of this, I planned [eboulomēn: “to determine with oneself”] to visit you first so that you might benefit twice. I planned to visit you on my way to Macedonia and to come back to you from Macedonia, and then to have you send me on my way to Judea. When I planned [boulomenos] this, did I do it lightly? Or do I make my plans [bouleuomai] in a worldly manner so that in the same breath I say, “Yes, yes” and “No, no”? (2 Cor 1:15-17)

Even the Apostle Paul made missionary plans simply with his reason, and the plans he speaks of here had changed.

In the Apostle’s decision to visit Rome, he never communicated that there was a direct divine revelation to do so, but rather mentioned personal desires and practical reasons:

So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the Gospel of Christ.  20It has always been my ambition to preach the Gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation. . . . . 22 This is why I have often been hindered from coming to you. 23 But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to see you,  24 I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to visit you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while. (Rom 15:19-20, 22, 24)

Accordingly, after a careful study of the Apostle’s decision making methods, several have noted the centrality of using his reasoning. M. Blaine Smith writes:

For Paul, discerning God’s will was mainly a matter of making sound, logical judgments, in light of what course appeared most glorifying to God. We must conclude that this process of rational discernment should also be our normal approach to discovering God’s will. [19]

Likewise, Friesen and Maxon conclude:

The question to which we are seeking a biblical answer is: In nonmoral areas, on what basis is the believer to make his decision? Observation of apostolic decision making has revealed that they did not attempt to discover God’s [specific, amoral] will for such decisions. Their explanations for their plans are couched in phrases such as: “We thought it best,” “I thought it necessary,” “If it is fitting,” “It is not desirable,” “It seemed good,” and simply “I have decided” (Titus 3:12). (Luke explained a decision Paul made with respect to an itinerary with the words, “for he was hurrying” [Acts 20:16].) Clearly these men were exercising their freedom of choice within God’s moral will. [20]

Along the same lines, Bruce Waltke remarks:

When Paul was in the city of Ephesus he saw God do a mighty work. . . . As Paul wrote to the believers in Corinth, he told them that he wanted to visit them, but he added, “After I go through Macedonia, I will come to you – for I will be going through Macedonia. Perhaps I will stay with you awhile, or even spend the winter, so that you can help me on my journey wherever I go. I do not want to see you now and make only a passing visit. I hope to spend some time with you, if the Lord permits. But I will stay on at Ephesus until Pentecost, because a great door for effective work has opened to me” (1 Corinthians 16:5-9). Notice how Paul was flexible, knowing that he was close to God and doing the work the Lord had called him to, so that he had the ability to change his schedule according to the circumstances.

We can see clearly how the decisions made in the New Testament differ from the [miraculous] means used in the Old Testament. How should Paul escape Jerusalem? Should he circumcise Timothy? Where should he go next year? Rather than cast a lot and expect God to answer miraculously, he based his decisions on sound judgment in light of the circumstances. [21]

Finally, in a very thorough article on this very subject, Robert Banks makes the following observations:

As for the extent of charismatic [direct, revelatory] guidance of Paul’s movements, this appears to have taken place only a few times in the many visits Paul and his colleagues made during his various journeys: (1) a divine vision or word (Acts 16:9; 18:9), confirmed by group endorsement (Acts 16a); (2) the Spirit’s largely general – or negative -guidance (Acts 13:2, 4; 16:6-7; 20:22; 21:4, 11 [through a miraculously authenticated Prophet [22]]), though these tend to occur at critical points such as at the beginning of the journeys, before a crucial new direction and at its culmination.

Other, seemingly noncharismatic, reasons mentioned by Luke for Paul’s taking or not taking a particular route include: (1) his personal resolution (Acts 15:36; 19:21; 20:3, 13); (2) the presence of a synagogue (Acts 13:4, 13; 14:1; 15:17; 17:1, 10; 18:4, 19), especially during the initial and follow-up journeys; (3) the city’s status and significance from a Roman or Hellenistic vantage point (Acts 16:12; 19:21); (4) a colleague’s connection (Acts 13:4; Cf. 4:36); (5) local believers’ decision (Acts 17:14-15); (6) fulfilling a promise to return (Acts 18:21 and Cf. 21:14). . . .

