Thank you, thank you, thank you, for raising the question! We are so ambivalent on this, and while Anselm may not have it right either (do we believe so can understand, or is it the other way round?!), at least there's somebody standing up and asking about such vital issues.

My conclusion: Reason is a methodology. It is not God, nor is it faith, nor is it supreme in the sense that reason is to be worshiped itself. It is a way of using the mind. More: to deny that wise use of the mind is to end up in the clutches of the cult of unreason, where everything and anything can be believed for no reason at all.

Faith is not “believing what my feelings tell me is true.” Faith is not “denying reason because reason is the enemy of faith.” Faith is not “accepting beliefs as true, despite evidence to the contrary.”

Truth has no need to fear investigation. “The truth cannot and must not shrink from the light. There can be no truth that would have to hide itself from examination by reasonable people.” Johann Gottfried Seume.

We all seek to understand—our world, our experience, ourselves. We try to discover order in what may seem to be chaos. We argue from cause to effect. We examine, investigate, analyze, determine, explore, consider, scrutinize, evaluate, probe, inspect, observe, decide, resolve, judge, conclude—and in the end, make up our minds. We use reasoning processes all the time. It is the only safe way to operate, the only tool we have to make sense of our lives and how to live them.

So why has it become so common to deny this in the area of faith? Is it because its simply easier that way? Is Bruce Calvert right when he says, “Believing is easier than thinking. Hence so many more believers than thinkers”?

Is Ayn Rand right when she writes, “To rest one’s case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one's enemies–that one has no rational arguments to offer”?

Is Greg Erwin right that “Religion stills a thinking mind”?

Is the best theology one of ignorance? Is the best belief one that makes no sense? Is the best faith one that is without reason?

I for one stand squarely with Galileo when he said, “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

Best,

Jonathan

I'm glad I've been hanging out here at a time when you've chosen to be prolific. My question for Zane the scholar of Christian philosophy is this: Are followers of Tertullian called Tertullianians?

Philosophy has long been feared by Christians, and particularly, Adventists. Graham Maxwell tells that when he proposed a course in Christian Philosophy at PUC, he was met with utter disdain to even consider the two words should be used together--and in a teaching course!

For several generations, those who have asked questions have been labeled as heretics for even asking. And as stated, the Adventist
education was mainly focused on texts proving the reason for one's peculiar beliefs; to question meant doubt and uncertainty--something a Christian never should even consider in her life.

Christianity is a philosophy just as many other systems and as such, deserves a place at the table and study to show its development throughout the ages as it evolved, cast off certain beliefs and accepted others. If one is insufficiently grounded in what is claimed to be the main guiding force in life, it can only be called ignorance: an inability to honestly look at the beliefs professed. We always build on the shoulders of the giant intellects who preceded us, and none had and none will have the complete and whole truth. Truth, like the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, is a journey toward a goal that will never be reached. One who claims to hold it is only holding a rainbow--ephermal, vanishing.

I hope this series continues. Thank you Zane!

All excellent and well-reasoned posts! Thank you!

Excellent series of posts Zane. I too would love to read some more.

Jonathan,

The quotations you mention, remind me of one I read this week on the subway by someone named Henri Poincare: "To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the need for thought."

Robert,

I'm glad to be posting, while you are reading. =) The graduate student summer doldrums(along with the encouragement of friends) probably best explain my proclivity to write, and perhaps yours to read?

Elaine,

I'm agree with you. We should be offering more philosophy courses at Adventist colleges/universities and see them as helping students understand their society, as well as their Christianity, which has been in dialogue with philosophy since its inception!

All,

Thanks for your encouragement to write more. Unfortunately, I've just about exhausted my knowledge of medieval thinkers whose names start with "A" and address the issue of faith and reason.

How about Abelard?

I love the summers. It's a great time to do research, to rest from the ridiculous course load, and on occasion to read Zane's treatises.

Elaine,

I have a book on my shelf that I've wanted to read for a while of love letters between Abelard and Heloise, a relationship which eventually got him castrated. (This would definitely make an interesting post!) Other than this, I don't know much about him, accept that he was a logician and a nominalist.

Robert, sounds like you're making good use of your summers, all except that last part. =)

Abelard may well have been a cad: seducing Heloise, the young student of a trusted relative, he suffered castration and their child was given up for adoption and she entered a convent. She was probably a much more faithful Christian and I believe she left writings that demonstrates that.

Zane

Great series! We have much to learn from many people and your are helping us do that. Thank you!

How about continuing the series for a long time with each column giving us the five most important ideas of each thinker? Or maybe three? But not less than that.

I think we should not choose between "faith seeking understanding" and "understanding seeking faith."

