This dialogue is between a Natural Theologian (NT) and a Biblical Apologist (BA). Which of the two is most like you?
NT: Do you see my new book, Building A Rational Religion?
BA: Yes.
NT: What did you think?
BA: I didn’t believe a word of it.
NT: But didn’t I demonstrate the existence of God and solve the problem of evil?
BA: No. You failed on both counts.
NT: Why?
BA: Do you believe that you proved the existence of God and solved the problem of evil by human reason alone, apart from and independent of Scripture, through Nature alone?
NT: Yes.
BA: I submit that you cannot do this because you are so influenced by Biblical ideas that you cannot intellectually function without using those Biblical ideas. You were born in a Christian Box and cannot get out of that box.
NT: But I can pretend that I am not in the Box.
BA: Like a kid pretending to ride a horse by riding a broomstick?
NT: What I mean is that I can think outside the Biblical Box.
BA: I don’t think so.
NT: Sure I can! If I abandon the Biblical Box and move over to a non-Christian Box like the Greek Philosophers, then I can think outside the Christian Box. I will adopt the ideas of Thales, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and other philosophers. They will be my mentors. Then, beginning with those pagan ideas, I will intellectually argue my way back to the Biblical Box.
BA: Now, let me get this straight. You intend to defend the Biblical Box by first abandoning it? Then you will move over to some pagan non-Christian Box and adopt their ideas? And you really think you can make your way back to Jesus starting with some pagan philosophy?
NT: Yes.
BA: You are crazy! It is impossible for you to think outside the Biblical Box. Take for example the four stated goals of your book:
(1.) To prove the existence and attributes of God,
(2.) to solve the problem of evil,
(3.) by reason alone,
(4.) through Nature alone.
The words: prove, existence, God, solve, problem, evil, reason, and Nature, all have Christian meanings. If you are trying to think outside the Biblical Box, you have already failed. Take the word “God.” Which “God” are you trying to prove? The pantheistic god of Hinduism? A finite goddess of the Greeks? What kind of “God” are you hoping to find at the end of your arguments? As a Christian, don’t you mean the God of the Bible?
NT: Yes. I am trying to prove the existence of the Christian God.
BA: Then you are still thinking in the Biblical Box! Instead of trying to prove the existence of the Biblical God, you should simply say that you are trying to find out if “X” exists. You will not know what “X” means until you arrive at the end of your arguments. You may end up with a god or gods that are not like the Christian God at all.
NT: Are you saying that a Christian is incapable of producing Natural philosophy, law, theology and apologetics?
BA: Yes! The only person who is capable of producing an authentic “Natural” Theology is a “natural” man or woman who has never heard of any Biblical ideas such as:
- The Jewish God
- The Christian God
- natural revelation;
- special revelation;
- inspired Scripture (the Bible);
- monotheism;
- one infinite/personal God;
- the spiritual non-material nature of God;
- infinite nature of God;
- omnipotence of God;
- omniscience of God;
- omnipresence of God;
- holiness of God;
- grace of God;
- the Trinity;
- “Nature:”
- the uni-verse;
- the universe is not eternal;
- the finite nature of the universe;
- the universe had a beginning;
- Creation ex nihilo;
- the creation of man;
- the unity of mankind;
- the dignity of man;
- Adam and Eve;
- the Fall of man into sin and guilt;
- original sin;
- the sinful nature of man;
- the Law of God;
- the Ten Commandments;
- salvation;
- atonement;
- prophets;
- apostles;
- fulfillment of prophecy;
- the Messiah;
- Jesus;
- etc.
NT: Aren’t you being too picky?
BA: No. All the terms used by Western, European, Christian, Natural Theologians are Biblical or Christian terms. Thus they would have to abandon all these terms in order to think outside the Box. But can you really do this? I don’t think so. For example, when you claim to prove the “existence” of “God,” you have in mind the Biblical “God” and not some other deity. When you use the word “existence,” you understand it in the Biblical sense of an infinite, spiritual, non-material, non-spatial, non-temporal existence. Or, are you referring to a god made out of coconut husks with mother-of-pearl eyes and teeth? I don’t think so!
NT: But the Bible gives us many examples of Natural Theology in such places as Psalm 19, Acts, 17, and Romans 1. The Bible is filled with verses that teach Natural Theology.
BA: I hate to pop your balloon, but you are guilty of making a categorical fallacy. General Revelation is not the same thing as Natural Theology. Thus when you appeal to verses that speak of God’s General Revelation as if they prove man’s Natural Theology, you are in error. Let me explain what I mean.
1. “General revelation” in the Bible is God’s immediate non-verbal revelation to all men all the time in all places in all generations. It is immediate, universal, irresistible, and constant. All men are without excuse because God is personally confronting all men at all times in all places through Creation and conscience.
2. The light is shining and the music is playing to all of humanity all the time, but sinful man shuts his eyes and plugs his ears so that he does not see the light or hear the music. Notice that Psalm 19:1 says that “the heavens are telling the glory of God.” It does not say that man is telling the glory of God!
3. In contrast to God’s immediate, universal General Revelation, Natural Theology is the human activity of a few White, Western, European, Christian philosophers trained in logic and philosophy. Since only a few people in the West have ever read their books, how can it be said that all men everywhere throughout all of history are without excuse because of what they write?
4. I have examined every Biblical passage put forward by Natural Theologians and did not find a single command, precept or example of Natural Theology!
Conclusion
The only person who can develop an authentic Natural Theology by reason alone, through Nature alone, is a pagan who has never had any contact with any Biblical ideas whatsoever. In other words, only someone totally outside of the Biblical Box can develop a pure Natural Theology. Did the pre-Christian pagans find the Biblical God through reason alone by looking at Nature alone? Did any pagan natural religions discover and understand the true God?
{ 173 comments… read them below or add one }
Dr. Bob,
Didn’t Adam and Eve figure out God’s commands by putting their ears up to the tree trunk and or sitting in a dark room reasoning about what to believe and how to live?
Oh yeah! You have already pointed us to the simple Biblical answer that if God had not spoken and revealed himself verbally to man we would not be able to know specifically what to believe about God or how to live to please Him. You would think that Christians would figure this out by reading the first book of the Bible but obviously it’s not so clear (or “universal”) seeing that there are countless Christian leaders who teach natural theology and natural law. While they have their ears up to the sycamore tree’s and rocks we will examine scripture alone for what to believe and how to live.
Your upcoming book on Natural Theology is especially needed in a day when Plato and Aristotle are more respected amongst Christians than Calvin and Luther. Thank you for your clear Biblical correction and teaching.
Interesting idea, but aren’t you comparing apples to oranges? Wouldn’t we rather call the NT a natural apologist instead. Aren’t they both trying to prove the same thing from different positions. Can’t the existence and the glory of God be seen and proven from both nature and the Bible?
BA: I didn’t believe a word of it (Building A Rational Religion).
NT: But didn’t I demonstrate the existence of God and solve the problem of evil?
BA: No. You failed on both counts.
NT: Why?
BA: Do you believe that you proved the existence of God and solved the problem of evil by human reason alone, apart from and independent of Scripture, through Nature alone?
BA: “I submit that you cannot do this because you are so influenced by Biblical ideas that you cannot intellectually function without using those Biblical ideas. You were born in a Christian Box and cannot get out of that box.”
If we were born in this “Christian box” and that is our environment why is it illogical to find that someone has arrived at the same conclusions as BA, after all, they are both breathing the same error.
NT’s answer to BA’s statement above, saying matter-of-factly that he can use reason alone is false, but BA’s saying that “he failed on both counts” seems to deny that God can be found in nature, but may mean that you can find God in nature, only just don’t say “by reason alone,” because our reason is being helped along by our “Christian” environment.”
Blessings,
Steve Blackwell
Steve,
You have to remember that in context of Rom 1 all mankind has been given the general revelation of God. That does not mean that every person has a knoweldge of God that can reveal God to them. That is to say that man cannot know the One and True God unless they have been given specific revelation.
We cannot know the truths about God, His attributes, truth, word, works, etc… unless He reveals them to us. We cannot “reason” God out of nature and know the True God (that is who He is and salvific faith) without His specific revelation. If we “know” God from “reason” then we will only know god (notice the capitalization).
We can indeed prove the existance of God through nature (General Revelation), but as Dr. Morey pointed out that is different from “Natural Theology.”
IOW…the way the sea rolls and crashes…the beauty of a magnificient stallion…the smell of a newborn baby’s head all point to God’s amazing power…but ain’t no maple tree going to tell you are a sinner in need of saving grace!
Consider Spurgeon’s wisdom on this subject:
“One standing up in the street, venting his infidelity, said that we could not do better on Sunday than go abroad and worship Nature. There was nothing that was so refining and elevating to the mind than Nature. Nature did everything. A Christian man in the crowd ventured to ask, “What is Nature?” And the gentleman said, “Well, Nature—well—it is Nature. Don’t you know what it is. It is Nature.” No further definition was forthcoming; I fear the term is only useful as enabling men to talk of creation without being compelled to mention the Creator”.–CH Spurgeon
“NT: Sure I can! If I abandon the Biblical Box and move over to a non-Christian Box like the Greek Philosophers, then I can think outside the Christian Box. I will adopt the ideas of Thales, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and other philosophers. They will be my mentors. Then, beginning with those pagan ideas, I will intellectually argue my way back to the Biblical Box.”
Straw man. Look it up in your list of logical fallacies. Next time, I can cite the fallacy in Latin to impress the masses.
Pagan Greek philosophy has never found God on its own…
Natural Theology is a sham used to hoodwink unsuspecting professing Christians and lure them into the dark recesses of deception.
This poor guy (James Gibson) has sadly been taken
May God preserve His own from abandoning sola scriptura in exchange for the humanistic principle of sola ratione.
People: pray “Don’t let me go, Lord!”
Dr Bob,
Are there nuances to the way different people or traditions define Natural Theology? It seems that the medieval scholastics had a different project in mind than the natural theologians of the Enlightenment. The former were trying to show the internal rationality of the faith and did not have the skeptical audience that the latter did. The Enlightenment natural theologians were trying to prove God’s existence to a skeptical and unbelieving audience (they failed), which ultimately paved the way for Deism. I agree that Natural Theology that is based on Aristotelian or Platonic metaphysics is false, but there is a place for showing the internal rationality of the faith or faith seeking understanding, that is. Did not Calvin and Luther speak of Natural Law? In fact, Calvin spends some time unpacking it in Book I of the Institutes. Clearly, they meant something different than the scholastics and the humanist theologians. But, was it a “natural theology” or a believer “reasoning from General revelation?” Did they mean General Revelation when they said natural theology or natural law? Dr. Bob (or anyone else), can you help me unpack and clarify these questions? Always reforming!
Peter
>> BA: I submit that you cannot do this because you are so influenced by Biblical ideas that you cannot intellectually function without using those Biblical ideas. You were born in a Christian Box and cannot get out of that box.
In order to claim knowledge that a person so influenced cannot intellectually function without the Biblical ideas to which he has been exposed, one must also claim to know the relevant differences between the two perspectives which make the claim so.
So, since the claim is made by someone who claims that Biblical knowledge removes the ability to perceive from an unbibiblical perspective, he is also claiming the very knowledge he is claiming is unknowable from his perspective.
This argument is self-defeating.
Hello Dr. Morey,
How do you suppose the Reformers would respond to this notion? R.C. Sproul deems it in accordance to Reformed thinking.
Did the Reformers confront this? Since Deism is the consistent source of natural theology, the closest Reformers to confront this would have been the Puritians. Do you agree?
1) So which is it? Do the Puritians/Reformers support Sproul/Natural Theology, or do they support your position?
2) Is it more “Calvinisitc” to embrace natural theology as Sproul says or is it more Calvinistic to deny it?
3) Sproul equates natural theology almost identically to General Revelation. While you would convey this as a categorical fallacy, why?
Jean Cauvin
Agilius,
touche’
Agilius doesn’t understand the argument.
I grant you that the overall conclusion you have come to may well be right, but this *particular* argument does not support your conclusion because it is self defeating.
There are a number of points I would like to address, but due to the manner in which people [in general] tend to argue, it is difficult to make sense of the chaos which ensues when attempting to argue every point at once. So, I’ve decided to take them one at a time.
Agilius,
How would it be self defeating if one claims to have knowledge of an epistemological assumption that either has existed or presently exists wherein biblical pollution is entirely absent?
You appear to be misinterpreting the argument that acknowledges that the concepts of God held by the “born-in-the-box” person are not the same concepts shared among those “born-outside-the-box.” It doesn’t seem to be an argument saying “that Biblical knowledge removes the ability to perceive from an unbibiblical perspective.” He seems to be saying that the person’s epistemological base has so thoroughly been infested with, and permeated by the Bible that it is impossible for a true detachment for even a moment in order to function intellectually.
That being the case, any “theology” produced by an “in-the-boxer” cannot be “natural…”
I think it’s a good point based on keen observation.
Jean,
In order to clarify and distinguish my own questions, it might help to respond to a portion of your comments above. In my above comments, I did not wish to insinuate that R.C. Sproul’s Classical apologetics or Thomistic Natural theology and the reformed Natural law or reasoning from General Revelation are the same thing. They are not. The Reformed thinkers, like Calvin and Luther, despised Aristotelian and Platonic metaphysics. In fact, they thought that the scholastic enterprise was a theology of glory, meaning it exalted to unscriptural levels the reasoning powers of fallen man. Although Sproul has a very different soteriology than the scholastics, he has made no bones about declaring the Thomistic project a sound enterprise, and he wants to resurrect it in our day, so to speak. But, I think the reformers had much to say about Natural law, and I would like Dr. Bob (or anyone else) to clarify what he thinks the different nuances of these definitions of Natural theology are. Clearly, there are different goals in mind for each tradition, but I want to unpack from biblical perspective, what is sound and what is not. Furthermore, were there any problems with the reformers views on this issue?
Here is an example of what Calvin taught about Natural Law:
He says, “Now the inward law, which we have above described as written, even engraved, upon the hearts of all, in a sense asserts the very same things that are to be learned from the two Tables. (II.viii.1)”
A note on Sola Scriptura:
I think we have got to be careful not to slavishly follow one tradition or another just because we might line up with much of what is in their theology. Our ultimate standard is the Scripture. However, while scripture contains 100% true revelation from God, the Lord has also chosen to reveal Himself in creation as well. Scripture lays down the qualifiers on that revelation, but there is such a thing as General Revelation. Also, the sciences can tell us true things about the world too, and we need to be careful that were not upholding Sole Authority on truth with respect to Scripture rather than Sola Scriptura. We do find truth outside the Scripture, and Paul makes this clear in the New Testament. Our final authority is Scripture, not science or philosophy.
>> You appear to be misinterpreting the argument that acknowledges that the concepts of God held by the “born-in-the-box” person are not the same concepts shared among those “born-outside-the-box.”
You can’t know that the concepts are not the same unless you know what those concepts are. And if you know what concepts belong “outside-the-box”, then you can’t claim that exposure to “in-the-box” concepts has tainted your ability to reason from either perspective – you have access to both sets of concepts.
One of the problems is that while the NT says that God has made some things known through creation, man rejects those things for his own foolishness. Even if it were possible to reason our way to the truth, unless God changes our nature, we would reject the truth.
Sir Aaron,
That’s fair.
And today some reject the truth by claiming that the scientific laws which god created prove that a deity is not necessary to account for all that exists.
And since they are referencing scientific laws which they do not know were set up by the god of the Bible, insomuch as they reference the truth we must grant them that which they already have.