At other times, only with hindsight can we see how Paul’s movements were determined by the main land routes or regular sea lanes that appeared before him. Looking back, we can also take note of the fact that he always seems to work within territory governed by Rome, only passing through other regions not under its protection. [23]

 

All of this should make us wary of those who suggest we constantly need direct divine guidance from God apart from using our reason. There are, no doubt, many times that people have unnecessarily supernaturalized a decision they have made by claiming that they were prompted by the Holy Spirit when actually their thoughts were simply produced by reason. [24] The Holy Spirit’s primary function is controlling our reason rather than providing more revelation as the mystics claim.

The moral desires of our New Nature applied by our moral reason (conscience), and the divine revelation of Scripture interpreted and applied by our logical reason are very capable of making customized applications of God’s will in virtually every circumstance, and are ordained and provided by God to do so.

Pastoral Practices

  • Much of what has been discussed here could merely be boiled down to wisdom. Good reasoning is good wisdom. Therefore, consider intentionally endeavoring to grow in wisdom. Maybe read a chapter of Proverbs every day. Maybe study through Proverbs and categorize them topically. A study of OT characters, and particularly the mistakes they made, is one certain way God would have us grow in wisdom.

B) Reason & Spiritual Leadership

There are few things that church leaders do that are more important than making wise decisions. Accordingly, the Apostle Paul writes: The elders who direct the affairs [proestētes: to rule, manage, lead] of the church well are worthy of double honor (1 Tim 5:17). Leading any group of people, even God’s people, requires wise decisions, and the most important aspect of this responsibility is reason. No one wants to follow a fool who makes foolish decisions because of faulty reasoning. Of course, their reason needs to foremost be applied to the revelation of Scripture (cf. 2 Tim 3:16), but contrary to prophetism [25] and mega mysticism, God is not providing extra-biblical revelation for the decisions that must be made.

Likewise, Moses’ qualifications for leaders were expressed when he instructed the Israelites: “Choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you” (Deut 1:13), all qualities that certainly require the use of reason. We see the same leadership qualities emphasized when the Apostles tell the early Church, “choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom” (Acts 6:3). While wisdom in the Scriptures is primarily a moral concept, requiring moral reasoning, it certainly is not absent of logical, prudent reasoning as well. [26] All of which is why Job was describing a curse when he said God: “deprives the leaders of the Earth of their reason; He sends them wandering through a trackless waste” (12:24).

In the previous chapter we discussed the importance of self-control in the Christian life and the place that reason plays in such a virtue. This aspect of right reasoning is especially applied to spiritual leaders in Scripture. The Apostle writes: “[T]he overseer must be . . . temperate [nephalion], self-controlled” [sōphrona]” (1 Tim 3:2). Likewise, to Titus he writes that “An elder must be . . . one . . . who is self-controlled [sōphrona] . . . and disciplined [egkratē]” (Tit 1:6-8). “In the same way” leading women “are to be . . . temperate [nēphalious],” because this is the only way they can control their desires and emotions so that they are “trustworthy in everything” (1 Tim 3:11).

The Apostle is saying the same thing when he warns of people who will abandon reason and, “Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths,” (2 Tim 4:3-4), but then exhorts Timothy, “But you, keep your head [nēphe] in all situations” (2 Tim 4:5). In other words, the Apostle says that some people are going to give into foolish thinking, and the Apostle wants Timothy to be wise, reasonable, prudent, and smart. Such characteristics are an important part of being a mature Christian in general. The Apostle says, “the older men [are] to be temperate [nēphalious] . . . self controlled [sōphronas]” (Tit 2:2), and “older women” are to “train the younger women to . . . be self controlled [sōphronas]” (Tit 2:3-5), all of which require logical and moral reason.

C) Reasoning Rightly

C.1) The Limits of Reasoning

While our God-given reason is certainly at the center of our personal understanding and knowledge, its powers are not unlimited. First of all, in general it could be said that all the limitations and weaknesses of our reason are simply reflections of the limitations and weaknesses of being human. Emotions, motives, physical stress, and a myriad of other circumstances can severely hamper even the potential capacities of reason. Still, as Arthur Holmes has said: “The way to avoid error is not to avoid reasoning (if that were even possible) but to improve reasoning.” [27] While God has certainly made our reason powerful, He has not made it all-sufficient. This is why we must trust Him, the only all-sufficient, all-knowing One, for the most important needs in our life.