Far better it is better to have their deliverances inform and correct each other in a permanent and progressive interaction or dialectic.

"Faith seeking understanding" runs the risk of believing too much just as "understanding seeking faith" runs the risk of believing too little.

Dave,

I agree with the idea of a "permanent and progressive dialectic" and like how you put that.

I think developing a series on faith and philosophy would be fun. Thanks for the encouragement. Perhaps we can discuss this possibility further via e-mail?

We now openly allow Jesuit teachers (Zane Yi) at Jesuit colleges (Fordham University) to write articles for so-called SDA media outlets and point us to the church of Rome for spiritual guidance and practices. The Spirit of Prophecy says "The Lord says to us, Seventh-day Adventists are not to place themselves under the counsel and instruction of teachers who know not the truth for this time." (CT, 401). Friends we have lost our way - As a Seventh-day Adventist I am appalled at this sites content. It seems that most of God's remnant church are being led to Rome. Nobody seems to be awake on these issues. "I saw that the remnant were not prepared for what is coming upon the earth. Stupidity, like lethargy, seemed to hang upon the minds of most of those who profess to believe that we are having the last message. My accompanying angel cried out with awful solemnity, "Get ready! get ready! get ready! for the fierce anger of the Lord is soon to come. His wrath is to be poured out, unmixed with mercy, and ye are not ready. Rend the heart, and not the garment. A great work must be done for the remnant." (EW, 119). Brothers and Sisters please awaken out your slumber - The Mark of the Beast is right upon us friends, and we must be ready to meet Jesus at this time because probation will close for the remnant when the Sunday law is passed. God Bless, David R. www.truthmaintained.com

David: Zane Yi is not a Jesuit. It would be well for you to get your facts straight before you bring charges. It does not help your credibility. - website editor

David R.,

In case there is any question, let me second what the editor of has stated.

While you are correct in your assessment that Fordham University is run by the Jesuits, and while I hold the men who serve Jesus in this organization in the highest regard and consider it an honor to be associated with them, I myself am not a member (nor do I teach them, if this is what you meant).

This would require me, first to be a Catholic (I am not one.); and secondly to have taken vows of celibacy, poverty, and obedience. (I have taken none of these vows.)

I see from your website that you live in New Jersey. If you are ever in Manhattan on a Sabbath, perhaps I will see you in church. You are most welcome to join my wife and I for some lunch and conversation regarding some of your concerns after Sabbath School and worship.

Warm regards,

Zane

Maybe it was overlooked: Do contributors to Spectum have to identify their religious affiliation and more? Are Roman Catholics still demonized by Adventists to the extent that any association becomes suspect?

Nor, have any of us who post here required to give our educational credentials. The message, not the messenger should be the only requirement.

The ability to evaluate a message sans the writer, is the true test of critical thinking: a "blind" test.

I am Protestant to the core; however, I think that we can learn some things from those who aren't. Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley certainly did. Yet David R. does well to remind us not to be gullible.

Brother Zane, Thank you for your offer - maybe somehow God will put this together - I have only been to Manhattan a few times and it was years ago. You may not be Catholic but you are turning our attention to Saints. By beholding we become changed! Please remember this. I assume you are an Adventist (you keep Sabbath so it seems) - I am not judging you and I am not judging every individual at Fordham University. I can only see by the fruits being produced. It pains me to say this but this website saddens my heart tremendously.
Let's be honest - the Jesuit Order exists for one purpose - to destroy Protestantism and at the same time regain control of the world for the pope of Rome. Anyone here can 'ridicule' me here if you want, it's OK. We are to be separate - have no fellowship with unrighteousness. Please don't take the extreme and apply this to not talking to non-believers about the Three Angel's Messages. We have been given EVERYTHING we need is in the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. That's the position I hold dearly.
A message to Elaine - God loves you - He died for all of us - because I point out what the SOP says and what I believe - I am guilty of critical thinking? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is wrong. We all need reproving - Jesus reproved people - REPROVING IS NOT JUDGING - many people get upset (myself included) when we are reproved or our actions are condemned. There is a right and a wrong way to do this. But pointing out sin is not being judgmental. One Greek (Bible) definition of the word reprove is "to add value to" - this is what it should be - by reproving and correcting you hope to help that person. If you noticed I was having a problem in an area of my life - ultimately I would want you to tell me because sometimes we cannot see our true condition. But for me to sound a warning of concern - whether it sounds critical to you or not - is Biblical - Isaiah 58:1 "Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.".
As a Christian I am to be tolerant of sinners - no matter where they are in their walk - but I don't have to be tolerant of sin, especially when it will have direct results on my walk. An example of this is music - There are many opinions but I believe rock music has no place in a church. I will not tolerate rock music being played in my church without protest. Also-I don't demonize Roman Catholics (nor should Adventists) but the SYSTEM of Roman Catholicism should be 'demonized.' The SOP tells us most of God's true people are in the RC system.
Ezekiel 33:1-6
1 Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
2 Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman:
3 If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people;
4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.
5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul.
6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.
God Bless, David R.

