Archived

Evidentialism and Reformed Epistemology

Read 2942 times

k64

  • **
  • 5 Posts
    • View Profile
Magisterial vs Ministerial Roles of Reason
« on: September 01, 2013, 07:45:52 pm »
Hello everyone,

I've recently read the first chapter of Reasonable Faith and am a little confused by the claim that the magisterial role of reason is invalid. 

I suspect this might result from a semantic difference with regard to the word reason.  I take reason in the broad sense to be synonymous with logic and rationality and to encompass all coherent thought.  It is by reason that I know that a=a or that someone not not going to the store means they are going to the store.  It is by reason that I construct the meaning of phrases from individual word meanings and construct appropriate phrases to express my ideas. 

In light of this idea of reason, it seems absurd to not have reason in a magisterial role.  How could reason possibly be solely subservient to the Gospel if I can only understand the meaning of the Gospel through reason?  Even in claiming that reason ought not to be magisterial, I am implicitly using it in a magisterial fashion.  Before I accept the truth of the gospel, I am using reason to decide how things may be known, to make sense of the raw sense data I receive, and to comprehend the meanings of the propositions that the Gospel entails. 

Is my definition of reason in line with Dr. Craig's?  If not, what is his definition of reason and what is the word for the concept I am describing?  If so, then how can the magisterial role of reason possibly be invalid?

Thank you,

k64
« Last Edit: September 02, 2013, 10:55:47 am by k64 »

1

FNB - Former non-believer

  • ***
  • 4048 Posts
  • Do you REALLY make your decision based on reason?
    • View Profile
Re: Magisterial vs Ministerial Roles of Reason
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2013, 11:36:21 pm »
Try posting this in "chose your own topic." thats where most of the people here are