Help needed rewording search ... inspired by Geisler

"attributes of God" NEAR rational doesn't find any Bible references although it does find an interesting discussion by Strong. I assume that I'm not using the right buzzwords.

I'm trying to find a Bible reference to support "God is rational ...", the first words of the Preface in Geisler, Norman L., and Ronald M. Brooks. Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990.

Nothing exciting, just gathering info for a review

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ken McGuire

Not using Logos, but the near endless talk about Jn 1 in the apologists and the meaning of "λόγος" aren't a good enough start? Going further, a word study on λόγος in Philo could be interesting... Granted, there is a lot of data to sift - 1381 appearances in Philo.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/492013#Comment_492013

Not using Logos, but the near endless talk about Jn 1 in the apologists and the meaning of "λόγος" aren't a good enough start?

That's exactly what Geiser goes on to say... Here's Tertullian on John 1.

"Yet not even then was he alone; for he had with him that Reason that he had in himself—his own, of course. For God is rational, and reason is primarily in him, and thus from him are all things: and that Reason is his consciousness. This the Greeks call Logos, by which expression we also designate discourse, and consequently our people are already wont, through the artlessness of the translation, to say that “Discourse was in the beginning with God,” though it would be more appropriate to consider Reason of older standing, seeing that God is [not] discursive from the beginning but is rational even before the beginning, and because discourse itself, having its ground in reason, shows reason to be prior as being its substance.… And that you may understand this the more easily, observe first from yourself, as from the image and likeness of God,63 how you also have reason within yourself, who are a rational animal not only as having been made by a rational Creator but also as out of his substance having made a living soul.64 See how, when you by reason argue silently with yourself, this same action takes place within you, while reason accompanied by discourse meets you at every movement of your thought, at every impression of your consciousness.… So in a sort of way you have in you as a second [person] discourse by means of which you speak by thinking and by means of which you think by speaking: discourse itself is another [than you]. How much more completely therefore does this action take place in God, whose image and similitude you are authoritatively declared to be, that even while silent he has in himself reason and in [that] reason discourse. So I have been able without rashness to conclude that even then, before the establishment of the universe, God was not alone, seeing he continually had in himself Reason, and in Reason Discourse, which he made another beside himself by activity within himself."

Here's another quote from John Frame, which I personally found helpful. As you know, some doctrines are strongly inferred not stated. This may be one.

"God is a God of order, not chaos. He speaks truth, not falsehood. He cannot lie. He cannot make a promise and then break it. All that He does reflects an infinitely wise eternal plan. Therefore our God is rational and logical."

And another from NBD:

"God is personal. When we say this we assert that God is rational, self-conscious and self-determining, an intelligent moral agent. As supreme mind he is the source of all rationality in the universe. Since God’s rational creatures possess independent characters, God must be in possession of a character that is divine in both its transcendence and immanence."

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/492016#Comment_492016

Thanks - both answers help

Rosie Perera

After that quote, Geisler goes on to list several Bible references that I think he thinks support his claim:

God is rational, and he has created us as rational beings. The Bible urges us to give the reason for the hope that is in us (1 Pet. 3:15, NIV). Indeed, Jesus declared that the greatest commandment is: “You shall love the Lord your God with all … your mind” (Matt. 22:37). The apostle Paul added, “whatever is true, … think on …” (Phil. 4:8). Thinking is not an option for the Christian; it is an imperative.

Of course, everyone thinks. But not everyone thinks correctly. The name of the discipline that is geared to correcting this problem is logic. The late professor Gordon H. Clark pressed this point when he boldly, if not entirely accurately, translated John 1:1 this way: “In the beginning was Logic [the Logos]. And Logic was with God, and Logic was God.” Of course, God is more than a rational being; he also has feeling and free will. Nonetheless, God is rational, and the principles of good reason do flow from his very nature. Consequently, learning the rules of clear and correct reasoning is more than an academic exercise. For the Christian, it is also a means of spiritual service.

Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990), 6–7.

I also found this:

The substructure of Packer’s theological method relies heavily on his understanding of the nature of the rationality shared by God and human beings. For Packer, knowledge of God is possible because being human involves a rationality derived from God and analogous to God’s own rationality, a result of being created in God’s image. He states, “God is rational and unchanging, and all men in every generation, being made in God’s image, are capable of being addressed by him.”¹⁴

Donald J. Payne, J. I. Packer’s Theological Method, ed. Timothy George, J. I. Packer and the Evangelical Future: The Impact of His Life and Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 57.