But since they have been deceived into believe that the laws of science, which god created, actually prove that god is not required to account for all that exists, Christianity can never be proven true, in their estimation, until they believe that a god is necessary to account for all that exists.
This is where Intelligent Design and your so-called “Natural” Theologians come in; And to be sure, the *only* purpose of “Natural” Theology [not as defined by Dr. Morey] and Intelligent Design is to facilitate the debunking of this single roadblock.
Christianity is based on certain truths; So before you can prove that Christianity is true, you must first prove that the foundations of Christianity are sound and build a case from there. Consequently, since the foundations of Christianity are not Christianity, themselves, Christianity, per se, cannot be used to prove the foundations. This is true whether you start from a Christian perspective or not.
Stephen,
I am really confused by your last comment. Is the argument that natural theology is wrong or it does’t exist?
Stephen,
I would love to hear your thoughts on some of the questions I raised above. I realized after reading another post that Dr. Bob is busy with the book editing and revision. It has been a while since we last talked. I think it was at Danny’s wedding. Email me if you want to catch up.
Hi Agilius, when the apostle said “I determined to know nothing among you but Christ and Him crucified”, I believe this contrary to what you are saying here:
>>Christianity is based on certain truths; So before you can prove that Christianity is true, you must first prove that the foundations of Christianity are sound and build a case from there. Consequently, since the foundations of Christianity are not Christianity, themselves, Christianity, per se, cannot be used to prove the foundations. This is true whether you start from a Christian perspective or not.>>
The foundations of Christianity the death burial and resurrection of Jesus.
Brad B
>> Hi Agilius, when the apostle said “I determined to know nothing among you but Christ and Him crucified”, I believe this contrary to what you are saying here:
Nearly the entire book of Romans is given to arguing for the gospel to the Jews – not just from the text of Scripture, but from rules of logic and language not formally taught in Scripture [that is to say; though exemplified in Scripture, they weren't taught, but merely assumed to be known by the reader]; so when Paul says he determined to know nothing but Christ crucified, he is not saying that he offered no arguments.
How else do you expect to be able to tell the difference between false prophets and teachers? They claim to be using the same Bible as you, so what do you do then? The answer is that you have to understand parsing [not unique to the Bible] and logic [not unique to the Bible, and I would add the god of the Bible].
The truth of Christianity is a conclusion we want others to come to – we don’t want them to accept *anything* willy-nilly, because you can’t have biblical faith if it’s a blind faith.
Hi Peter!
You’re right, it was over a year ago that we last talked. I hope things are going well. Have we facebooked yet? I know I have with Danny and Aaron (the philosophy student). Anyhow, I’d like to address something you posted earlier.
You said: “I agree that Natural Theology that is based on Aristotelian or Platonic metaphysics is false, but there is a place for showing the internal rationality of the faith or faith seeking understanding, that is.”
We first need to establish the metaphysical assumptions behind this. While it is clear that you reject Aristotelian and Platonic metaphysics, it is not clear which metaphysical assumptions you do hold that establish the foundation for your epistemological assumptions. I think this is necessary before discussing rationality, faith, understanding. etc…
I hope to hear from you!
Agilius,
Regarding blind faith, aren’t you operating on blind faith in the sufficiency of human autonomy?
Mrs. Watkins,
To simplify things, I would say that the biblical presuppositions of someone born “in-the-box” affect the premises and conclusions of their arguments to the point where Special Revelation is ultimately credited, not the ambiguous “nature” so highly regarded in humanist philosophies. Therefore, their “theologies” are not “natural” because they have relied upon Special Revelation (however small or large a degree) every step of the way. These so-called “natural theologies” claim to begin with man apart from the God revealed in the Bible, yet claim to reach the God revealed in the Bible without ever using, depending on, appealing to, or even being influenced by – the Bible. This can’t be done successfully. At best, it makes a case for a general theism, but never reaches the truth about God – only synthetic idols.
In order to determine whether “natural theology” is valid, we must look to those that were never polluted by Special Revelation and see if they (in their complete isolation from special revelation) have identified and established the existence of God. We look, and we no find! What we do find though are horribly mistaken conclusions (i.e. idols), and the most telling display of the severe consequences of the rejection of biblical theism (Frame).
We must also note the distinction between “natural theologies” and “General Revelation.” The former is the work of man while the latter is the work of God. GR is infallible and declares the glory of God – it is a “speech” of God! Man on the other hand, is a fallible receptacle of this “speech” and doesn’t understand it (noetic/harmotological), but suppresses it and does not live according to the light s/he’s given, and is without excuse. It is not a small error to confuse the two…
Stephen,
“I said: “I agree that Natural Theology that is based on Aristotelian or Platonic metaphysics is false, but there is a place for showing the internal rationality of the faith or faith seeking understanding, that is.”
“You said:We first need to establish the metaphysical assumptions behind this.”
Good point. Some things that I am not assuming: First, I am not assuming that one needs to test doctrines by the bar of Reason before believing them or something of that sort. Second, I think there are problems with a foundational approach to epistemology or any natural epistemology, for that matter. While I think that there are some true elements in many theories of Epistemology, I recognize that they are indeed fallible human projects.
Do I think we need a coherent, reliable, truth aimed starting point? Yes, and I think the Bible gives us that. What I meant by “showing the internal rationality of the faith,” is that the Biblical portrait of reality makes sense. Many Christians think that faith is a vacuous leap in the dark. However, faith has an epistemic component. Our faith is strengthened by the evidence that we have in both General and Special revelation. I understand that Dr. Bob uses evidential arguments at times to buttress the revealed truths of Scripture, and I am all for that. But, as Dr. Bob points out, I believe the Scriptures even when reason fails to understand everything exhaustively or where reason falls short, thus faith plumbs the depths of many mysteries of revealed truth.
In a sense, if theology is reasoning about God from the scriptures, can we not say there is a place for that in our approach to General Revelation? As Calvin has said, the universe is the theater of God’s glory. I think that we need to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. General Revelation does communicate things about God, as the scriptures point out (Rom. 1, Ps. 19). Now, clearly the natural man rejects General revelation and suppresses the truth in unrighteousness, but there is a real sense in which His invisible attributes are clearly seen by the things that are made. Or, to more clearly quote Paul, “18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”
Thus, General Revelation is clearly communicating things about God that are being rejected by the natural man. We all agree that General Revelation is sufficient to condemn man for rejecting the God who is, was, and always will be. However, what do you make of the language, “is plain to them,” or “God has shown it to them”, or “have been clearly perceived?” Can the believer reasonable argue from General Revelation that God exists? The believer looks at creation and sees His handiwork everywhere; the theater of His glory, as the great reformer once said. Can we discern and argue from that which is clearly evident, although mediated through the creation? This may not be convincing to unbelievers who suffer from epistemic depravity and blindness, but can and does it encourage the believer?
My above questions were: Are there nuances to the way different people or traditions define Natural Theology? Did not Calvin and Luther speak of Natural Law? In fact, Calvin spends some time unpacking it in Book I and II of the Institutes. Clearly, they meant something different than the scholastics and the humanist theologians. But, was it a “natural theology” or a believer “reasoning from General revelation?” Did they mean General Revelation when they said natural theology or natural law? Are there any problems with their views?
Ultimately, my thinking on these issues is always reforming as I study the Scripture and dialogue with others. So, that is my reason for asking these questions bro. Also, just because I ask the question does not necessarily mean I endorse its theological flavor. It may be asked for further understanding on that issue, and the only way to get that is to state it with the force of its advocates.
Hi Peter,
I hear what you’re saying and I appreciate your questions. I was speaking to some MDiv students at Fuller Theological Seminary last week about postmodernism and the future of Christian Philosophy and Theology, and I had to labor to unravel loads of unbiblical assumptions. Given the seminary you told me you had chosen (not Fuller), perhaps I assumed too much of their influence in your thinking.
>>In a sense, if theology is reasoning about God from the scriptures, can we not say there is a place for that in our approach to General Revelation? As Calvin has said, the universe is the theater of God’s glory. I think that we need to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. General Revelation does communicate things about God, as the scriptures point out (Rom. 1, Ps. 19).
*We don’t deny GR, nor do we deny its sufficiency in declaring its Author. GR is the infallible speech of God. There are no problems with God’s speech. The problem is with man the receiver. The root of this disconnect is sin.
>>what do you make of the language, “is plain to them,” or “God has shown it to them”, or “have been clearly perceived?” Can the believer reasonable argue from General Revelation that God exists?
*This depends on whether the believer is arguing with another believer or a nonbeliever. Since the believer and nonbeliever live in different cognitive universes, the only hope for fallen man, whether intellectually inclined or intellectually disinclined, is the creative work of God that causes the light of the gospel to shine in the heart (2 Cor. 4:6).
>>Can we discern and argue from that which is clearly evident, although mediated through the creation? This may not be convincing to unbelievers who suffer from epistemic depravity and blindness, but can and does it encourage the believer?
Absolutely! My faith is constantly strengthened just by marveling at God’s revelation in creation. I sometimes break out into spontaneous outbursts of praise just by watching a puppy play with a toy.
>>Are there nuances to the way different people or traditions define Natural Theology?
*I think there are (as Dr. Morey has said) as many natural theologies as there are natural theologians.
>>Did not Calvin and Luther speak of Natural Law?
Yes. I am no longer worried or afraid of departing from the reformers where they were clearly wrong. Minor deconstructive efforts lead to the discovery of unbiblical philosophic assumptions they held (consciously or not), and based on their soteriological and anthropological statements repeated in many of their works, my guess is that they would have abandoned them had they had more time – or had they been shown their errors from Scripture! They probably would have laughed at their ridiculous interpretation of Romans 2:15 that “God’s law is written on the heart of all men of all time.” Just because they believed some things doesn’t mean we should too (like the perpetual virginity of Mary).
>>Clearly, they meant something different than the scholastics and the humanist theologians. But, was it a “natural theology” or a believer “reasoning from General revelation?” Did they mean General Revelation when they said natural theology or natural law? Are there any problems with their views?
*By natural law they meant an implanted (by God) inclination and awareness of certain general moral principles. This “innate” awareness was believed to be a form of the divine law. The natural ability of fallen man to “capitalize” on this innate awareness and to identify the exact content of the divine law was obviously contested much more vigorously by Calvin than Aquinas. But all “pre-Enlightenment” or “medieval” natural law theories made use of the existing natural law theories of the pagan philosophers. The influence of Renaissance Humanism and through it the influence of “Classic” philosophy on Calvin is evident from his attempt to find legitimacy for natural law in a Christian worldview.
The biggest problems with trying to establish a natural law theory for the Christian worldview is that it is not exegetically verifiable and its basic tenets contradict (sharply) what the Bible says about man after the Fall. It’s a futile attempt and a waste of time. And we may be able to go as far as saying that the apostate thought that is on display by those that attempt to do so is a serious flag on their reliability as a spiritual guide.
Stephen…funny I was just talking to Lil’Sis about this subject last night!
Stephen:”Yes. I am no longer worried or afraid of departing from the reformers where they were clearly wrong. Minor deconstructive efforts lead to the discovery of unbiblical philosophic assumptions they held (consciously or not), and based on their soteriological and anthropological statements repeated in many of their works, my guess is that they would have abandoned them had they had more time – or had they been shown their errors from Scripture! They probably would have laughed at their ridiculous interpretation of Romans 2:15 that “God’s law is written on the heart of all men of all time.” Just because they believed some things doesn’t mean we should too (like the perpetual virginity of Mary).”
I have learned this concept from study, from Dr. Bob and from you. It is important to grasp that we always “reform” TO Scripture and not to man! It will save much grief to hold this view. I will say it has it’s own frustrations however, due to those you may be debating who want you in a certain box (ie “Reformed”, “Protestant”, “Calvinist”,etc) and refuse to believe that you cannot be pigeon-holed.
We were discussing, last night, that it is amazing that the Reformers really “got it” on grace and other important fundamentals but so did not “get it” when it came to Mary, Lord’s Table etc…
Learning much from this thread…
Stephen,
Very helpful. Keep up the good work here at BT. Also, as I encounter different things over here I will be sure to remain in dialogue with you and Danny.
Peter
Thanks Peter! I enjoyed our time of “Christian fellowship” when we hung out that night. I’m really thankful to God for keeping you in the faith. We’ll continue to pray for you as we’re reminded – Oh, and congratulations! Say hi to your new wife for us…
Hi Agilius, I agree with what you say about the apostles activity and the rich display of logical argumentation that is evident in the book of Romans, but Paul reasoned from the scriptures–the OT. He didn’t use nature. I think when he said “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation”, he was saying that people get born again by hearing about what God did about the condition of men who are helplessly fallen.
Unregenerated and reprobate man will always “reason” against belief, his mind will be faithful to his heart which is dead to God. The gospel has the power to remedy the unregenerated faulty reasoning after faith comes, not before. Reasoning after faith builds confidence to live like Christ as the mind is renewed, this is where apologetics really belongs. One doesn’t defend faith [apologia] for one who doesn’t have faith in the first place.
Brad B
>> Regarding blind faith, aren’t you operating on blind faith in the sufficiency of human autonomy?
Insomuch as I have exercised my god-given human autonomy, correctly, I would say that it precludes me operating by blind faith.
That doesn’t solve the problem, it only complicates it. Now you show you’re operating on blind faith that you have “god-given human autonomy.”
Where does that idea come from?
Sounds very fideistic…
>> We first need to establish the metaphysical assumptions behind this. While it is clear that you reject Aristotelian and Platonic metaphysics, it is not clear which metaphysical assumptions you do hold that establish the foundation for your epistemological assumptions. I think this is necessary before discussing rationality, faith, understanding. etc…
Since the Bible doesn’t teach us that we must first establish the metaphysical assumptions behind the belief that there is rationality behind Christian religious claims, you are proving my point (and Peter’s) that rationality is not unique to the Bible, nor, by extension, the Christian experience.
Perhaps you’ve mispegged me for a Clarkian.
Scripture commands the testing of things and warns against being taken captive by humanistic philosophy that is grounded in the world and not according to Christ. Not only is it a warning, but a command to “See to it that no one takes you captive.” This certainly warrants a discrimination which would include verifying metaphysical assumptions in one’s philosophy.
So when you say, “Since the Bible doesn’t teach us that we must first establish the metaphysical assumptions,” I must push back and show you that indeed it does!
>> To simplify things, I would say that the biblical presuppositions of someone born “in-the-box” affect the premises and conclusions of their arguments to the point where Special Revelation is ultimately credited, not the ambiguous “nature” so highly regarded in humanist philosophies.
A quick point on the “ambiguous nature” referenced by proponents of “natural” theology:
By “nature” we mean Creation per se; That is, those things which are unique to Creation.
By “natural theology” (again, not defined by Dr. Morey), we mean those things which prove anything pertaining to deity, which are available for everyone to examine. Note that this definition need not include the claim to a solution for the problem of evil, as was mischaracterized in the blog.
By “Intelligent Design” we mean that the universe was intentionally created – nothing more. And as was stated earlier, Intelligent Design has only one goal: to prove to atheists and agnostics that the universe was intelligently created (i.e. god exists) – because it is their belief that god does not exist which keeps them from even *considering* that Christianity might be true.
Again, Natural Theology and Intelligent Design are *not* meant to solve the problem of evil. That’s a different issue which *only* can be solved with Biblical truths.
>> This depends on whether the believer is arguing with another believer or a nonbeliever. Since the believer and nonbeliever live in different cognitive universes [snip]
They do not.
That’s like saying adults live in a different cognitive universe than do children. We’re merely at different levels of education.