Hi, I checked around even more on this site - there's a link to watch a Michael Jackson Thriller video, articles supporting homosexual marriage, a flat out denial of the Sanctuary message - Is this supposed to prepare me for heaven or hellfire?

David R.,

I understand where you are coming from, with your misgivings about Jesuits. At one point in my life, before I personally knew any Catholics (or hardly any other Christians outside of Adventism) my view of Jesuits had been formed by reading through a series of frightening comic books by a man named Alberto Rivera. (Rivera's story has been largely discredited.) I am not sure if you are aware of these "books", but I think they have done a lot to shape Protestant paranoia about the Jesuit order.

Historically, yes, the Jesuit order was formed in the time of the Counter-Reformation to win back Protestant lands to Catholicism--but this was done largely through education. (I'm actually not sure if there were other kinds of measures used. If there were, I'd think putting it into context, like Calvin's Geneva, would be fair.)

Today, at least in my experience with them, Jesuits seem devoted to service to God through developing the life of the mind and providing a quality education to society. In other words, they do not obsess with trying to convert Protestants. Their agenda includes much larger things like secularism and Christianity in the East Asian countries. (I think some of us spend way much more time thinking about them, then they do us!)

And, although, I do not agree with the Catholic practice of venerating and praying to saints, I do think we have much to learn from all people, especially men and women who have dedicated their lives to God's service in the best way they know how.

It is denigrating all those Christians before us where Adventists
are deluded. If it were not for those Christians (catholic as in universal) there would be no New Testament, there would be no Christian church. It was the church that some castigate so strongly to who they owe their very religious belief: it was kept alive by those early believers--your and my religious ancestors, who are now being condemned. The ignorance of history and believing only the erroneous and very abridged history from Great Controversy and similar works, has been very destructive in understanding how our faith was formed. Adventists did not invent the humanity/divinity of Christ; Adventists did not formulate the doctrine of the Trinity in the mid-19th century; their beliefs were largely borrowed from other denomatinations that long predated them. Their only contribution has been in a few unique pillars that they alone decipher. Caution should be used when claiming what only a few can see.

David R. - I've read most of Zane's posts from way back, including the 3 most recent pieces you've referred to, and I've found no reason to question Zane's loyalty to our own Christian Adventist community in particular. I've witnessed nothing less than multiple evidences of his desire to make us (and himself) better and more effective communicators of the everlasting gospel. In responding to his critics, grace always shines through him, does it not?

Over the weekend, I spent some time listening to a farewell sermon of 14 Feb 2009 by Smuts Van Rooyen to his Vallejo Drive SDA congregation, near where I live. You can listen to it here: http://www.graceunconditional.com/sermons.html
Smuts' sermon has a special poignancy regarding what we've been covering on several threads (Reviewing... Daniel... 1844, for example), but I mention this for another reason. The newly-designated senior pastor for Smuts' former congregation happens to have come from the Van Nuys SDA Church. I've not heard of this new young pastor (a 1996 AU MDiv) before and so I immediately searched the web and found the Van Nuys website. Zane happens to have been associated with the Van Nuys group prior to his move to NY (and Fordham U) and so I listened to some podcasts of sermons by the pastoral staff, including those by Zane, starting with his last week there on 2006-07-29 In Up and Out. I invite you, David R, to listen to a sample of Zane's messages and let us know if there's any reason why I should change my positive impressions of our dear friend and brother in Christ.
http://vannuys.adventistfaith.org/podcasts/183

Joselito,

Thanks for the update on Mike. I have not talked to him in a while, and was unaware of this transition in his ministry. It's exciting to hear!

And regarding Van Nuys SDA Church. Yes, I had the privilege of serving there part-time, as a youth/young adult pastor while I was a seminary student at Fuller (2003-2006). There are many wonderful people that make up the congregation there and I remember those days very fondly.

Thank you for your kind words.

I so appreciate your thoughts about the human need to ask questions and search for answers, as long as it is done with prayer for the Holy Spirit's guidance. How I wish that our church were more willing to engage in dialogue on such questions.