Secondly, it is obvious that our reason’s capacity for understanding is limited. We are not God. We cannot fully comprehend all the ways and works of God, including such doctrines as the Trinity and the Incarnation. But as have pointed out elsewhere, we need not fully understand these things in order to accept them as true. [28]

Thirdly, as discussed further elsewhere, the spiritually repressed devil-darkened reason of the non-Christian is severely limited by the affects of its rebellion against the God of truth. [29] Accordingly, mere reasoning by unregenerated humans can never lead a person to a saving relationship with God. [30] Here, however, we would point out as we discussed elsewhere, that the affects of sin on human reason are often exaggerated, and there is seldom a recognition of the significant change that occurs when our reason is liberated by the Holy Spirit. [31] Nonetheless, one of the things that hampers the proper function of our moral and logical reasoning is sin, both in believers and unbelievers.

C.2) Principles of Good Reasoning

Possessing Spirit-liberated reason does not ensure that we will always reason correctly, it simply gives us an opportunity that unregenerated humans do not have. If we are living in the flesh instead of the Spirit our moral and even logical reasoning will be faulty. It is to the Christian that the writer of Hebrews warns that our “heart” [i.e. reason] can be, “hardened by sin’s deceitfulness” (Heb 3:13). Accordingly, there are many sinful attitudes that can hinder correctly reasoning to the truth, understanding and believing it, and obeying it. While in a subsequent chapter we cover this issue more in depth, particularly as it concerns the unregenerate, [32] here we will make some practical points that apply to the believer as well.

First, we can note the affect of pride on properly reasoning. The vital relationship between humility and good reasoning is stated clearly in Scripture when we read: “When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom” (Prov 11:2). Specifically concerning a humility toward God, Scripture says, “The fear of the LORD teaches a man wisdom” (Prov 15:33). Such a lifestyle of humility and God-glorifying reasoning is demonstrated by Daniel when the angel tells him: “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard” (Dan 10:12). Daniel knew that humbling ourselves and understanding properly with our reason go together.

Accordingly, we read in Proverbs: “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight” (Prov 3:5-6). This is not a warning against using reason, but rather a warning against reasoning merely from our own whimsical thoughts without the revelation that God provides. Contrary to arrogant rationalism, [33] our “own understanding” apart from God’s revelation is inadequate, but acknowledging, using, and applying such revelation is crucial to good reasoning, and a person believing in God will do so.

Along these lines, the eighteenth century Christian philosopher Thomas Reid (1710-1796) wrote in his Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man something that seems to relate to the affects that pride can have on reasoning:

When a man has, with labour and ingenuity, wrought up a hypothesis into a system, he contracts a fondness for it, which is apt to warp the best judgment. . . . When a man has laid out all his ingenuity in fabricating a system, he views it with the eye of a parent; he strains phenomena to make them tally with it, and makes it look like the work of nature. [34]

The way in which pride can hinder proper reasoning illustrates how love can enhance it. Accordingly, the Apostle warned that mere, “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Cor 8:1). An intellect not controlled by love will result in empty and blinding pride, thwarting the purpose of our God-given reason. Accordingly, the Apostle wrote as well, “If I . . . can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge [with my reason] . . . but have not love, I am nothing” (1 Cor 13:2). If our reason is not yielded to God’s purposes, then all the other right reasoning in the world will be vain.