You show me any biblical concept, and I will show you an unbeliever who can grasp the concept (be merciful, because there are some biblical concepts *I* have yet to hammer out
). “Jesus rose from the dead”; I promise you every unbeliever knows what you mean when you say that.
Except for maybe the JWs. ^^
I appreciate the definition. There is much equivocation with “nature.”
Agilius,
The distinction between adults and children is physical age. Physical age has nothing to do with being locked in the darkness of epistemological emptiness the way being unregenerate does.
>> In order to determine whether “natural theology” is valid, we must look to those that were never polluted by Special Revelation and see if they (in their complete isolation from special revelation) have identified and established the existence of God.
No, all you need to do is ask a proponent of Natual Theology what his reasoning is, and then test his reason against logic.
Which theory of logic? Aristotle’s?
>> Hi Agilius, I agree with what you say about the apostles activity and the rich display of logical argumentation that is evident in the book of Romans, but Paul reasoned from the scriptures–the OT.
I agree that Paul reasoned from the OT Scriptures, and that the Jews [and similarly, the Gentiles, for that matter] could not come to Christ without the revelation from the Scriptures.
But Paul didn’t just quote a set of Biblical facts; he reasoned. He employed rulef of logic, which are available to everyone.
It’s not that unbelievers *can’t* reason, but that they refuse to do so when it comes to Biblical truths. Different issue.
>> Unregenerated and reprobate man will always “reason” against belief, his mind will be faithful to his heart which is dead to God.
Well, I would make a distinction between reprobate man’s unsuccessful attempt at reasoning against belief, and a successful attempt. It’s not that reprobate man’s attempt is *actually* reasonable – indeed, that they are being illogical can be shown -, but, rather, that they have failed in their supposed attempt to conform to reason.
Christian children fail to reason, too; Failed attempts at reason are not unique to the unregenerate.
Agilius,
You said:”Christianity is based on certain truths; So before you can prove that Christianity is true, you must first prove that the foundations of Christianity are sound and build a case from there. Consequently, since the foundations of Christianity are not Christianity, themselves, Christianity, per se, cannot be used to prove the foundations. This is true whether you start from a Christian perspective or not.”
The above statement sounds like Epistemic Foundationalism, which has some problems. If you’re not advocating that, then this does not apply to you directly.
A foundationalist might offer the following theory of justification:
A belief is epistemically justified if and only if (1) it is justified by a basic belief or beliefs, or (2) it is justified by a chain of beliefs that is supported by a basic belief or beliefs, and on which all the others are ultimately based.
What is basic belief? Foundationalists hold that they are non-inferentially held beliefs that are self-evidently true.
The problem is, who decides what is basic and what is the starting point? Also, you have to deal with the difficulty of the brute fact problem. One can put the tag “self-evident” on something if he’d like, but he can hardly argue with others who come to different conclusions on what is basic if he does. Another problem is that the Foundationalist theory itself cannot be justified by this line of reasoning. Namely, because it is not at all self-evident that it is true. Thus, it must be inferred and the house has no foundation after all.
I thought it might be helpful to point that out.
>> That doesn’t solve the problem, it only complicates it. Now you show you’re operating on blind faith that you have “god-given human autonomy.”
>>
>> Where does that idea come from?
>>
>> Sounds very fideistic…
I think this is where I’m supposed to say *you’re* operating on blind faith that I’m operating on blind faith that I have “god-given human autonomy”?
Anyway, since god created us, why *wouldn’t* human autonomy be god-given?
And my position is decidedly UNfideistic.
>> The distinction between adults and children is physical age. Physical age has nothing to do with being locked in the darkness of epistemological emptiness the way being unregenerate does.
Age is certainly a distinction between adults and children. But I do not consider this relevant to the issue.
Rather, what I was trying to say was that, like children need someone to explain things to them in order for them to understand certain truths, so do adults. If you can’t grasp Excel formulas, I can help you out, there – by using reason.
Now sin keeps man from accepting Biblical truths, but it does not keep them from giving intellectual assent to them. It’s not that they are incapable of coming to the understanding that Biblical claims are true (except in the rare occasion when god blinds certain people), but that they are unwilling to conform to the Bible.
>> I appreciate the definition. There is much equivocation with “nature.”
May I ask what you took “nature” to mean?
>> Which theory of logic? Aristotle’s?
Weeeeeeell, I think I could best answer your question in the context of your answer to this question: Would you say that Aristotle had a theory of logic which, when he compared it to other theories, he thought was _superior_ to the others?
Stephen,
Would you grant this or do you take issue with it?
Agilius said: “Now sin keeps man from accepting Biblical truths, but it does not keep them from giving intellectual assent to them. It’s not that they are incapable of coming to the understanding that Biblical claims are true (except in the rare occasion when god blinds certain people), but that they are unwilling to conform to the Bible”
Well, I’m just pointing out that you hold to unwarranted “faith-based” assumptions that stem from the assumption of the sufficiency of human autonomy. This commitment to human autonomy leads away from truth – something that horrifies me. As a fellow Christian, I’m looking out for you and exhorting you to abandon the ultimate presupposition of the non-Christian worldview.
The man-centered outlook in which autonomous self-sufficiency is assumed is a harmful remnant of the believer’s sinful past. Scripture has much to say about the Christian’s duty in dealing with our sinful past, and let’s all agree that it is not to continue in it! Can I get an amen?
But to specifically answer your question,
“…since god created us, why *wouldn’t* human autonomy be god-given?”
If someone told you that their friend was murdered, would you tell them that the murder was God-given since he created the killer and victim? “God-given” implies (at least from my experience with the term) a blessing of sorts, or a sense of God’s approval (i.e. God-given piano playing ability). Human autonomy is grossly sinful (like murder).
Human autonomy designates the act or practice of functioning independent from God. The consequence of autonomy is deception, says Scripture. The opposite is submission and dependence, to which the consequence is growth in knowledge.
Any philosophy that is not in agreement with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords to godliness is in epistemological darkness. Scripture says the teacher of such things “is puffed up with conceit and understands NOTHING.” (1 Tim. 6:3-5)
Paul also says that this autonomous mindset in the pursuit of wisdom will be taken by plausible, yet deceitful arguments. Paul tells us how to avoid deception – by rejecting the principle of human autonomy.
This can go on for a lifetime, but to keep it short, Scripture reveals that God is opposed to human autonomy, therefore we can say with certainty that it should be repented of immediately.
Hi Peter!
>>>Would you grant this or do you take issue with it?
Agilius said: “Now sin keeps man from accepting Biblical truths, but it does not keep them from giving intellectual assent to them. It’s not that they are incapable of coming to the understanding that Biblical claims are true (except in the rare occasion when god blinds certain people), but that they are unwilling to conform to the Bible”
*I would take a strong position of disagreement, theologically.
I would need to know more about how he is distinguishing acceptance of Biblical truths from intellectual assent of Biblical truths.
I would extend the effects of sin to beyond only Biblical truths, and based on his delineation of truth, I may have other disagreements (my position is radically Christian, according to most).
And obviously (**Calvinist Alert!) I disagree with the last anthropological statement. I’d say that they are incapable based on Scripture. I have Scripture references for all of these, btw.
But Agilius doesn’t have to be a Calvinist for me to love him like a brother. Most of this is non-essential anyway…
>> The problem is, who decides what is basic and what is the starting point? Also, you have to deal with the difficulty of the brute fact problem. One can put the tag “self-evident” on something if he’d like, but he can hardly argue with others who come to different conclusions on what is basic if he does. Another problem is that the Foundationalist theory itself cannot be justified by this line of reasoning. Namely, because it is not at all self-evident that it is true. Thus, it must be inferred and the house has no foundation after all.
>>
>>I thought it might be helpful to point that out.
I like the way you think.
First, let me grant you that axioms cannot be justified by “foundationalism” (I didn’t know that was one of the names for it).
Next, just for kicks, I’d like to mess with your mind by saying that this is true even for your claim that Foundationalism can’t be supported by “this line of reasoning”. So you lose, too. ^^
Just playin’ with you.
The solution to this seeming paradox is that [self] “awareness” is the only thing that can be known without prior support. If you know anything at all, you’re aware of it. You can’t really prove this to anyone else, strictly speaking, but at least *you* know something. And the only way you know that others are self aware is if they act like you as opposed to like a rock.
And once you are aware of several things, you can start inferring other truths. This is basically how it works.
In short, what we mean by “self-evident” is that if you start from self awareness – the only thing that can’t be evidenced, and also the only thing that requires no evidence – a succession of arguments can be made, without intruducing information which must necessarily be gained from accidental discovery, that will lead you to such and such conclusion.
Having said that, there is a tendency to include knowledge gained from common discoveries when calling something “self-evident”, which is obviously not strictly so.
Agilius,
You’re Cartesian epistemology will deceive you, if it hasn’t already. Hard-core rationalism like the brand you are peddling will lead you into immense spiritual suffering – you will leave the faith (which means you may not be in it now).
If one can be argued in, s/he can be argued out. Folks, Christianity doesn’t work this way.
Now I’m worried about you…
>> If someone told you that their friend was murdered, would you tell them that the murder was God-given since he created the killer and victim? “God-given” implies (at least from my experience with the term) a blessing of sorts, or a sense of God’s approval (i.e. God-given piano playing ability). Human autonomy is grossly sinful (like murder).
I would say that the murderer abused his god-given autonomy, and also some god-given (though man-crafted; but not necessarily) materials, in his crime.
Just because god provides you with autonomy and materials doesn’t mean he approves of every conceivable action that may be performed with them.
The murderer is culpable for his crime, and no one else. Indeed, one cannot be culpable without autonomy.
>> Human autonomy designates the act or practice of functioning independent from God.
You’re equivocating on the phrase “independent from god”.
On the one hand, this phrase could mean independent of consideration for god’s precepts. On the other hand it could mean independent of direct physical manipulation, as in the case of human autonomy. A man is tempted by “his own” evil desires – god is not doing the desiring and sinning, but man.
>> Any philosophy that is not in agreement with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords to godliness is in epistemological darkness. Scripture says the teacher of such things “is puffed up with conceit and understands NOTHING.” (1 Tim. 6:3-5)
1Tim6 speaks of disputes about words, but Paul told the Jews that “seed, singular” (paraphrase) was a key to understanding that the promise to Abraham was about Jesus; So whatever Paul is saying, he is not saying that it’s wrong to be particular about syntax.
I don’t know Greek – maybe that would help, huh?
I’ll pick the rest of this up later, folks.
Thanks for the discussion. Good topic.
To anyone,
Romans 2:12-16 has been the subject of much controversy with respect to Natural Theology. The following post will be a set of questions that I find provocative and I am hoping to get more clarity on as we dialogue together on these important issues.
Paul says:
12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
What do you make of the phrases: when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do no have the law? How are we to understand this business of Gentiles by nature doing what the law requires? Or, language like, “they are a law to themselves?” Does the work of the law written on their hearts mean they are guilty or does it have a prescriptive impact on their hearts? Does it mean they are guilty for rejecting Natural law or the effects of the law make them guilty? I am not clear on how someone can feel the weight of guilt if they have no idea of the law they are transgressing. Can someone at BT help us sort though these questions?
Hi Peter!
I’m sure you’ll have particular, more narrowed questions on this, but let me try to do some patchwork and we’ll see which questions are left.
First, we must understand what is meant by “law.” Paul is referring to Torah. He is saying that the Gentiles do not have the Torah to guide them on how to live. Let us not confuse Torah here with Decalogue. Torah is the whole Law which governs what to eat, how to cut your hair, how to select a spouse, how to go to the bathroom, etc. The Torah sat in judgment over all of life. It either accused or excused the behavior of the Jew.
Paul explicitly states that Gentiles do not have the Torah, a truth that was celebrated in the OT. What is in view is the function of the Torah, not the contents of the Torah. Paul says that the Gentiles’ conscience takes the place of the Torah by sitting in judgment over what s/he thinks, does, says, etc. When he says that the *work* of the Law is written on *their* hearts, he is referring to the function of the Torah in some Gentiles (not all).
From the text we can rule out any interpretation that confuses the Law with the Decalogue, any interpretation that says it is written on the hearts of some Gentiles, any interpretation that says this passage is universal in scope (Gentiles in v.14 does not have definite article), any interpretation that has the contents of the Law in view, or that all people of all time in all places share a universal moral code that is consistent with the Torah.
Gentiles without Torah have in the place of Torah a moral code of their own that their conscience bears witness to. Their conscience is what accuses or excuses their deeds, thoughts, etc. But since their conscience is uninformed of the righteousness according to God’s standards, and because of sin, their conscience can excuse the behavior that the Law condemns, and vice versa. What the heathen see as right and wrong is not what really is right and wrong. It is only right or wrong *to them.*
I hope this helps. It is a clean interpretation that is exegetically verifiable, void of hermeneutical violations, fallacies, etc. Dr. Morey devotes an entire chapter to this subject in his new book on natural law & theology. He has helped me understand this by providing the most powerful exegesis on Rom. 2 I have ever seen. I told him that it is the best work in church history on this. It’s like 100 pages or so…
P.S. I’m teaching a class tonight in Newport Beach so I won’t be available until later this evening. I’ll check this thread when I get home though…
Hi Stephen, thanks for that bit on Rom 2. I wanted to add that this chapter is laying out a case for judgement. The Gentiles are just as guilty of judging–thus condemning themselves based on the law written on thier hearts. This knowledge or moral code written on the heart indeed has not vindicated them at all, it just has eliminated any chance of innocence by way of ignorance. No one is ignorant in regards to the case they make against themselves.
I wanted to make a response to Agilius even if he’s gone for now. He seems to me to be making an error in assuming that everyone deals with arguementation the same. He seems to deny that born again ones and reprobate/unregenerated have equal opportunity to understand the things of God. Any man who’s dead to God has the same reasoning capacity to intellectually evaluate information using logic to arrive at what he believes is the truth. He gets his worldview from this process, but reasons against faith because it agrees with his stony heart. A mountain of sound logical apologetic information even properly understood, will still be rejected in the heart of this man. It doesn’t agree with his inner man, his true self. This man needs to be preached to, not argued with.
Here’s where the misunderstanding comes in, I think. A man comes to faith, and he says I believe because I heard arguement A. He believes that he was convinced to believe because of arguement A when in fact he believes arguement A because he had been born again first. It appears to be that the arguement A convinced him, but the scriptures teach us that without the Spirit of God, he would’ve rejected arguement A because in his heart of hearts arguement A was foolishness to him. Natural theology if you will, is of benefit to believers only, in that they have opportunity to think God’s thoughts after Him.
Brad B
In the above post what I wrote about Agilius in the second sentence of the second paragraph contained an error. It should’ve said “He seems to deny that born again ones and reprobate/unregenerated **do not** have equal opportunity….”
Sorry ’bout that.
Brad B
Brad,
You said, “I wanted to add that this chapter is laying out a case for judgement. The Gentiles are just as guilty of judging–thus condemning themselves based on the law written on thier hearts. This knowledge or moral code written on the heart indeed has not vindicated them at all, it just has eliminated any chance of innocence by way of ignorance. No one is ignorant in regards to the case they make against themselves.”
Brad, the way I understand Stephen, I think he disagrees with the idea that a universal moral code or law is written on the Gentile hearts.
He says, “First, we must understand what is meant by “law.” Paul is referring to Torah. He is saying that the Gentiles do not have the Torah to guide them on how to live. Let us not confuse Torah here with Decalogue. Torah is the whole Law which governs what to eat, how to cut your hair, how to select a spouse, how to go to the bathroom, etc. The Torah sat in judgment over all of life. It either accused or excused the behavior of the Jew.