Having grown up in the "Adventist ghetto" of Takoma Park, and having married a minister, how difficult it was when, in my early 50's, I learned about my youngest son's homosexuality. One cannot help having questions in such a situation, and I ended up questioning everything I had accepted as "truth" throughout my life. But what a mind-opening, freeing experience it turned out to be. Although I revised some of my beliefs, I now have a much stronger base of faith. But this had to be done under cover, because the church does not allow people to talk about their questions.

Zane, I, too, have been accused of being a Jesuit - actually of being a Jesuit who was masquerading as a minister's wife - after the REVIEW printed an article in which I told about our family's experience in learning our son was gay. - smile!

hello everyone, I find the comments here (in regards to my posts) very interesting. I do not (and cannot for that matter) question ones motives or sincerity but cannot someone be sincerly wrong? I am also shocked at the opinions of many on here. Quick to criticize my "critical comments" but yet at the same time nobody is complaining about the open apostasy of articles (not all of them) on this site. Articles that say we should accept gay marriage, links to watch Michael Jackson's Thriller video. I mean come on - isn't the idea of a site like this supposed to hel you to a closer walk with Christ? Will the Thriller video do this? I've also received a lashing about Jesuits and how they are no longer interested in converting Protestants - and they did it largely by education in the past - (please pardon the comment but) what are you drinking? What history books are you reading? Here are a few books for you to read: ROME STOOPS TO CONQUER (1935) by Dr. E. Boyd Barrett (a Jesuit priest), THE KEYS OF THIS BLOOD (1991) by Malachi Martin (another Jesuit priest) and CATHOLIC POWER VS. AMERICAN FREEDOM (2000) by George LaPiania/John Swomley. Friends, even though the SOP tells us how bad things will become inside the church, I am still amazed at how it has happened. But the book we really need to read (outside of the Bible) is THE GREAT CONTROVERSY. Even though you may have read these before PLEASE read them very slowly and carefully.
Please notice: "The Roman Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christlike garments; but SHE IS UNCHANGED. Every principle of the papacy that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. The papacy that Protestants are now so ready to honor is the same that ruled the world in the days of the Reformation..." (P. 571)
Also "The defenders of the papacy declare that the church has been maligned, and the Protestant world are inclined to accept the statement. Many urge that it is unjust to judge the church of today by the abominations and absurdities that marked her reign during the centuries of ignorance and darkness. They excuse her horrible cruelty as the result of the barbarism of the times and plead that the influence of modern civilization has changed her sentiments...Have these persons forgotten the claim of infallibility put forth for eight hundred years by this haughty power? So far from being relinquished, this claim was affirmed in the nineteenth century with greater positiveness than ever before...The papal church will never relinquish her claim to infallibility. All that she has done in her persecution of those who reject her dogmas she holds to be right; and would she not repeat the same acts, should the opportunity be presented? Let the restraints now imposed by secular governments be removed and Rome be reinstated in her former power, and there would speedily be a revival of her tyranny and persecution...But Romanism as a system is no more in harmony with the gospel of Christ now than at any former period in her history. The Protestant churches are in great darkness, or they would discern the signs of the times. The Roman Church is far-reaching in her plans and modes of operation. She is employing every device to extend her influence and increase her power in preparation for a fierce and determined conflict to regain control of the world, to re-establish persecution, and to undo all that Protestantism has done." (p. 563-566) Some of the comments I received about my posts are a fulfillment of the Great Controversy. Praise God we have a true prophet.
"The papacy is just what prophecy declared that she would be, the apostasy of the latter times. 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4. It is a part of her policy to assume the character which will best accomplish her purpose; but beneath the variable appearance of the chameleon she conceals the invariable venom of the serpent...It is not without reason that the claim has been put forth in Protestant countries that Catholicism differs less widely from Protestantism than in former times. There has been a change; but the change is not in the papacy. Catholicism indeed resembles much of the Protestantism that now exists, because Protestantism has so greatly degenerated since the days of the Reformers." (p. 571)
"In the movements now in progress in the United States to secure for the institutions and usages of the church the support of the state, Protestants are following in the steps of papists. Nay, more, they are opening the door for the papacy to regain in Protestant America the supremacy which she has lost in the Old World. And that which gives greater significance to this movement is the fact that the principal object contemplated is the enforcement of Sunday observance--a custom which originated with Rome, and which she claims as the sign of her authority." (p. 573)
"And let it be remembered, it is the boast of Rome that she never changes. The principles of Gregory VII and Innocent III are still the principles of the Roman Catholic Church. And had she but the power, she would put them in practice with as much vigor now as in past centuries...Rome is aiming to re-establish her power, to recover her lost supremacy...God's word has given warning of the impending danger; let this be unheeded, and the Protestant world will learn what the purposes of Rome really are, only when it is too late to escape the snare. She is silently growing into power. Her doctrines are exerting their influence in legislative halls, in the churches, and in the hearts of men. She is piling up her lofty and massive structures in the secret recesses of which her former persecutions will be repeated. Stealthily and unsuspectedly she is strengthening her forces to further her own ends when the time shall come for her to strike. All that she desires is vantage ground, and this is already being given her. We shall soon see and shall feel what the purpose of the Roman element is. Whoever shall believe and obey the word of God will thereby incur reproach and persecution." (p. 581)
Friends - this is the prophet of God speaking - the testimony of Jesus - this is Jesus' words to his church through Ellen White. Is Jesus being unkind and unfair and critical in saying this? No it is the opposite - He is telling us these things because He loves us so much. People keep commenting as though I am attacking Roman Catholics - far from it - I (and the SOP) am/is speaking of the system. Call me what you will - as for me and my house we will serve God. We will listen to his word. God loves every Roman Catholic - Revelation 14 says they are in a system called Babylon and they need to come out because God is going to destroy that system soon. Friend this is where we come in - (and I know this is going to sound wrong to some of you) but instead of us making loving relationships that reach the point where we cannot even turn to them and tell them the Three Angels Message because we don't want to hurt them because they are our friends - that isn't real love - we have to make a relationship that will be able to love them enough to tell them the truth. That is real love. Revelation 14:6-12 is God's message of love to the world and he has entrusted us with this message - but yet many of us are neglecting that trust. God Bless and Amen. David R.