Footnote 14 says (interesting to see a connection with Geisler again): J. I. Packer, “The Adequacy of Human Language,” in Inerrancy, ed. Norman Geisler, 197–226 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 201.

And this:

Certainly, God’s truth is coherent. God is a God of order, not chaos. He speaks truth, not falsehood. He cannot lie. He cannot make a promise and then break it. All that He does reflects an infinitely wise eternal plan. Therefore our God is rational and logical. Coherence, then, is a mark of His truth. In Scripture coherence is used as a test of religious truth.¹¹

John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, A Theology of Lordship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1987), 133.

Footnote 11: See Deut. 18:20–22; Matt. 12:22–28; 1 Cor. 15:12–20.

And here's Tertullian:

or before all things, God was alone, himself his own world and location and everything—alone however because there was nothing external beside him. Yet not even then was he alone; for he had with him that Reason that he had in himself—his own, of course. For God is rational, and reason is primarily in him, and thus from him are all things: and that Reason is his consciousness. This the Greeks call Logos, by which expression we also designate discourse, and consequently our people are already wont, through the artlessness of the translation, to say that “Discourse was in the beginning with God,” though it would be more appropriate to consider Reason of older standing, seeing that God is [not] discursive from the beginning but is rational even before the beginning, and because discourse itself, having its ground in reason, shows reason to be prior as being its substance.… And that you may understand this the more easily, observe first from yourself, as from the image and likeness of God,⁶³ how you also have reason within yourself, who are a rational animal not only as having been made by a rational Creator but also as out of his substance having made a living soul.⁶⁴ See how, when you by reason argue silently with yourself, this same action takes place within you, while reason accompanied by discourse meets you at every movement of your thought, at every impression of your consciousness.… So in a sort of way you have in you as a second [person] discourse by means of which you speak by thinking and by means of which you think by speaking: discourse itself is another [than you]. How much more completely therefore does this action take place in God, whose image and similitude you are authoritatively declared to be, that even while silent he has in himself reason and in [that] reason discourse. So I have been able without rashness to conclude that even then, before the establishment of the universe, God was not alone, seeing he continually had in himself Reason, and in Reason Discourse, which he made another beside himself by activity within himself. AGAINST PRAXEAS 5.

Joel C. Elowsky, John 1-10, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture NT 4a (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 10.

Footnotes:

⁶³ Gen 1:26
⁶⁴ Gen 2:7

And there's a chapter on "God's Intellectual Attributes" in God, Revelation and Authority, by Carl F. H. Henry, in which is found this:

God’s living mind consists of rational propositions. When used epistemologically, the verb “to know” means to have in mind a number of self-consistent truths. God is rational and the source of all rationality. And because he is the originator and sustainer of truth, all truth is one and self-consistent. God is the God of intelligible order, not of irrationality, self-contradiction or paradox. Scripture speaks of him as Logos or Wisdom, not as the Irrational or the Paradoxical.

Carl Ferdinand Howard Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, vol. 5 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999), 337.

And this:

Because God is rational, even He cannot reconcile contradictions.

R. C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1992).

You might want to check out the section "Logic and God" under Logic in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (surprise, surprise; also by Geisler). Here are a couple of excerpts:

Logic and God. If logic is the basis of all thought, it is the basis of all thought about God (theology). Some object that this makes God subject to logic. But God is sovereign and not subject to anything beyond himself. So, how can thought about God be subject to logic?

In one sense God is not subject to logic; rather, our statements about God are subservient to logic. All rational statements must be logical. Since theology purports to make rational statements, theological statements are subject to rules of rational thought, as are any other statements.

In another sense, God indeed is subject to logic, but not because there is something more ultimate than he. Since logic represents the principles of rational thought and since God is a rational Being, God is subject to his own rational nature. Insofar as logic manifests reason it flows from the very nature of God, and God is subject to his own nature. Indeed, he cannot act contrary to it, ethically or logically. For example, “It is impossible for God to lie” (Heb. 6:18). Likewise, it is impossible for God to contradict himself. Both violate his basic nature (see GOD, NATURE OF).

...

Rationality versus Rationalism. Others protest that making truths about God subject to human reason is a form of rationalism (see EPISTEMOLOGY; SPINOZA, BENEDICT). However, this objection overlooks several important things. First, God is not being subjected to our reason. God is the author of reason, and he created us to be like himself. So the basic principles of reason are not arbitrarily imposed on God; rather, they come from God (see FAITH AND REASON).