Paul explicitly states that Gentiles do not have the Torah, a truth that was celebrated in the OT. What is in view is the function of the Torah, not the contents of the Torah. Paul says that the Gentiles’ conscience takes the place of the Torah by sitting in judgment over what s/he thinks, does, says, etc. When he says that the *work* of the Law is written on *their* hearts, he is referring to the function of the Torah in some Gentiles (not all).
From the text we can rule out any interpretation that confuses the Law with the Decalogue, any interpretation that says it is written on the hearts of some Gentiles, any interpretation that says this passage is universal in scope (Gentiles in v.14 does not have definite article), any interpretation that has the contents of the Law in view, or that all people of all time in all places share a universal moral code that is consistent with the Torah.”
Stephen’s view seems to be that Scripture is showing that the Gentiles have created their own moral code uniformed by the Torah, and thus it is fallible in nature. He does not advocate a universal moral code in all the Gentiles, if I understood him right. What do you mean by written law or code on the Gentile hearts? I am just curious?
Hi Peter, I didn’t get that Stephen argues that the Gentiles *created* their own moral code. If he did, it might but heads with Rom. 2:15 I think it might be helpful to note the context of the chapter ahead of this scripture [and even after]:
Rom 2:15 “in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, ”
It seems pretty clear that Stephen rightly argues that the Gentiles have no special revelation [at that time, the OT or even just the 10 Commandments] I think the above scripture is describing an essential human characteristic of being an image bearer. Everyman knows the wrongness of murder without the Law and other offenses against men in varying degrees carry similar convicting intuitions. This is where the conscience of those unfamiliar with any special revelation still condemn themselves. They judge others while they commit simliar offenses, which is what the case earlier in Rom 2 is saying. I hope I’m not misrepresenting Stephen, but I’m sure he’ll give input tha’ll be clear. At any rate, I am interested to hear.
Brad B
Hi Stephen, you said this earlier:
>>>Agilius,
You’re Cartesian epistemology will deceive you, if it hasn’t already. Hard-core rationalism like the brand you are peddling will lead you into immense spiritual suffering – you will leave the faith (which means you may not be in it now).
If one can be argued in, s/he can be argued out. Folks, Christianity doesn’t work this way.
Now I’m worried about you…>>>
Sobering.
Also, this is why there is a modern crisis of faith I think. People trying to rest on what they have done, believed, rationally understood–all byproducts of a semi-Pelagian scheme. Not to say that some aren’t genuine saints, but saints that are not resting from works and not feeling safe.
Brad B
In case anyone might be interested, I’ve been arguing with some atheists on another blog about this very topic.
Check it out at: http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2008/08/eeeevil-evolutionists-and-bumbling.html
>> Here’s where the misunderstanding comes in, I think. A man comes to faith, and he says I believe because I heard arguement A. He believes that he was convinced to believe because of arguement A when in fact he believes arguement A because he had been born again first.
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? Rom. 10:13-14 (KJV)
When Paul asks “how”, he is being rhetorical.
They cannot call on Jesus if they have not believed he is Savior. And if they cannot call on Jesus, then they cannot be saved.
They cannot believe in Jesus if they haven’t even heard of him. They cannot hear about Jesus unless someone preaches him.
So salvation comes after intellectual assent. Therefore our part is to argue to the point of intellectual assent, and god’s part is to grant the capacity to faith [sic] in Christ.
>> In the above post what I wrote about Agilius in the second sentence of the second paragraph contained an error. It should’ve said “He seems to deny that born again ones and reprobate/unregenerated **do not** have equal opportunity….”
This depends on what is meant by “the things of God”.
Depending on the context, the things of god, to me, might include Creation, interaction with which is not unique to the Christian experience. Or, in other words, I believe that every human being has access, for the purpose of study (or whatever), to Creation, whether they are saved or not.
In another context, the things of god, to me, have to do with those things which are unique to the Christian experience.
Hi Agilius, there is a difference between preaching and apologetics. I think you confuse the two. Preaching is proclaiming the gospel, what God did. It is not an appeal, invitation, discussion. It is a statement with power, calling men, He’s not begging, he’s commanding. Apologetics is for the benefit of men who do have spiritual discernment–men who are born again need to have reasons-not to believe in their hearts, but to believe in their minds so that the live like they believe.
Please read the whole of Eph 4, but I’m giving you these to make a point.
Eph 4:11 And He gave some {as} apostles, and some {as} prophets, and some {as} evangelists, and some {as} pastors and teachers,
Eph 4:12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;
Eph 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.
Eph 4:14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;
Phillip said an old phrase earlier in this thread “faith seeking understanding”. Here in Eph 4, is the Word of God laying out the truth of this statement. Faith is a logic in the heart of born again ones, it is God logic–His gift to His own. It compels us to see the world through the lens that sees the things of the Spirit as true. Intellectually, we dont grasp them right away this is why God gave preachers, pastors, teachers, for the buiding up of the saints. Read: be ye transfromed by the renewing of your mind. The heart already has God logic, the mind is behind the curve, polluted and broken. Conditioned to see the world like dead men do, the new born Christian has little intellectual ammunition. He just somehow begins to question his long held belief that says “there is no god”. At some point he necessarily says “I believe” if indeed he has the Spirit of God.
Brad B
>> If one can be argued in, s/he can be argued out. Folks, Christianity doesn’t work this way.
I would say this about any argument.
Take those logic puzzles, for example, where you have several related 5×5 grids, and you put 5 dots in each set of 25 squares, such that no dot is horizontally or vertically aligned.
They give you a set of facts, from which you infer the rest of the relevant information – such as “Prof. X used Windex, while the guy who used a mop did not”.
From this set of facts you can infer that the guy who used a mop is not Prof. X, since the mop guy didn’t use Windex, and we’re explicitly told that Prof. X used Windex.
Anyway, I would say that even though someone can argue the above conclusion, *in theory* he can successfully argue a different conclusion.
That is, the conclusion’s veracity is dependent upon its foundations; And the foundations are available to anyone who wants to critique them critiqued. If my conclusion is to be questioned at all, it will be on the basis of its foundations.
[Aside: Technically, there are other reasons why a conclusion would not be sound, besides its foundations; but for simplicity's sake, let's just say that the foundations are in question.]
So, yes – in theory, anything one can be convinced of by way of argument, can also be proven to the contrary. Even if it can be proven that it is impossible to come to a different conclusion.
This is what is meant when people say that an argument must be verifiable.
Brad,
Thanks for clarifying what you meant.
You said, “It seems pretty clear that Stephen rightly argues that the Gentiles have no special revelation [at that time, the OT or even just the 10 Commandments] I think the above scripture is describing an essential human characteristic of being an image bearer. Everyman knows the wrongness of murder without the Law and other offenses against men in varying degrees carry similar convicting intuitions. This is where the conscience of those unfamiliar with any special revelation still condemn themselves. They judge others while they commit simliar offenses, which is what the case earlier in Rom 2 is saying.”
I was just talking with a theology Prof today about this very idea, and he thinks it seems to fit well with the data in Rom. 1 & 2. I’m interested to hear Stephen weigh in on this notion, as well as maybe unpacking what he meant by the “moral code” a bit more.
Brad and Agilius,
I appreciate your interchange and look forward to more discussion. Perhaps I can weigh-in on some of the issues you are raising. I think it is consistent with Romans that the natural man can give intellectual assent to the existence of a Creator or even the Christian view of God, but he rejects the truth and suppresses it in unrighteousness. Paul says, “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” So, the natural man can know God exists intellectually, but suppress that truth, and turn from the living God and worship idols. Also, James warns professing believers about what “dead faith” amounts to. It is possible for someone to tip their intellectual hat to God, so to speak, but not acknowledge Him as God in faith, by believing the gospel. Liberal theologians do this all the time, right. Total depravity, degrees of blindness, and the love of sin make man incapable of trusting in Christ as Lord (Rom. 3).
To illustrate what I am saying: I was sharing the gospel with a prosecuting attorney from the LA District Attorney’s office the other day, and this issue came up. We were flying home from Michigan and began to discuss Christianity, evidence for its claims, and so forth. Anyhow, after 3hrs of discussion, the gentleman I was speaking with told me that he believed that it was true (Christianity and the gospel), but did not have a saving faith in Christ, namely, because he loved his sin too much. He tipped his hat intellectually to the truth claims, but did not really believe it (regeneration and faith).
Brad, when talking about apologetics, it is important to note that it has a defensive element to it as well. Apologetics answers objections to the faith, refutes unbiblical teaching, and so forth. However, I agree with you that it strengthens the believer’s faith.
And, to be fair to the NT use of the words, the gospel is an invitation, appeal, and a command. The gospel is God’s invitation to all men; it is His appeal to man’s desperate need, and it is His command to all for repentance. Man cannot respond unless God elects, draws, and grants faith in his heart, however.
*My above quote of Romans 1 only proves that the natural man can give intellectual assent to a creator.
Hi again Agilius and Phillip. I guess I dont want to let it go by without highlighting that born again people and unregenerated have equal reasoning ability in general. But what they do with the information is altogether a different matter. It goes down to the nature after the mind is through making sense out of the “facts” as they see them. A unregenerated man can evaluate a set of truth claims and if those claims contain information that is spiritually discerned, he will conclude with a different result than one who has “eyes to see and ears to hear”. It is a necessary characteristic of being born again–this having eyes and ears tuned to spirituall discerned truths. A born again mans mind inclines to conclude in agreement with belief where the unregenerated does not because of the Spirit of God gives us God’s use of logic to counter against worldly use of logic. This is why arguementation is worthless to unregenerated–HE WONT BELIEVE BECAUSE HE CANT BELIEVE in his condition. This type of being needs to hear the gospel preached, and dont misunderstand me, I’m not just saying from pulpits, I talking about the preaching each of us does as we live out our faith before the world. A faithfully preached message is delivered with love and care–whether the reciever gets it [understands it] or not, it is our duty.
Phillip, I want to ask you to consider that apologetics is 100 percent defensive and if an unregenerated man cannot discern things of the spirit, how in the world can defending them him help? It would be unreasonable to expect this to produce true belief and it’s contrary to scripture.
Brad B
I think it was Bahnsen who said that everyone uses logic, but he described a scenario where one saws wood with the grain and one saws against the grain. Both cut wood but with different results.
Brad
Brad,
I’m inclined to agree with most of what you said above, but I have a couple of things to add. I think apologetics is primarily defensive, and 1 Peter. 3:15 makes this clear, however, I think there is a place for offensive attacks in our defense strategy. Preemptive strikes, so to speak. Apologetics can be useful to tear down arguments and systems of other worldviews, and therefore, can be offensive in this sense. Dr. Bob mentions in his lectures that he likes to go on the offensive when doing apologetics, instead of trying to put out fires all the time. Hence, the idea of presuppositional apologetics.
However, Brad, I do agree that apologetics cannot save anyone. Preach.
Hi Phillip, Calvin, I believe said something which I’ll not be able to directly quote, but it was something like what I think Dr Bob mentions. Calvin said that a Christian apologist will stop the mouths of the adversaries. This is again for the benefit of the believers who are being attacked. In the end, I dont want to be misunderstood that apologetics cant be pre-emptive, but let say this: teaching is instruction where people are coming to learn the truths by skilled teachers–apologetics is *answering* a critical claim. Offensive “apologetics” is teaching, defensive apologetics is the pure form.
The apostle Paul had thological knowledge understood like a dead man that he was while “kicking against the goads”. Jesus’ visitation changed the man immediately, but Paul spent years renewing his mind wrestling with his old worldview–one that included knowledge of God. Worhsipping in spirit and truth was new to Paul after the Damascus roadie, but the transformation wasn’t as immediate. This is a picture of sawing against the grain and then sawing with the grain.
Brad
Guys, I haven’t forgotten about you. I just got backed up on some stuff that is requiring a lot of my time today. I’ll pick it up later tonight or tomorrow!
In addressing something that may have not been clear, I’d like to quote a passage I wrote earlier in this thread:
“From the text we can rule out any interpretation that confuses the Law with the Decalogue, any interpretation that says it is written on the hearts of some Gentiles, any interpretation that says this passage is universal in scope (Gentiles in v.14 does not have definite article), any interpretation that has the contents of the Law in view, or that all people of all time in all places share a universal moral code that is consistent with the Torah.”
Take this and break it down like this:
From the text we can rule out:
1) ant interpretation that confuses the Law with the Decalogue;
2) any interpretation that says it is written on the hearts of some Gentiles;
3) any interpretation that says this passage is universal in scope (Gentiles in v.14 does not have definite article);
4) any interpretation that has the contents of the Law in view;
5) or that all people of all time in all places share a universal moral code that is consistent with the Torah.
Prayer update…
Daniel’s surgery is scheduled for 0730 tomorrow morning. Please pray that he does good with his bad lungs and that he recovers fast. Please pray for the doctors hands as they operate and my wife’s and my strength through the next few days.
Thanks for the prayers.
I just accidentally deleted a comment I meant to approve. It began with something about reading John Frame’s book. That’s all I saw before my finger landed on my (super-sensitive) mouse pad. Please re-post it whoever you are… Sorry.
Glen, we’re praying, brother! Thank you for the update.
Father in Heaven…please guide the doctors’ hands as they perform their work upon little Daniel. May your Spirit intercede for Glen and his family…carrying out God’s perfect will…which we accept by God’s great grace. We ask you to comfort our brother in his time of need. May you be glorified our Father and our God…
We send our love and continued prayers…
Stephen,
You said, “Gentiles without Torah have in the place of Torah a moral code of their own that their conscience bears witness to. Their conscience is what accuses or excuses their deeds, thoughts, etc. But since their conscience is uninformed of the righteousness according to God’s standards, and because of sin, their conscience can excuse the behavior that the Law condemns, and vice versa. What the heathen see as right and wrong is not what really is right and wrong. It is only right or wrong *to them.*”
Do you mean that different Gentile cultures create a moral code of their own, and their conscience either accuse or excuse their deeds? Or, do you mean that all Gentiles have a broad sense of right and wrong, as image bearers, and that their conscience either excuses or accuses their deeds (Brad B suggests this)? How does the former not lead to relativism of some sort?
Do all Gentile cultures share some moral values in common, while they might formulate things a bit differently? Can we argue this based on the image of God in man, as Brad has stated?
I’m still wrestling with the text on this issue, so I have not taken a strong position either way yet.
Peter, these are some really good questions. I’m impressed by how close your tracking. Praise God, brother! You remind me of Danny…
Peter asked: “Do you mean that different Gentile cultures create a moral code of their own, and their conscience either accuse or excuse their deeds?”
Yes.
>>”Or, do you mean that all Gentiles have a broad sense of right and wrong, as image bearers, and that their conscience either excuses or accuses their deeds (Brad B suggests this)?”
No. Although it may seem that they are able to discern right and wrong, it is right or wrong *to them,* which has nothing to do with what is truly right or wrong.
>>”How does the former not lead to relativism of some sort?”
It is relative.
>>”Do all Gentile cultures share some moral values in common, while they might formulate things a bit differently?”
Scripture doesn’t say so. What it does say is that they share immorality in common. Not a one does good, not a one has understanding. All have turned away, all need salvation.
>>”Can we argue this based on the image of God in man, as Brad has stated?”