David R.,

I believe you have made the mistake my post on the thought of a medieval figure (before there was even a Catholic/Protestant distinction) as a wholesale and uncritical adaptation of Catholic theology. Although I think there is much to learn from Catholic thinkers, I have not advocated this.

I will repeat something I wrote in a previous post on the thought of Aquinas before this one:

(Replace "Thomism" with "Catholicism.")

"Now, I should be clear, as I’m sure I will be misunderstood by some as advocating a wholesale adoption of Thomism; I’m not. I believe Aquinas’ thought in our day--whether it be about God, human beings, the physical world, or ethics--needs to be engaged in the same way he engaged Aristotle in his own, respectfully and critically."

Also, here is a link to a post I wrote for Spectrum a few years ago regarding Adventist attitudes toward other Christians, including Catholics.

http://old.spectrummagazine.org/onlinecommunity/featuredcolumns/070118yi...

Carrol,

I considered myself in good company before; I consider myself in even better company now. I've never met a woman that serves in the Jesuit order. We would all love to hear your story. =)

Thank you for sharing your experience. I recently read your story that was published in the book "Christianity and Homosexuality" and was moved by the honesty, love, and grace that was so apparent. This is an issue I'm still trying to understand.

My experience has not been with family, but with the increasing numbers of youth and young-adults that I have worked with/meet in Adventism that have a homosexual orientation.

It's one thing to talk about this issue abstractly, and quite another to be talking about members in our church and family you respect and love.

David R - Thanks for clarifying your position of not attacking Roman Catholics but the system - of their doctrines and papal governance, I presume.

The aim of this series for Adventists, I believe, is to help us better understand the philosophical foundations of western Christianity in general and Roman Catholicism in particular. These medieval figures (Augustine lived much earlier, 354–430), as was pointed out, influenced western Christianity in very specific ways long before there was a Protestant Reformation. Differences in their teachings existed, of course, and how the same were resolved, or remain unsettled to this day, may be helpful to us. For example, in regard to human cognition: Of what use is an inspired message/revelation (Bible) if we cannot agree on its meaning consequent to the fallibility of the human agent intellect? It seems that for many Adventists, and perhaps for you, David R, in particular, this may easily be settled by reference to our prophetess. Or, have I misread you?

David,
The Jesuits are so passe. Opus Dei is the new demon lol. I suggest you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church to see what we really believe. None of the books you suggested are truthful. The fact that an Adventist teaches at Fordham is a good sign for Adventist scholarship.

Someone with inside information (other than Cliff) please cite five differences between Takoma Park and the Vatican: do not include geography or history. Both are top down institutions with power to destroy. neither has the power to save. Now five differences. Tom.

Zane, I've relished reading your posts about some of the old saints (Saints are people the Light shines through), plus the lively conversation following. Most radiate the kind of warmth, grace & thoughtfulness that I find so enjoyable. I look forward to reading more. Meanwhile, blessings on you. Jeris

Thanks for the encouragement, Jeris. I agree with you that we have much to learn from those that have walked the path of faith before us, living and dead, and outside the walls of our particular traditions. Happy Sabbath!