Therefore, if we are prone to please the world, instead of the King, our reasoning will be distorted. One sinful desire that corrupts reasoning rightly is the desire to please people instead of God. Allowing such “peer-pressure” to control us will lead to some very bad decisions. Along these lines, one unfortunate illustration of allowing human-centered desires to pervert God-honoring reason is found in the following from the nineteenth century liberal OT scholar C. A. Briggs (1841-1913), co-author of the well known Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon:

[T]he conscience and religious feeling of modern evangelical Christians [rightly in Brigg’s opinion] revolt against the . . . assertion of traditional dogma that the whole heathen world is lost forever in eternal punishment. No doctrine can ever maintain its ground when it is condemned by conscience, or the religious feeling, or any of the forms of the human Reason. [35]

Unfortunately, this very intelligent man allowed incorrect beliefs, which resulted in human-centered rather that God-centered desires (i.e. “religious feeling”) to hinder his reason’s ability to properly interpret the clear teaching of Scripture that without Christ people are indeed, “lost forever in eternal punishment.”

We must be careful of the bad beliefs, desires, and feelings that would keep us from reasoning rightly to correctly interpret and teach Scripture and consistently and whole-heartedly obey God. Along these lines, one Bible teacher has written:

We sometimes speak of people being “conveniently deaf” to human communications, but there is such a thing also as being conveniently deaf towards God; and it is a malady that afflicts us all. There are certain things we just do not want to be told. They would be too inconvenient, too upsetting, too exacting. The readjustment they would involve would be too painful. They would commit us to tasks more difficult and troublesome than we desire to undertake, or they would interfere with certain indulgences we have been allowing ourselves.

The rich young man in the Gospels was so eager to get guidance from Jesus that he came to Him running (who says he was not eager?), asking what he must do to inherit eternal life. He had his guidance, but it was something he did not want to listen to: “Sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.” But he could never again complain of the lack of revelation.

[T]here is no end to the cleverness of our self-sophistication in this matter. We are never such skilled logicians as when we are trying to find reasons for doing the things we want to do. We are never such eloquent orators as when we are telling ourselves why we should not do the things we do not want to do.

How Sigmund Freud humiliated (and offended) us when he first began telling us that our subconscious rationalization of our prejudices far surpasses in elaboration the conscious use of our reason in the discovery of truth! We do find it quite surprisingly easy to explain out of existence any voice we do not want to hear, any call or any conviction that is unwelcome to us. [36]

Again, we must be very careful how we reason to the decisions we make for or against God. And it is proper reasoning, leading to belief of the truth and right desires that will protect us from the distorted and eventually sinful reasoning described above.

Pastoral Practices

  • One of the ways in which God wants His family living in humble and God-glorifying interdependence is the practice of obtaining counsel from one another when making decisions. This is one of the most neglected biblical disciplines in the Christian Church today, particularly in America where independence is thought to be a virtue. It’s not, and it actually displeases God a great deal.

The exhortations in Proverbs regarding the value of wisdom can be understood to apply to counsel. Accordingly, we can read “Wisdom [wise counsel] is supreme; therefore get wisdom [wise counsel]. Though it cost all you have, get understanding [wise counsel]” (Prov 4:7).

Find wise people and spend time with them, getting frequent counsel and learning how they think. As Solomon said, “He who walks with the wise grows wise” (Prov 13:20). Determine to obtain counsel more faithfully in the future. Study the area of counsel in the Scriptures, especially Proverbs, and gain some convictions on it if you are lacking them. Determine now who are Christians that you respect enough that you would also respect their opinion on a matter. And the next time you have a decision to make, whether big or small, get counsel.

Extras & Endnotes

A Devotion to Dad

Our heavenly Father, we seek you today to help us be controlled by the Spirit so that we can use the reason you gave us to make the kinds of decisions that bless others and glorify You.

Gauging Your Grasp

  1. Why is reason so important in decision making?
  2. What are some passages of Scripture that demonstrate the use of reason instead of extra-biblical revelation to make important decisions?
  3. What are some verses that support our claim that good reasoning is a requirement for Christian maturity and Church leadership? Why is this so?
  4. What are some attitudes that hinder reasoning rightly?

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.

 

  • Knowing Our God chapter 7.15 on divine guidance and decision making.
  • Knowing Our God book 14 on the issue of claims to extra-biblical guidance in decision making.
  • John Stott, Your Mind Matters (InterVarsity, 1973). A succinct, timely, and insightful treatise on the place of reason in the Christian’s life.
  • Gary Friesen and J. Maxon, Decision Making and the Will of God (Multnomah, 1980). The very best book on a biblical view of decision making.