Well, some have. I wouldn’t. Postlapsarian mankind retains his image-bearing (Js. 3:9), which basically means he has intrinsic value in his ontologivcal distinction from other created things such as trees and cats. He has dominion over fish, birds, livestock, the earth, insects, and such (Gen. 1:26), but Scripture does not attribute universal moral values to that image of God in man. I find it hard pressed to defend when among exegetes. Some have tried to allow any valid deductions from Gen. 1:26, but that method fails to account for the curse later pronounced upon man, woman, and the earth (Gen. 3:16-19). Here I agree with Donald MacKay that our creation is a revised version since the final act of creation is as seen in Gen 3 when God cursed it.
“Ours is not the same drama as that whose conception is narrated in chapters 1 and 2, and which God pronounced ‘very good.’ Some changes may for all we know have been slight; but in one far-reaching respect our natural order is radically different: for ours is a creation ‘under a curse’, ‘groaning in travail’.” – Donald MacKay cited by Paul Helm’s The Providence of God: Contours of Christian Theology, pg.98-99.
Paul Helm makes a point that what is natural now is really unnatural because of the Fall. Maybe I’m too hard-core a Calvinist but I have yet to see any passage of Scripture or valid deduction thereof that attributes universal morality to the image and likeness of God in postlapsarian mankind.
Here’s the Frame quote that I just read that directly pertains to this discussion.
“A more serious concern is that these doctrines fall under the scholastic heading of natural reason, which in Aquinas’s view is prior to faith, “for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature and perfection the perfectible.” It involves reasoning from God’s effects to his nature, without the aid of revelation, and under the assumption that God’s effects are better known to us than he is. In other words, Aquinas is recommending autonomous reasoning, which is self-consciously removed from the authority of God’s Word, enabling us to argue from the same premises as Plato or Aristotle.
I don’t believe that Aquinas succeeds in removing biblical assumptions from his argument. Aquinas is, after all, a Christian. But that is what he tries to do. And that is a project that we must repudiate, as those who seek to think as covenant servants of God.”
-Frame “the Doctrine of God” p. 224-225
I am with Morey and Frame and believe that Natural Theology is a project that we must repudiate if we are to be faithful Christians that correctly handle the truth that God has revealed in Scripture.
Stephen,
Thanks for the complement, and glory to God, for giving me a passion to accurately handle His word. Also, the NT and theology departments at Talbot are mainly reformed in their soteriology and sound in their exegesis, for the most part. There is a huge tension between the MA Philosophy program and the theology department. The Reformation vs. the Jesuits, if you will. As dangerous as the MA Phil thinking is, I wish there was more open dialogue between the two departments, so we could start challenging some of these unbiblical assumptions in a more formal setting.
Just to give all those who don’t know me a little background: I did my undergrad in Philosophy at Biola, during which time I became a Calvinist, along with Danny. I’m now a Talbot Divinity student and have been in the program a little over a year. Anyhow, God has us in certain places for a reason, and it is my desire to continue reforming, and to challenge others to do so where I’m at.
Well, They just took Daniel in to the OR. I will update when he is out. Please pray we handle God’s will for our lives to His glory.
Glen, we have worship team practice tonight and we will have a special prayer meeting for Daniel and your family. God’s peace be with you, brother.
Daniel update,
Daniel was in surgery for about 1 hour. He is out and doing great! The doctor said that there are no abnormalities with the shape of his lungs and that the surgery went very good. He will be in ICU for about 1 week as the tracheotomy heals. Praise God for His blessings!
Hi Phillip and Stephen, two things that I want to understand about the “moral code”, if that is what we are calling the thing talked about in Rom. 2:15. 1] It seems that for justice to be consistent, I would argue that the word “instinctively” would indicate some sense of what is right and wrong as God created men to be that is innate in them. We instinctively know that offense against one anothers devine image is wrong, even though in selfishness we willfully offend–suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. The case against the Gentiles is that while they judge one another, they are in fact validating their own guilt as co law breakers because of their willingness to be prosecutors–that is when it’s someone else’s hide on line.
2] If this isn’t the case, what is vs.’s 1-15 point if not to state that judgement is applied rightly–even without special revelation.
Vs. 8 says: “but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation”.
I would ask: what truth is not being obeyed? It is their own version of truth, not a universal truth common to man as image bearers? Maybe, but this notion offends a proper sense of justice it seems.
Brad B
PRAISE HIM!!!
Tonight we prayed for Daniel and for all of you Glen…thank the Lord He predestined Daniel to do so well tonight!! What joy!!
Please keep us updated!
God’s grace…
Hi Brad,
Romans 2 begins by speaking about a different people group – not those barbaric heathen mentioned in Romans 1. Paul switches from they, they, they, as seen in the latter part of Romans 1, to “you.” This grammatical detail is very important because it connects the subject in Romans 2:1 to the addresses in 1:6-15. These are “moral” heathens that he’s addressing. They have the Law, and by it, morals. But even they will perish unless their circumcision is a matter of the heart and not the letter. Remember, those Gentiles are said to have been without the Law, the subject here does. An important distinction.
We know this because v.17-18 says: “But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law;”
The exhortation to those that judge hypocritically is to the moral heathen Jew, not the gross pagan. The Gentiles Paul speaks of in Romans 1 are said not to judge, but rather approve.
“they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” 1:32b
Approval is given to those that “were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.” 1:29-31
Notice that murder is named among those acts that these Gentiles approve rather than condemn.
You said: “We instinctively know that offense against one anothers devine image is wrong, even though in selfishness we willfully offend–suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.”
The suppression of the truth in unrighteousness is said to be the *cause* of that dreaded action of the Creator described by Paul as “God gave them up to a debased mind.” Since they have been given up because of their suppression of the truth in unrighteousness, they now are in a state of such immorality that they commit and approve what the Law forbids – and they have no problems with it.
>>I would ask: what truth is not being obeyed?
*The truth revealed by Torah.
>>It is their own version of truth, not a universal truth common to man as image bearers?
*This question disappears once the context is understood.
I really hope this helps, Brad. You’ve been a solid brother here for quite a while and you’ve bowed to Scripture before us all (and to the WCF)
J/K… 
Hi Stephen, my sense is that there’s a lot more here than may be evident at first glance. I think my idea of justice is severely shaken if in fact the heathen has no–absolutely no intuition or sense that thier life and worldview is an offense to God, even as they deny Him and eventually supress that knowledge far down into the recesses of their being. It is suppressed, but not erased completely. I believe that if this is not the case it’d be wrong to judge them for failure to obey.
My intuition about justice could be wrong, but I haven’t seen any reason to believe that God’s justice isn’t logical and reasonable. He has always given reasons for His holy wrath, which I praise Him for–it shows His commitment toward good for me to see and know Him more completely.
I remember reading “Escape From Reason” and at that time when the Ligonier forums were operational, I asked around about why the different opinions of Aquinas between Schaeffer and Sproul. No one could seem to give a clear answer but it did involve Natural Theology. Schaeffer in my opinion questioned even the salvation of Aquinas for driving theology toward Natural Theology and blamed him for relativism and all that it entails, while Sproul calls Aquinas a champion of the faith. It strikes me odd that two reformed giants could come to such opposite opinions, but this is why I think there is more here than may be evident if one is just going to scratch the surface–which is all I’ve done so far.
Brad B
Brad, you’re a thinker. That is for sure. So what I want you to do is think about how your theory relates to Original Sin and Federal Headship, not just “actual” sin. I hope these terms are clear.
Your view of justice seems to hinge upon the actuality of individual guilt and the heathen’s epistemological awareness of that guilt for actual sin. I want to push you into recognizing the lack of emphasis of the doctrine of original sin and it’s universal scope of application in your current view.
Regarding Aquinas, my teacher (Dr. Morey) who studied with Francis Schaeffer, does not consider Aquinas a Christian. Something that has always fascinated me is why no one is willing to discuss the fact that Aquinas repented at the end of his life and vowed never to write again, and considered everything he ever wrote as worthless as mere straw. Luther said Aquinas was in hell with the rest of the pagans. Anyway, back to my teacher. Morey told me once that he thinks we may see Aquinas in heaven – not based on his Summa, etc., but for his repentance at the end of his life. This position obviously suggests that Aquinas’ writings are hogwash and non-Christian, but shows a hope whenever any man repents…
Just some food for thought!
Hi Stephen, I have been thinking about the idea of federalism since before I read your reply and I’ll also consider the doctrine of imputation of guilt ala Original Sin. I have to admit that I haven’t even really begun to dig into this or test against the WCF or other creeds. I did find a piece by Michael Horton that I intend to read that talks about legal vs. evangelical knowledge and Calvins view of the limitations of Natural Theology. If anyone is interested here is the url.
http://web.archive.org/web/20001213172000/www.alliancenet.org/pub/mr/mr98/1998.01.JanFeb/mr9801.msh.natural.html
As a note on Schaeffer, I’ve considered him to be very reliable and if he had a problem with Aquinas, I cant just ignore him. I have only read 3 or 4 of Schaeffers books, so maybe it’s time to look into them again to see if I missed something–like I mentioned before, it’s been maybe 10 years since I’ve been into Francis. Thanks for the kind words and it’s a pleasure to be challenged to think and reform here on this site.
Brad B
Brad,
I just read some of Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, and to be quite honest, all you need to do is read Aquinas to see much of the pagan philosophical corruption in his views. His Summa Theologica starts off drowning in Aristotelean metaphysics and never can manage to stay afloat. I’m of the persuasion that the best way to find out the problem with Aquinas’ theology is to read it. It won’t take long after that. However, it is tough sledding to work thru it.
Peter
Hi Peter, I am no fan of Aquinas, but whether he was the father of Natural Theology, or what we maybe calling general revelation common to all men so that they are without excuse or not is no concern to me nor is the idea that Aristotelian metaphysics pervade his thought. My initial struggle is with the idea that for justice to be reasonable or logical, responsibility must be placed fairly, and what has caused me to research this further is that it’s being argued that the heathen may not have any–even the remotest sense that he is offending God. If what we are calling Natural Theology is false as is being defended by Morey and Stephen, then I feel compelled to look further since I would not discount them out of hand.
The implications stretch to invalidating the presuppositional apologetic method it would seem also. I saw from an initial reading of the linked article above that Horton seems to lay out the case that Calvin didn’t deny this form of knowledge–such that no one is excused from responsibility. I appreciate what is being discussed here though. The more I look, the more I see that this issue is a foundational one and a lot of thought is built off of it so it’s far reaching.
Thanks, Brad B
I did get some information that is helpful for me in this discussion. Natural Theology as a discipline is an attempt to show that in the creation there is enough revelation to drive men toward God. I reject this notion as I’m sure Stephen does. My ealier posts were confusing general revelation and Natural Theology because I get a sense that Stephen is argueing that way. The article by Michael Horton quoting Calvin makes a clear case that general revelation[he calls it Natural Theology] is plain enough to convict men in a legal sense, but not in an evangelical sense so that they believe. In fact, Calvin argues that general revelation drives men necessarily toward idolatry, and away from God which is consistent with Reformed thinkng.
I’m reading another interesting article which is much to scholarly to get through fast but thanks for spurring investigation.
Brad B
Brad,
Different Natural Theologians have differing goals, definitions, and explanations of Natural Theology. It is nuanced in quite a number of ways, and each explain Rom. 1 & 2 differently. For instance, as I quoted above, Calvin believed in natural law, which is not a part of General Revelation as Stephen has pointed out. You can’t get the Decalogue from Rom. 2:14-16, however, he had a solid grasp of GR with respect to everything else you said. GR is enough to legally condemn men before God, but does not save anyone (evangelical sense).
Hi Peter,
I agree that General Revelation and Natural Theology are not the same thing.
R.C. Sproul Sr. implies this in his systematic theology course called Foundations. Though he does draw on different points, he introduces the subject within the same category as General Revelation.
Sproul has not been challenged on this basic point. THis point is so basic that perhaps Morey could have missed this or over looked it.
Dr. Morey,
This is off topic but I don’t know where to post this question. If you could answer it if time allows i appreciate it.
1) Do you agree with Gordon Clark or Van Til in regards to empiricism? Does empiricism lead to ANY knowledge or does it not?
2) If you agree with Clark, how to you exegete I John 1:-3 in light of the discussion on refuting empiricism? Did Van Til/Frame use this text eisegetically?
3) Is empiricism a presuppositional “unspoken” in the Natural Theology Debate. Is it possible to be a Natural Theologian without using Empiricism?
4) Wouldn’t Empiricism have to justify itself via non-empirical means to escape the presuppositional circle? But if this occurs, is this not non-sequitor?
5) If all empiricism is inductive, then how can inductive reasoning lead to anything infinte, specificially, the theistic proofs? If not the theistic proofs, then what is it good for?
You have not directly discussed this in toto. You have pressed this mostly in your series on “The Introduction to Logic.”
If time allows, please relay the falsity behind empiricism and its relationship to Natural Theology. If there is relationship between the two, then wouldn’t logic tell us that the destruction of the empiricism would be the destruction of the Natural Theology as a whole?
The Deists as you know were the logically consistent Natural Theologians via the creed:
Universal
Self Evident
Intuitive
They were empiricists and thus the flow of my questions.
Thank you for your time.
A Friend.
Jean Cauvin
Jean Cauvin,
Just closing a perceived hole, here …
By “empiricism” you mean our capacity to gain knowledge, in any capacity, about that which is?
Agilius,
I believe Jean is referring to “British Empiricism” based on his reference to the deists and Clark. If I’m right, he’s referring to the epistemological claim that says all knowledge depends on experience alone (Locke).
Clark quotes Locke as saying, “[W]hence has it [the mind] all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer in one word, from experience; in that all our knowledge is founded, and from that it ultimately derives itself.” (Gordon Clark, RRR, pg. 54)
BTW, Morey has dealt extensively and exhaustively with empiricism. His 8 lecture series on Natural Theology, Lectures on Job, Introduction to Ecclesiastes, Battle of the Gods (book), and dozens of lectures on Greek Philosophy.
He refutes it like he does with all forms of humanism.
Jean, to your question #1 I would answer yes to the first part and no to the second part.
On #4 I would answer yes, and I’m sure Morey would too.
On #5 I would answer the first part as, it cannot. to the second I’d answer, nothing but sin and the daily accumulation of God’s wrath.
On #3 I would answer yes and yes, the first yes taking into account “a” and not “the” presupposition, leaving room for the second yes.
On #1 I’d have to ask you to elaborate more, with references preferably.
Upon reading the original post I have a few initial questions:
What exactly is it to “be within the Biblical box”? Is it simply to have “any contact” with the ideas that have a home therein?
For three reasons, no. First, thinking so gives Biblical theology special treatment. Why think that genuine practice of one kind of theology requires complete autonomy of ideas from another kind of theology, while denying the opposite is also true; that is, denying that genuine practice of the latter kind of theology requires freedom of influence from the former kind of theology? Absent any good reasons, that would be to give the latter kind of theology undeserving special treatment. I can think of some good reasons. Perhaps theology A just is whatever theology the prodigal son learned at his mother’s knee, prior to leaving home. Think of theology B as that theology he returns with. Theology A, by definition, could not have been genuinly practiced in the influence of outside ideas. Theology B, in fact, required them. So conditions like that would justify giving special treatment to theology B.
The original post gives Biblical Theology special treatment and fails to provide any such justification for doing so. It assumes that Biblical theology, and Biblical box thinking, can find genuine expression even if influenced by outside ideas (it must be assuming this, since no theologian anywhere has ever been free of outside influence). On the other hand, it argues that Natural Theology cannot find genuine expression if influenced at all by outside (Biblical) ideas. Since there’s no attempt to justify this move, Biblical theology receives unfair special treatment.