Second, the basic laws of reason are not opposed to God’s revelation; they are an essential part of God’s general revelation. Human rationality, with its basic laws, is a manifestation of God’s rationality. God is rational, and humans are made in his image. So using logic is not opposed to revelation; it is part of it.

Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 427-428.

And this:

The church’s doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God is based upon and is the logical consequence of God’s absolute self-existence. It is just because God is an eternal and self-contained being while we are his temporal creatures that we cannot ever hope to comprehend his being. But this absolute incomprehensibility of God, just because it is based upon God’s absolute rationality, is not inconsistent with the genuine rational character of our knowledge. On the contrary, our knowledge is rational because God is ultimately rational. At the same time, God is incomprehensible to us because he is ultimately rational. It is not because God is irrational that we cannot comprehend him; it is because God is rational, and in the nature of the case, ultimately rational, that we cannot comprehend him. It is not because God is darkness that he is incomprehensible to us, but it is because he is light, and, in the nature of the case, absolute light. God dwelleth in a light that no man can approach unto. We are not blind because of the light of God; it is only in God’s light that we see light.

Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1979).

And this:

God is consistent. God is coherent. In a word, God is rational. He is more than just Reason itself, of course. But He is—if we follow the Bible—a consistent Being. Those who favor a God of contradictions and inconsistencies must create their own God, for the true God will not suit them.

R. C. Sproul, The Mystery of the Holy Spirit (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1990).

And this:

...who will deny that God is rational, since the only alternative consistent with such a denial is that he is irrational...

Robert L. Reymond, "A Consistent Supralapsarian Perspective on Election" in Perspectives on Election: Five Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 184.

And this:

Throughout his discussion [William Brenton] Greene [, Jr.] assumed that Christianity is rational, because God is rational (though far surpassing human rationality). Thus apologetics was seen as developing the proper use of reason with respect to religion.

Tim McConnel, "The Old Princeton Apologetics: Common Sense or Reformed?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46, no. 4 (2003): 661.

EDIT: Sorry it took me so long to write this post that someone else had already posted the Tertullian quote, which I'm guessing is of more weight to you than all these others.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/492022#Comment_492022

I find Frame the most convincing in terms of justifying rather than simply asserting the statement. Tertullian I find to be strong evidence of the Platonic roots which actually caused my original search for Biblical support ... exploring the possibilities of non-Western interpretation and all. C.F.H. Henry I find shocking - the idea that we can know the mind of God is too foreign for me.

But my current focus is a review of Geisler ... so I can't go chasing all the interesting hints. But I will assume my lack of search results is genuine.

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/492030#Comment_492030

Tertullian I find to be strong evidence of the Platonic roots which actually caused my original search for Biblical support ...

Most scholars view Tertullian as more of a Stoic than a Platonist. Of course, if you mean "western thinker before the medieval realist/nominalist debates," you are correct. Personally I am more of a "Credo ut intelligam" guy. Yeah - there is a certain logic to things, but I am quite skeptical of the Natural Law tradition.

But exegetically, the question is what senses of "logos" did John intend, vs. all the philosophical stuff read into it. And I confess I have not done my homework on that one yet.

Christopher Engelsma

            “Rise, Balak, and hear;
      give ear to me, O son of Zippor:
            Num. 23:19       God is not man, that he should lie,
      or a son of man, that he should change his mind.
                  Has he said, and will he not do it?
      Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Nu 23:18–19.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/492138#Comment_492138

Most scholars view Tertullian as more of a Stoic than a Platonist.

Quite true and a worthwhile correction. The specific section of Tertullian I was reading dealt explicitly with Plato ... hence my sloppiness.

Exegetically, I was searching for straightforward "sola scriptura" backing of Geisler's statement simply because I would expect the introduction to a book of logic to be clear in its logic and wanted to fill-in the missing steps of his argument.

fgh

I'm trying to find a Bible reference to support "God is rational ..."

How about Rom 11:33? Wisdom presupposes rationality, doesn't it?

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/492245#Comment_492245

1 Cor 1.24 comes to mind as well

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/492245#Comment_492245

Wisdom presupposes rationality, doesn't it?

I'm not sure - to my mind, wisdom speaks more to experience and judgment. I do think of God as rational but I'd be hard pressed to provide a solid argument and hard pressed to define what I meant by rational as applied to God. More natural to me would be to describe human rationality as in some way reflecting imperfectly an aspect of God.