Publications & Particulars

  1. Regarding the Apostle’s reference to “the peace of God which transcends all understanding,” (Phil 4:7) see extended discussion in section 14.11.E, esp. section E.4. ↑

  2. M. Blaine Smith, Knowing God’s Will (Intervarsity, 1979, 1991), 114-15. Considering all the mega mystical Christian literature concerning divine guidance, Smith’s book is fairly good. Nonetheless, his error in accepting the idea that God has a specific will for us in amoral issues is significant. For further critiques of Smith’s popular book see section 7.15.B.3-4. including important endnotes. ↑

  3. For further discussion regarding reason’s importance in interpreting Scripture see sections 2.5.E and 3.1.C and chapter 3.3. ↑

  4. Bruce K. Waltke, Finding the Will of God, (Eerdmans, 2002). ↑

  5. Gary Friesen and J. Maxon, Decision Making and the Will of God (Multnomah, 1980), 123. The very best book on a biblical view of decision making. ↑

  6. For further discussion of the difference between biblical faith and human foolishness see section 6.11.B and chapters 6.12-14. ↑

  7. Louis Goldberg, “sākal,” Theological Wordbook of Old Testament (TWOT), Gleason Archer, R. Laird Harris, Bruce K. Waltke eds. 2 Vols. (Moody, 1980), 877. ↑

  8. Smith, 206-7. ↑

  9. William D. Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Zondervan, 2006), 1108. ↑

  10. Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Eerdmans, 1999), 380. ↑

  11. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (Eerdmans, 1984), 379. ↑

  12. Mounce, 1253. ↑

  13. See Vine’s, “Purpose” 499; “Judge, 336-7; “Think,” 627. ↑

  14. John Stott, Your Mind Matters by John Stott (InterVarsity, 1973), 46. ↑

  15. Friesen and Maxon, 125. ↑

  16. Smith, 122-3. ↑

  17. Friesen and Maxon, 90. ↑

  18. Alfred Marshall, The Interlinear NASB-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English (MLT) (Zondervan, 1993), 391. ↑

  19. Smith, 123. ↑

  20. Friesen and Maxon, 187. ↑

  21. Waltke, 157. ↑

  22. Regarding our claim that all of these revelations of the Holy Spirit came through miraculously authenticated NT Prophets, a mode of revelation that no longer operates today, see section 14.13.F and chapters 9.1-9.2. ↑

  23. Robert Banks, “The Role of Charismatic and Noncharismatic Factors in Determining Paul’s Movements in Acts” in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins, eds. Graham Stanton et. al. (Eerdmans, 2004), 129-30. ↑

  24. For further discussion on the exaggeration of the need and occurrence of personal divine inspiration for our decision making see Book 14. ↑

  25. Prophetism is the belief that God is still providing biblical Prophets today who possess new, divinely authoritative revelation. For further discussion see Book 9. ↑

  26. For further discussion on the nature of biblical wisdom see chapters 14.17-14.18. ↑

  27. Arthur F. Holmes, All Truth is God’s Truth (Intervarsity, 1983), 89. ↑

  28. Regarding the claim that we need not fully understand something to accept it as true see section 2.9.C. ↑

  29. For further discussion of the affects of the devil-darkened reason of the unregenerate see chapters 4.12-14. ↑

  30. For further discussion of the biblical fact that mere reasoning apart from regeneration can never produce salvation see section 2.12.B and 7.4.C.6. ↑

  31. The important difference between the reasoning abilities of the regenerate vs. the unregenerate are discussed in chapters 4.12-14. ↑

  32. For further discussion of the affects of the devil-darkened reason of the unregenerate see chapters 4.12-14. ↑

  33. Rationalism is the exclusive dependence on human reason while denying the authority of divine revelation. For further discussion see chapter 2.9. ↑

  34. Thomas Reid in Works, ed. Sir William Hamilton, 2 vols., (James Thin, 1895), i. 250. ↑

  35. Charles Augustus Briggs, The Bible, the Church and the Reason: The Three Great Fountains of Divine Authority (T. & T. Clark, 1892), 68. ↑

  36. Reference unavailable. ↑