So I don’t see it’s any good to think that one is “within the Biblical box” if they’ve heard of it’s ideas. This would be to unfairly exclude the intellectual memberships of other conceptual boxes, the ideas of which are well known (assuming that one can only be a member of one box at a time). And because, secondly, that lone condition for Biblical box membership is far too loose. One can hear of Biblical ideas and reject them. But then they would have become members of the Biblical box. That just seems mistaken to me. To think about ideas should not garuntee one’s membership in the conceptual box to which they belong; too many are allowed in otherwise.
Why not say we are members of the pagan box because we’ve thought about pagan ideas? Special treatment is again afoot. Again, what justifies this move? Our presumption that our box is veritical? The veriticality of a conceptual box is irrelevent; it does not pertain to whether or not one can be a member of a conceptual box.
Thirdly, some Biblical ideas overlap with some pagan ideas. If having heard of those ideas is sufficient for membership in the conceptual boxes to which they belong, then one who hears of them is, to that extent, a member of both the Biblical and the pagan conceptual boxes. I don’t have a problem with this. I suppose some people will. But then they should reject that hearing is sufficient for membership into a conceptual box.
Hi Stephen, I re-read the dialogue and generally agree with everything there and at the conclusion, there are these two:
“>>1. “General revelation” in the Bible is God’s immediate non-verbal revelation to all men all the time in all places in all generations. It is immediate, universal, irresistible, and constant. All men are without excuse because God is personally confronting all men at all times in all places through Creation and conscience.
2. The light is shining and the music is playing to all of humanity all the time, but sinful man shuts his eyes and plugs his ears so that he does not see the light or hear the music. Notice that Psalm 19:1 says that “the heavens are telling the glory of God.” It does not say that man is telling the glory of God!>>”
My question is in what way is the word immediate being used in the # 1 paragraph? Is it in the classical sense that intends no means are necessary? If it is, there seems to be contradiciton in what is said in paragraph #2 where it says that eyes and ears can be shut.
Immediate would normally mean without mediation of eyes and ears or even rational understanding. By the way, these conclusions seem to say what Calvin seems to defend, that general revelation is useless for anything but condemnation to unregenerated man-period.
Brad B
Hi Caleb, it has been argued that to even “know” anything, you have to at a minimum borrow from the Christian worldview. Any thinking that doesn’t admit an omni…[s] lawgiver [if it intends to be consistent] has to conclude that no one can really know anything. To make any truth claim assumes that it is true whether they believe it or not. When one claims that truth is not dependant on anyones opinion of it makes an important appeal to transendant authority. I’d argue that [even if it were possible, which I dont] to not be affected by any of the listed terms, that person wouldn’t even be capable of rational thought. Even without the terms, the Christian Box is inescpable.
Brad B
Caleb,
You wrote, “it [the OP] argues that Natural Theology cannot find genuine expression if influenced at all by outside (Biblical) ideas. Since there’s no attempt to justify this move, Biblical theology receives unfair special treatment.”
Please provide a source where a definition of natural theology allows the outside influence of special revelation. I am not aware of anyone that teaches that. All definitions boast the claim of successful arguments void of influence from special revelation (the Bible).
>Brad,
“My question is in what way is the word immediate being used in the # 1 paragraph? Is it in the classical sense that intends no means are necessary? If it is, there seems to be contradiciton in what is said in paragraph #2 where it says that eyes and ears can be shut.”
I suppose it is used in the classic sense. The shutting of the eyes and ears is man’s act in response to GR which is God’s act.
Stephen,
I think you may have misunderstood me somewhat. Therefore, I will try to be more explicit about what I mean.
1. BT argues that Natural Theology is only valid if it is without any contamination or contact with “the Biblical Box” or Christianity.
2. All Natural theology is contaminated by “the Biblical Box.”
3. (c)Therefore, no natural theology is truly natural or valid.
However, I submit to you that this is false, namely because, I deny premise one. I think that it is quite easy to demonstrate that someone can have contact with a “conceptual box” without giving that box any freight in one’s thinking. Can we all not think according to our “old nature” still? I think we can and do have that ability. If someone learns spanish do they lose the ability to think purely in english (assuming that’s their native language)? I don’t think so. Thus, just because someone becomes a Christian does not mean that they cannot think outside that box. BT, I think it’s important to admit this. It does not mean that all your arguments against Natural Theology are not sound, just this one in particular.
My second point is that this same argument can be flipped on the Biblical Apologist if he is not careful.
1. NT argues that no Biblical apologetic/theology is pure if it has had contact with outside/pagan ideas.
2. No Biblical apologetic/theology has been completely isolated from outside/pagan ideas.
3. Therefore, there is no pure Biblical apologetics/theology
If you say that your above argument is valid and sound, then so is this one. The logic is inescapable.
Lastly, how do you deal with the fact that some Biblical ideas overlap with pagan ideas? Sometimes the boxes overlap.
Do you maintain that all Natural Theologians are not Christian or just Aquinas (until the end of his life)?
Hi Stephen, so when you said this:
” I suppose it is used in the classic sense. The shutting of the eyes and ears is man’s act in response to GR which is God’s act.”
would you then surmise that the attempts by man to shut his eyes and ears is futile, since God’s GR is immediate?
This reminds me of the scritpure where on judgement day, some will wish for mountains to fall on them as though they’ll be hidden from God, buried beneath a mountain of dirt and rock. This, in the same way is futility. Man knows his guilt and God sees, both without fail
Brad B
Brad B,
You said: it has been argued that to even “know” anything, you have to at a minimum borrow from the Christian worldview. Any thinking that doesn’t admit an omni…[s] lawgiver [if it intends to be consistent] has to conclude that no one can really know anything… When one claims that truth is not dependant on anyones opinion of it makes an important appeal to transendant authority.
I say: There have been non-Christian worldviews that have admitted of omnis and transendant authorities. Why does knowledge require a specifically Christian rendition of these admissions?
You said: I’d argue that [even if it were possible, which I dont] to not be affected by any of the listed terms, that person wouldn’t even be capable of rational thought. Even without the terms, the Christian Box is inescpable.
I say: This claim seems too strong. It would imply that an Amazonian tribesman, untouched by the western world, would not be capable of rational thought. I can’t see that what he does when he hunts, or seeks water, or builds shelter, is unguided by anything rational just because he is without Christian terms. But then rational thought would be acheived outside the Christian box.
Suppose our Amazonian friend is affected by a Biblical idea, the idea of Jesus. Only, he hears about it from a Muslim missionary (lets suppose nothing he hears of Jesus is actually untrue given the Biblical portrait). Why not say he’s thinking within the Quranic box? But then just to think with a Biblical idea is not to think within it’s box, unless we allow for simultaneous membership into conceptual boxes. I don’t mind allowing that.
Hi Caleb, I agree with you that the claim is too strong, and it was a little sloppy to state it that way. In some ways it could be argued that the only God that could fit the requirements is Yahweh, but I couldn’t do that.
My main point is that objective truth has to make an appeal to transcendence, not natural phenomena, to prove spiritual truth. The appeal to transcendence includes appealing to rational,personal, and the omnis that the Judeo/Christian God in known as. I personally dont know of another god that is known with these characteristics, but like I said above I couldn’t defend the point but have heard it defended a time or two. This was the reason for allowing the sloppy post, thanks for questioning it.
Brad B
Caleb,
Perhaps I can help further our discussion a bit with respect to the questions you have raised. I’m not sure I would apply your argument directly to the OP claim that no Natural Theology is really natural. Take for instance, the fact that all NT are not simply people who have had contact with biblical ideas, but they have embraced the Christian worldview entirely. It is one thing to be a part of two conceptual boxes, but its another to claim that one can reason to God from the natural world, given that the object of their thinking is now the Christian God, and not Allah, Odin, Baal or something of that sort. They would not be trying to argue to the Christian God if they were not, in fact, Christian. Therefore, when it comes to Aristotle the arguments only get one to a finite god, and nothing close to the Christian conception of God.
With respect to the double-edged sword worry, I think all Christians should admit that they have sin, culture, and their upbringing as hinderances to right theological belief. We are called to go to the Scriptures aided by the Holy Spirit to get right theological knowledge about God. We desperately need God to tell us who he is, and the Scriptures tell us who God is, what He is doing, and what He has done in this world. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
So I would agree that Biblical theology is not done in a vacuum.
>> You said: it has been argued that to even “know” anything, you have to at a minimum borrow from the Christian worldview.
I recently argued this very point to some atheists.
I would qualify your statement, however, by saying that in order for knowledge to exist, a god must necessarily exist.
And since Christians aren’t the only ones who believe in the existence of god, there are non-Christians who also know that knowledge can only exist if there is a god.
>> I believe Jean is referring to “British Empiricism” based on his reference to the deists and Clark. If I’m right, he’s referring to the epistemological claim that says all knowledge depends on experience alone (Locke).
It seems to me that you can agree with some of what a philosopher believes, without believing everything. Further, were he to hold to all the beliefs of a particular philosopher, it wouldn’t mean that he believes that that philosopher was the source of the philosophy to which the philospher holds; I probably believe a number of things Aristotle believed (I haven’t studied him), but not because Aristotle said it.
>> Therefore, when it comes to Aristotle the arguments only get one to a finite god, and nothing close to the Christian conception of God.
I don’t know Aristotle’s arguments, but everyone who can experience anything at all can come to the conclusion that at least one infinite god must be responsible for all that exists. His/her/their identity and precepts cannnot be known, however, so you still need revelation in order to be saved.
Limited in scope, though the argument may be, unless one concedes this fundamental belief, they cannot believe in Christianity, or any other religion, for that matter.
The actual argument goes something like this:
If there is no god, then all that exists conforms to causal law.
Human decisions are a “first cause” – that is, there were no direct prior deterministic [read "naturalistic", or "Evolutionary"] causes which necessitated any given decision. The human capacity to make decisions is a violation of causal law.
That which can violate causal law cannot be in the form of that which must conform to causal law, so human decision making is possible because of some metaphysical means. This is the proof for a soul, and, by extension, dualism.
We, as souls, did not always exist, so we must have been created. Nothing which conforms to causal law could have created souls, because you can’t get the ability to violate causal law from that which can only conform to causal law; so the creator of souls must be metaphysical, too.
This is the proof of an incorporeal sentient creator. God.
Now, some argue that god could have been created, such that there were a succession of prior gods which were also created. This is unreasonable because this would require an infinite regression; the implication being that the argument is unable to account for the necessary first cause of the succession of effects.
The only way to resolve the problem with the infinite regression argument is to say that there was at least one god which has, is, and always will exist.
And there you have it. The argument for the existence of at least one infinite god.
I think we’re getting somewhere (and I think this is where we’re getting):
1) OP assumption: for NT (and not BT) to be genuine, it must be done in a vacuum.
2) But neither BT or NT is done in a vacuum.
3) So far, we lack a basis for treating BT differently from NT insofar as it is a concepual box.
4) So we’ve no basis for denying the genuine or “pure” expression of NT while allowing for the genuine or “pure” expression of BT if NT is not in a vacuum.
5) But then we’ve no basis for (1).
6) So either both BT and NT are genuinely possible, or neither is.
There’s another claim on the table.
Brad B, you said: “objective truth has to make an appeal to transcendence, not natural phenomena, to prove spiritual truth. The appeal to transcendence includes appealing to rational,personal, and the omnis that the Judeo/Christian God is known as.”
Why do you think that knowledge depends on the existence God?
It indeed seems more probable that we would have the epistemic faculties we have given that Christianity is true than given that something like naturalistic evolution is true. That’s because Christianity entails a God who both would want us to have those faculties and would have the power to insure we have them. Other religions entail this too (I realize you don’t mean to respond to this point just yet).
Naturalism entails nothing like a purpose for our having these faculties and only an extremely low probability that we would develop them.
But I doubt you are making a claim about the causal conditions most likely to bring about our epistemic faculties when you say knowledge depends on God (otherwise, I would agree). Rather, it seems the claim is about the conceptual conditions most consistent with the claim that knowledge exists–something like this: the proposition that knowledge exists is only consistent with a theistic (leaving aside which theistic) noetic structure.
Naturalists have knowledge. But are they consistent? Perhaps they “borrow” from (i.e. use concepts which are part of) a worldview they deny is true. They does not entail they are inconsistent. One can deny a worldview is a good one while embracing some of it’s tenants. This is the issue of worldview overlap again.
Aww Mr. Phillips… natural theologians within the Christian church have never failed to receive the influence of their religious tradition–the god they sought was always the Christian God. Are they doing NT? We both agree they are (on pain of denying that they can do BT). Can someone like Aristotle do it? To deny that he could because he’s never heard of Biblical ideas presumes (errantly I think) that NT requires direction from Biblical concepts.
Caleb,
You silly little Femanian. Must I continue with you in this discussion or shall I hash it out with you over lunch?
You said, “Aww Mr. Phillips… natural theologians within the Christian church have never failed to receive the influence of their religious tradition–the god they sought was always the Christian God. Are they doing NT? We both agree they are (on pain of denying that they can do BT). Can someone like Aristotle do it? To deny that he could because he’s never heard of Biblical ideas presumes (errantly I think) that NT requires direction from Biblical concepts.”
What entails NT proper on your view? Is NT reasoning from GR (General Revelation)? Or is it starting with empiricism or rationalism and trying to get to God? Or is it only done by a pagan without the influence of the BT. Does little Johnny/Jareall the pagan in New Guinea do NT when he reasons from creation that god is an alligator or monkey? I think you would say yes.
However, OP agrees with you on that assumption, “NT: Are you saying that a Christian is incapable of producing Natural philosophy, law, theology and apologetics?
BA: Yes! The only person who is capable of producing an authentic “Natural” Theology is a “natural” man or woman who has never heard of any Biblical ideas such as: fill in the blank with BT terms.”
HOWEVER, the big problem is that they are nowhere close to the true and living God, they are in idolatry as Rom. 1 makes so clear. True NT, according to this post, seems to be NT in a natural setting, which I think, you will grant can happen. A pagan can reason about god from creation w/o Biblical contamination; we call it idolatry.
What is the goal of NT? To get to the true God or to one of their own fancy.
What must be true for NT to be natural?
You said: “Can someone like Aristotle do it? To deny that he could because he’s never heard of Biblical ideas presumes (errantly I think) that NT requires direction from Biblical concepts.”
This post is claiming that Christian NT requires a hybrid between Pagan premises and a Christian conclusion. However, if you start out blind you won’t receive sight, unless of course, you weren’t blind to begin with. Hence, the problem. Christian NT are bias towards a certain conclusion, but a real NT will never come to that conclusion. They may get bits and pieces, but never the whole thing.
The Christian NT sees the world differently now, he sees God’s fingerprints all over creation, so why would he pretend he is blind, when he can see and hear the music of GR. CNT needs to bring Special revelation to NT so that he can see and hear the music of GR after he is saved by grace thru faith. Savy!
Caleb,
The method is unsatisfactory because it requires at the outset the knowledge it aims to obtain at the end.
The cosmological argument totally fails to prove the existence of God.
I agree with Gordon Clark here, especially when he said:
“[T]he cosmological argument is worse than useless. In fact, Christians can be pleased at its failure, for if it were valid, it would prove a conclusion inconsistent with Christianity.” (RRR, p.41)
Earlier, you wrote:
1. BT argues that Natural Theology is only valid if it is without any contamination or contact with “the Biblical Box” or Christianity.
2. All Natural theology is contaminated by “the Biblical Box.”
3. (c)Therefore, no natural theology is truly natural or valid.
*#2 is a straw man.
Your denial of #1 commits an inexcusable category fallacy, namely the confusing of the idea of a conceptual box with a foreign language. I’m not quite sure how you’ve reached the conclusion that this justifies your denial, but I can tell you with certainty that a cursory glance leads me to believe that you are more in error than profound.
Unless you are using the well-refuted idea that truth is relative and culturally condition in the same way that words in languages are culturally assigned their value, then I have no idea what you mean. And if this is the sense on which your analogy depends, then at this point I can only refer you to Don Carson’s refutation.
That being said, it brings us back around again to:
>>Caleb,
>>You wrote, “it [the OP] argues that Natural Theology cannot find genuine expression if influenced at all by outside (Biblical) ideas. Since there’s no attempt to justify this move, Biblical theology receives unfair special treatment.”
>>Please provide a source where a definition of natural theology allows the outside influence of special revelation. I am not aware of anyone that teaches that. All definitions boast the claim of successful arguments void of influence from special revelation (the Bible).
>> The method is unsatisfactory because it requires at the outset the knowledge it aims to obtain at the end.
All methods of teaching require, at the outset, that the teacher possess the knowledge he aims to impart.
Further, when a teacher imparts knowledge, all he is really doing is guiding the student’s own capacity to reason; That is, it is entirely possible for the student to have learned the material without the teacher. The benefit of a teacher is that he can help us keep from having to go through possibly many trials and errors because he has already made sense of those.
What I’m saying is that the information available to everyone, given an honest attempt to make sense of it, will lead necessarily to the conclusion that there is a god. Now, since Christianity is a worldview in which exists a god, you will not be able to evangelize atheists and agnostics until you convince them that god must necessarily exist, given what we know about ourselves and the universe, thus far.
Enter Natural Theology, the sole intent of which is to convince people that god exists.
To be sure, Christians use Natural Theology to clear the mental road block of atheism and agnosticism to bring people to Christ. And while that is the goal of *witnessing* via Natural Theology, this is not the goal of Natural Theology, per se.
We tell people that god is angry with them, not because the goal is to tell them that god is angry, but to then tell them that they must believe on Jesus if they are to escape god’s wrath; But that god is angry with them is a necessary piece of information. And insomuch as this is a necessary part of giving the gospel, Natural Theology has this in common.
Keep in mind, people, that when you are giving the gospel, you are giving people *reasons* why they ought to believe on Jesus. Natural Theology, at least where Atheism and Agnosticism are concerned, is one of the reasons.
>> Earlier, you wrote:
>>
>> 1. BT argues that Natural Theology is only valid if it is without any contamination or contact with “the Biblical Box” or Christianity.
>>
>> 2. All Natural theology is contaminated by “the Biblical Box.”
>>
>> 3. (c)Therefore, no natural theology is truly natural or valid.
>>
>>*#2 is a straw man.
#1’s *if* is in regard to NT’s contamination, and #2 addresses NT’s contamination – so #2 cannot be a straw man.
>> Your denial of #1 commits an inexcusable category fallacy, namely the confusing of the idea of a conceptual box with a foreign language.
I took his understanding of a conceptual box, differently. I took him as saying that the some of the concepts in Box BT are the same as in Box NT.
For example, Box NT contains the concept that humans can think for themselves; So does Box BT.
Natural Theology attempts to guide an unbeliever’s intellectual assent utilizing the concepts their respective conceptual boxes have in common. Again, this is the same thing that happens when someone teaches you math, for example.
Whether or not an unbeliever will be granted repentence by god (given that the evangelist goes on from NT to BT) – or even do the first step, which is to pursue understanding with regard to the Christian claims – is another matter entirely, involving god’s will and their fallen nature, respectively.
>> Please provide a source where a definition of natural theology allows the outside influence of special revelation.
If your definition of special revelation includes creation, then you’re both saying the same thing, and talking past each other.
Stephen,
You said: Your denial of #1 commits an inexcusable category fallacy, namely the confusing of the idea of a conceptual box with a foreign language.
I say: If by this you are referring to when I said
“Can we all not think according to our “old nature” still?… If someone learns spanish do they lose the ability to think purely in english (assuming that’s their native language)?
particularly to the reference to language, then I say I never confused the two. It was supposed to be an analogy. The claim would be that we can think in dual boxes just like we can think in dual languages. But if you don’t like that analogy, then try the one that is unaddressed, about the “old nature.” Paul seemed to argue that we could think in both boxes. Similarly, it seems we can think in both BT and NT boxes simultaneously.
you said: Please provide a source where a definition of natural theology allows the outside influence of special revelation…. All definitions boast the claim of successful arguments void of influence from special revelation (the Bible).
Besides the fact that most natural theologians in the Christian tradition have in fact believed they were doing genuine NT despite their being influenced by BT, I don’t have solitary authority to quote you in support of my understanding of NT. Nevertheless, I think I’m in good company.
Besides, I think I have an argument for my understanding of NT:
My understanding: NT does not fail; it can be done in the influence of BT.
1) OP assumption: for NT (and not BT) to be genuine, it must be done in a vacuum.
2′) Neither BT or NT is done (in our culture) in a vacuum.
3) So far, we lack a basis for treating BT differently from NT insofar as it is a concepual box.
4) So we’ve no basis for denying the genuine or “pure” expression of NT while allowing for the genuine or “pure” expression of BT if NT is not in a vacuum.
5) But then we’ve no basis for (1).
6) So either both BT and NT are genuinely possible, or neither is.
I think BT is possible. So I also think NT is.
To all,
Just so you all know, Caleb, the Femanian, is a friend of mine, and my comments to him are in jest and not in arrogance. I disagree with him on a great deal of things, but I enjoy and appreciate his friendship. I think he raises some important questions that are worth considering and evaluating. Look forward to more discussion.
>> To all,
>> Just so you all know, Caleb, the Femanian, is a friend of mine, and my comments to him are in jest and not in arrogance.
LOL
Poke, poke, poke. ^^
[Aside: I thought "Femanian" was a pejorative, so I looked it up. O.o]
Hi Caleb, I just wanted to answer you briefly about knowledge being dependant on a theistic worldview and in fact a Christian worldview if the argument is developed. The presuppositioinalist apologectic methodologists have pioneered this line of reasoning I think and logically it’s pretty air tight. The premises are challengeable I guess, but after this has been around a while it seems to have stood. Rather than try to rewrite the whole thing, I’m going to paste 2 url’s that’ll give you the whole enchilada to support my earlier comments. Here’s Bahnsen in a paper making the point about knowledge being dependant on theistic worldview, while primarily defending Theology as the queen of the sciences. By the way, I think Bahnsen defended the VanTillian apologetic which made use of the Transendental Arguement for the existence for God which uses the phrase “the impossiblility of the contrary” which makes the point that consistency is impossible without a belief in transcendence.
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa044.htm
Then this piece is a little less academic, but pretty thorough in giving the key points. http://www.rightremedy.org/booklets/47
Brad B
Hi Agilius, you state:
“Keep in mind, people, that when you are giving the gospel, you are giving people *reasons* why they ought to believe on Jesus. Natural Theology, at least where Atheism and Agnosticism are concerned, is one of the reasons”
Do you not see conflict with what you said and this scripture?
1Cr 2:1 And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God.
1Cr 2:2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
1Cr 2:3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling,
1Cr 2:4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
1Cr 2:5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.
1Cr 2:6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away;
1Cr 2:7 but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden {wisdom} which God predestined before the ages to our glory;
1Cr 2:8 {the wisdom} which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;
1Cr 2:9 but just as it is written, “THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND {which} HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.”
1Cr 2:10 For to us God revealed {them} through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
1Cr 2:11 For who among men knows the {thoughts} of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the {thoughts} of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
1Cr 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
1Cr 2:13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual {thoughts} with spiritual {words.}
1Cr 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
1Cr 2:15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
1Cr 2:16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
The Gospel pure and simple is found in vs 2, and the case that men who are not born again do not..will not…can not believe by the end of the chapter. And dont forget that the latter part of chap. 1 speaks of the foolishness of God being wiser than men and removing reasons for boasting which skilled argumentation can bring.
Brad B
Mr. Peters,
I will not be pawed at. I just don’t think I could bear it. I deny any association with you.
Brad B, I will look at those urls.
Brad B,
On second thought, the reality is I probably won’t read those articles. They are long, deep, and time consuming. I have neither the energy or desire to track down the finer points of our debate therein. However, I could perry this non-response by providing the links to some articles against presuppositionalism by some people more in Bahnsen’s league.
Hi Caleb, these links aren’t meant do promote presuppositionalism, but the transendental arguement is pretty sound and a by product of this arguement pretty devastating to those who believe that they can actually know anything without first assuming God. I thought I’d just give you the direct source instead of fumbling around trying to argue outside of my ability. I’m not offfering a *non-response* to you or anyone, if you dont care to get the straight scoop, dont but then refrain from calling my effort to give you what you asked for a non response. The Bahnsen piece is more technical than the other, but I read each of them in 20 or so minutes and when the part about knowing without assuming God came up, the case was laid out simply in a fashion much better than I could do, I was trying to do you a favor.
Brad B
Agilius Said:
“Jean Cauvin,
Just closing a perceived hole, here …
By “empiricism” you mean our capacity to gain knowledge, in any capacity, about that which is?”
British Empiricism systemized empiricism. Locke, Berkley, and Hume denied the existence of mathematics (since they are a-priori verses a-posterori) in terms of substance along with the denial of Cause and Effect (Hume). The first empiricist on record would be Epicurus (not Aristotle) and the British Empircists share universal tenants (e.g. Phantoms) for the “system” to exist.
The empiricsm of 21st century “scientists” use empiricism despite Kant’s complete destruction of it via his refutation (Transadental Argument) of Hume via the Cause which he denies. Since Cause is a priori, the very arguments in which are stated empirically are presuppositionally stated non-empirically and thus the very means of argumentation falls apart before the empiricists even opens his mouth.
Mill and Russel are discussed (mainly Mill) in Morey’s “Battle of the Gods.” Mill was an extremists and no secular “scientists” would hold his position today (dominately speaking). His Battle of the Gods book had a dominate thesis in “Finite Godism” and NOT empiricism. Where the means of empiricism was used he discussed it, but not as a main thesis in and of itself. I have read virtually ALL of Morey’s works.
Again, though Morey discusses it in passing, it is not a full onslaught on the subject in toto. This is fine, only time can allow so much. My main point in my questions has to do with the presuppositional mode and means of thought in which “most” Natural Theologians use today.
Since N.T. is found in its consistency among the Deists, and since the Deists were emprical to some degree, then the attack of the method would be the destruction on the topic as a whole.
I can see Morey arguing that the means of argumentation for N.T. is NOT empirical but rather “”"R”"”ational and thus the Deists were “”"R”"”ationalists via the Enlightment Era and that I don’t know what I’m talking about, but this I think can be disputed.
Even so, if the Deists were “”R”"ational vs. empirical, and the main means the N.T. position is argued via “”"R”"ationalism, then the question turns into the difference of method of N.T. via the Enlightenment Era and the 20th/21st Century. It is no surprise that Gerstner and Sproul are hard-core Tomistic empircists. Why switch methods from secular Deism to “Christian” empiricism in relation to the SAME given topic of Natural Theology.
Thus how can the means of reasoning change upon a given topic if one means is more consistent then the other means. Which means if more consistent?
In short, how can Sproul argue for N.T. empirically, when traditionally you probably say it was argued “”R”"”ationally?
I know i’m giving you ideas that you will add in your work. The least you could do would be to simply respond to my entry or perhaps throw me a bone?
Dr. Morey? Please respond.
Jean Cauvin
>> Do you not see conflict with what you said and this scripture?
It’s not good news, i.e. gospel, that Christ was crucified, so there’s obviously something implicit here that’s not explicitly being said.
Verse 4 mentions persuasive words, but given the context of Paul giving the good news (again, giving reasons why they need to believe on Jesus), it seems more likely, given what is only provided in this particular passage, that Paul is talking about showboating tactics which favor style over substance.
Moreover, in Acts 6:9-10, Stephen offered sound reasons to the unbelievers.
Regarding verse 9, I believe he said that the issue was that which god has prepared for those who love god – not whether god exists, or even whether Jesus is who he says he is.
Regarding verse 16, since unbelievers can know many things regarding that which god has created, not every piece of information god has allowed us to know can be included in the term “mind of the Lord”; I submit that proof of god’s existence is excluded from the definition.
>> And dont forget that the latter part of chap. 1 speaks of the foolishness of God being wiser than men and removing reasons for boasting which skilled argumentation can bring.
Chapter 1 says that god chose the foolish things to confound the wise, but Proverbs instructs us to become wise; so I’m not sure how, if by becoming wise we gain the ability to boast, we are to obey *both* commands: 1) do not use wisdom else you have occasion to boast, and, 2) do use wisdom, and understand the dark (hidden; deep) sayings of the wise. Again, I’m pretty sure Paul is talking about showboating tactics. Perhaps it would help to know what the Greeks (ch. 1) considered “wisdom”, and whether they simply thought the gospel was so intellectually simple that it did not feed their desire to outsmart one another. At any rate, you’re not going to be able to present the gospel to someone without explaining a few things.
>> I know i’m giving you ideas that you will add in your work. The least you could do would be to simply respond to my entry or perhaps throw me a bone?
>>
>> Dr. Morey? Please respond.
>>
>> Jean Cauvin
LOL. “Please, sir? May I have s’more?”
A blog *is* a pretty clever way to make sure you’re covering your bases, isn’t it? ^^
Brad B,
I’m afraid I am a poor communicator. I wasn’t intending to call your directing me to your urls a non-response. I was referring to myself. To my saying I’m not going to read or respond to them.
Hi Agilius, all the “reasoning” in the world will not convince anyone who doesn’t have the spirit of God indwelling them. Your mention of Acts 6 fails to make the point you want it to, Stephen convinced no one to believe in that passage, and after he preached Jesus from the OT, to the damnation of those, they were convinced to stone him to death. So much for “sound reasoning”. I think that if you wish to build a foundation of faith on the wisdom of men, it will not be built on the power of God. The apostle Paul makes this distinction in the 1Cor passage.
Consider that the foolishness of preaching is the only thing that’ll “convince” an unbeliever. You are asking people who cannot believe to reason against their nature and be convinced in the mind the soundness of your reasoning when all along, they have no ability to perceive as true the things you argue for. You may as well be speaking a foreign language to them. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned, how could a man dead to God be convinced to believe without the Spirit first giving him life? That is what I want to know.
Brad B
To all:
Boy, am I missing out on a good discussion here! I appreciate all the input here and look forward to engaging more as we move forward. As far as I can tell, this is the first comment directed to me that I have left unanswered. It’s from Brad B:
>>Hi Stephen, so when you said this:
>>” I suppose it is used in the classic sense. The shutting of the eyes and ears is man’s act in response to GR which is God’s act.”
>>would you then surmise that the attempts by man to shut his eyes and ears is futile, since God’s GR is immediate?
*Yes. While man should acknowledge and worship God, which would be right-eous, instead he suppresses the revealed truth, which is un-right-eous, just like the Bible says.
Friends, it is so important to acknowledge the distinction between God’s revelation and what man as a receptacle of it does with it. Whether it be special or general, God’s revelation is not ontologically dependent upon the interpretation of man, regenerated or not!
I say this because there seems to be a lack of acknowledgment of this distinction in this thread. If there is a denial of it, then we all need to know who denies it and why it is denied.
One is the act of God and the other is the act of man.
Hi Caleb, here is 1 paragraph from Bahnsen that’ll most likely lead to more questions than it will answer, but I think it’s valuable to see it in his own words, the idea that without formal assent of transcendence, knowledge is unreliable. Since Bahnsen is no slouch [hmm I've never written that word--not sure of the spelling], he can be trusted somewhat that his logic is sound, even if the premises are challenged as they have been.
“What, then, can we say about conflicts between different scientific communities – between those which submit to Scripture as clearly interpreting itself and those which challenge that position? How can such a conflict be settled? Only by a general examination of their fundamental, determining presuppositions. And here, if any discipline is to have its scientific status preserved against arbitrariness, relativism, and scepticism, it will be forced to return to the Bible’s message about God, the world, man, standards, etc. The justification of fundamental assumptions is not to be left an open question, and yet just because the assumptions in question are fundamental their warrant must be indirect – not suspended for examination according to even more fundamental beliefs (which is excluded in the nature of the case), but warranted in a way which exemplifies and applies them. This will be the “transcendental” method of arguing from the impossibility of the contrary, and it can conveniently focus on those very assumptions which we have already noted to be crucial to science and logic: e.g., perception, induction, organizing principles of experience, necessity, abstract entities, unity and diversity in reality and thinking. Personally and psychologically some people may not commit themselves to Biblical presuppositions, but these will be the same people who are at a loss to salvage science in the face of sceptical relativism. It remains to be seen how any unbelieving philosopher can give an account of science and logic without an arbitrary “leap of faith.” ”
The phrase “the impossibility of the contrary” is key to the transcendental argument for the existence of God.
Brad B
Hello
My wife Dana was commenting how she appreciates this board. It is often the case where the lack of intelligence meets the english language however.
Jean Cauvin
Jean,
Do I detect a little trash talk?
“Smack” is sometimes an RAA approach in the demonstration of lower intelligence.
Jean Cauvin,
Make sure you take your medication tonight, and have Dana read you one of them happy little Bible stories at bedtime.
Amatuer Smack spoken by a dweeb
No disagreement from me. I agree!
Stephen,
Another argument against the idea that Rom. 2 means that the Law (Torah) is written on the heart of all peoples is the fact that Jeremiah states that God would write the law on the believer’s heart as a part of the New Covenant promise.
Jer. 31:31-34:
31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
The obvious point is that the law could not be on the heart of all people universally if the NC promise includes that as a part of the new blessings for God’s people. The implication is that without the Torah’s light man is in darkness and will be judged by his failure to live by his own standards via the conscience, which will either excuse or accuse his deeds.
To all,
Is anyone going to address Caleb’s arguments now that he’s fine tuned them a bit? I’m curious to what everyone thinks of them.
Caleb said: “Stephen,
You said: Your denial of #1 commits an inexcusable category fallacy, namely the confusing of the idea of a conceptual box with a foreign language.
I say: If by this you are referring to when I said
“Can we all not think according to our “old nature” still?… If someone learns spanish do they lose the ability to think purely in english (assuming that’s their native language)?
particularly to the reference to language, then I say I never confused the two. It was supposed to be an analogy. The claim would be that we can think in dual boxes just like we can think in dual languages. But if you don’t like that analogy, then try the one that is unaddressed, about the “old nature.” Paul seemed to argue that we could think in both boxes. Similarly, it seems we can think in both BT and NT boxes simultaneously.
you said: Please provide a source where a definition of natural theology allows the outside influence of special revelation…. All definitions boast the claim of successful arguments void of influence from special revelation (the Bible).
Besides the fact that most natural theologians in the Christian tradition have in fact believed they were doing genuine NT despite their being influenced by BT, I don’t have solitary authority to quote you in support of my understanding of NT. Nevertheless, I think I’m in good company.
Besides, I think I have an argument for my understanding of NT:
My understanding: NT does not fail; it can be done in the influence of BT.
1) OP assumption: for NT (and not BT) to be genuine, it must be done in a vacuum.
2?) Neither BT or NT is done (in our culture) in a vacuum.
3) So far, we lack a basis for treating BT differently from NT insofar as it is a concepual box.
4) So we’ve no basis for denying the genuine or “pure” expression of NT while allowing for the genuine or “pure” expression of BT if NT is not in a vacuum.
5) But then we’ve no basis for (1).
6) So either both BT and NT are genuinely possible, or neither is.
I think BT is possible. So I also think NT is.”
Can anyone comment on his argument a bit more? Are there problems with it? Do you buy it? Do you understand it?
>> Hi Agilius, all the “reasoning” in the world will not convince anyone who doesn’t have the spirit of God indwelling them.
That’s the issue, isn’t it?
>> Your mention of Acts 6 fails to make the point you want it to, Stephen convinced no one to believe in that passage, and after he preached Jesus from the OT, to the damnation of those, they were convinced to stone him to death. So much for “sound reasoning”.
Failure to understand the message, and the successful rejection of it, are two different things.
That it was said the hearers could not argue against Stephen’s sound reasoning, implies they tried. They understood exactly what he was saying.
Not only that, but if being killed was the evidence against our message, then Jesus failed like Stephen.
>> I think that if you wish to build a foundation of faith on the wisdom of men, it will not be built on the power of God. The apostle Paul makes this distinction in the 1Cor passage.
Ok, look. If Proverbs *excludes* the “wisdom of men”, then the understanding of the wisdom of proverbs implies the capacity to understand wisdom that is not “of men”.
And since the unsaved *can* understand the wisdom of Proverbs, it means that the unsaved have the capacity to understand wisdom that is not “of men”.
But you don’t even need this argument, because it’s not the capacity to reason that’s the issue, here, but the desire to conform to god’s will.
Not only that, but Proverbs was given to a people in whom the Spirit did not indwell. So you had an entire nation of as yet unsaved people who understood some wisdom that was not “of men”.
There’s nothing wrong with the unsaved’s capacity to reason – only his will to conform to god’s rules.
>> Consider that the foolishness of preaching is the only thing that’ll “convince” an unbeliever.
Whatever the “foolishness of preaching” is, it includes an appeal to a man’s intellect. A man cannot believe on Jesus unless he hears about him first; And it’s not enough that you mention his name, but you also have to prove that he is who he said he is – that has always been the case, whether the audience is Jew or otherwise.
>> You are asking people who cannot believe to reason against their nature and be convinced in the mind the soundness of your reasoning when all along, they have no ability to perceive as true the things you argue for.
Again, it’s not their capacity to reason that’s the issue, but their will to submit to god.
>> You may as well be speaking a foreign language to them. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned, how could a man dead to God be convinced to believe without the Spirit first giving him life? That is what I want to know.
It depends on how you mean “believe”. John said, in a hypothetical conversation to the unsaved, that it’s great that they “believed”, but that even the demons do that.
Hi Agilius, I’m not sure what you mean when you said this:
“Not only that, but Proverbs was given to a people in whom the Spirit did not indwell. So you had an entire nation of as yet unsaved people who understood some wisdom that was not “of men”.
Then, when you said this,
“There’s nothing wrong with the unsaved’s capacity to reason – only his will to conform to god’s rules.”
it seems to but heads directly with this:
1Cr 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised
Are you saying that those who do not yet have the spirit of God are going to be convinced by reason, to believe “spiritually appraised” things prior to having Him indwelling them leading them to truth?
Brad B
Hello
The general cliche statement is agreed upon by Morey.
General Revelation is enough revelation to send you to hell but not enough revelation to send you to heaven.
In relation to Romans 2:15, this is reflective via the Imago Dei of Genesis 1 and 2. Though the Imago Dei has been distorted, we still have some “remnants” of that image.
Morey carries it further in stating that we have a dual image. Both the Image of God and the Image of Satan. The jury is still out on this one via my analysis via Scriptural justification but he does make a good argument.
Paul indicated in Romans 1:18-… that they knew God, but surpressed the truth via blindness and the shutting of the ears. Thus a natural man cannot even comprehend (know) anything spiritual only the spiritual via Cor 2:14-16. Similar to bio-genesis in biology, life only flows from life. The dead cannot flow into life.
They they cannot comprehend because they correspond to their dead nature of “choosing” to not comprehend as a result of their hate towards righteousness.
Thus, via an IMMEDIATE means (NOT mediate), Paul is saying that ALL have the law of God written on their hearts (Romans 2) which is testified via General Revelation (Romans 1).
Similar to Geometry, the implication of the “law written on the heart” is axiomatic with its implications “DEMONSTRATED” via General Revelation.
Through this means of measurement, God has judged ALL of the heathens from the beginning of time. God made it a double effect towards their inexcusable condition.
Hi Peter!
Regarding Caleb’s comments, especially this one:
“Paul seemed to argue that we could think in both boxes.”
I’m not aware of which arguments Caleb is referencing, so I’d like to ask Caleb to at least provide a general reference from Scripture where this statement is supported as:
a) being true
b) being used
c) being described as a virtue
d) being recommended or commanded
From my vantage point, all “old nature” references in Scripture relate to completely different spheres than Caleb’s use. Furthermore, it seems like Caleb’s term “conceptual box” is too far removed from this discussion to be used; it’s an anachronism.
Regarding his [argumentum ad populum given in] response to my request for a definition, any definition, of NT that resembles the odd position he has taken, all I can really do is dismiss it on the grounds that it is almost pure ignorance. It’s the classic bandwagon fallacy.
If NT is defined by its non-dependence or non-use of special revelation, then any NT that clearly violates this definition must be viewed as a failed NT. Any NT that has exposed special revelation appeals, unfortunately, is a failed attempt at NT just like the OP suggests.
To Caleb, perhaps it is best for you to first define these three terms:
1) natural
2) theology
3) Natural Theology
Similar to Roman Catholic theology, Jean Cauvin shares the belief and states:
“Paul is saying that ALL have the law of God written on their hearts (Romans 2)…”
“Morey carries it further in stating that we have a dual image. Both the Image of God and the Image of Satan.”
Can we get a footnote?
Thanks Stephen.
Stephen,
Maybe the footnote is in the “3-volume set”…
I’m still waiting for the extra-large font size edition to come out before I order that set.
Me too…=)
Hi Stephen, what is written on the hearts of men if not the law. My NASB says Law [capitalized], and I noticed that the word for Law is the Greek word “nomos” and it is the same word used concerning the Jew living under the Law in vs. 17 of chp. 2
Something is written on the hearts of the Gentile ala vs.15 and it’s called Law, so what is it if not nomos?
Brad B
Brad B,
Here is a quote from Steven on this issue when we discussed it earlier on this post thread:
Steven Said: First, we must understand what is meant by “law.” Paul is referring to Torah. He is saying that the Gentiles do not have the Torah to guide them on how to live. Let us not confuse Torah here with Decalogue. Torah is the whole Law which governs what to eat, how to cut your hair, how to select a spouse, how to go to the bathroom, etc. The Torah sat in judgment over all of life. It either accused or excused the behavior of the Jew.
Paul explicitly states that Gentiles do not have the Torah, a truth that was celebrated in the OT. What is in view is the function of the Torah, not the contents of the Torah. Paul says that the Gentiles’ conscience takes the place of the Torah by sitting in judgment over what s/he thinks, does, says, etc. When he says that the *work* of the Law is written on *their* hearts, he is referring to the function of the Torah in some Gentiles (not all).
From the text we can rule out any interpretation that confuses the Law with the Decalogue, any interpretation that says it is written on the hearts of some Gentiles, any interpretation that says this passage is universal in scope (Gentiles in v.14 does not have definite article), any interpretation that has the contents of the Law in view, or that all people of all time in all places share a universal moral code that is consistent with the Torah.
Gentiles without Torah have in the place of Torah a moral code of their own that their conscience bears witness to. Their conscience is what accuses or excuses their deeds, thoughts, etc. But since their conscience is uninformed of the righteousness according to God’s standards, and because of sin, their conscience can excuse the behavior that the Law condemns, and vice versa. What the heathen see as right and wrong is not what really is right and wrong. It is only right or wrong *to them.*
Stephen,
I said: “Paul seemed to argue that we could think in both boxes.”
you said: I’m not aware of which arguments Caleb is referencing, so I’d like to ask Caleb to at least provide a general reference from Scripture… From my vantage point, all “old nature” references in Scripture relate to completely different spheres than Caleb’s use.”
I say: Not from my vantage point (obviously). Paul’s words in Eph 4:17-24 don’t seem very plausible were it not a) true that he was able to think in distinct conceptual boxes, or that it b) implied that one could think in distinct conceptual boxes. I can’t see that this passage implies that c) thinking in distinct conceptual boxes is virtuous. Nor that it d) recommends or commands it.
But of course, my claim never depended on c) and d) being true of any such biblical passage.
How does the ‘old nature’ references relate to different spheres than my use (presumably of the term ‘conceptual box’)? For every practice there is a conceptual schema, is there not? But that’s just what I’m referring to. Then it looks like my use of conceptual box is caught up in the sphere of the ‘old nature.’
you say: Furthermore, it seems like Caleb’s term “conceptual box” is too far removed from this discussion to be used; it’s an anachronism.
I say: anachronism… i’m sure i don’t know what that word means.
you said: Regarding his [argumentum ad populum given in] response to my request for a definition… almost pure ignorance. It’s the classic bandwagon fallacy.
I say: nonsense! it would be a fallacy if i was presenting an argument entailing a premise that appealed to the opinion of the populus. however, since i didn’t do that, it appears I wasn’t on the classic bandwagon. And look at that, my ignorance, for whatever else there is to say about it, was far from pure.
You said: To Caleb, perhaps it is best for you to first define these three terms:
1) natural
2) theology
3) Natural Theology”
I say: Nah. I like the ambiguity afforded by the OP.
Still, why can’t a conceptual box coexist with another? It seems wrong to say NT fails because natural theologians have been influenced by Biblical ideas. Why not say that BT fails because Biblical theologians have been influenced by general revelation? There’s no reason why we shouldn’t if we grant the point about the failure of NT. That is, there’s no reason to give BT special treatment. Which is what I’ve said for some time now.
Hi Brad B,
You wrote: “Hi Stephen, what is written on the hearts of men if not the law…Something is written on the hearts of the Gentile ala vs.15 and it’s called Law, so what is it if not nomos?”
As Peter quoted me from earlier, it is the *work* (ergon) of it, not “it” (nomos). There is a big difference, and as Peter brought up somewhere in this thread, it is only the elect that have the law written on “their hearts” at regeneration, a restricted feature of the New Covenant.
Caleb has provided an “inadequate analogy.” The fallacy in this case lies in supposing that a particular analogy sheds light on a biblical text, theme, or a particular subject when in fact that analogy is demonstrably inadequate or inappropriate.
Analogies always include elements of both continuity and discontinuity with what they purport to explain; but for an analogy to be worth anything, the elements of continuity must predominate at the point of explanation. (Carson, EF[2], 121)
Caleb is attempting to argue that the use of biblical revelation does not invalidate attempts at and claims of a supposed successful natural theology argument.
By definition, a successful natural theology argument is void of special revelation (i.e. purely natural). Caleb fails to see this because he has drawn (and is depending on) an inadequate analogy; or, more likely, the inadequacy of his chosen analogy demonstrates he has not understood the issue.
Here’s some quick results from a search i just did for the definition of natural theology:
1. A theology holding that knowledge of God may be acquired by human reason alone without the aid of revealed knowledge.
2. Doctrines concerning God that are attainable by natural processes of reasoning, as opposed to those that require the assistance of revelation. Atheists and agnostics deny that there are such doctrines, as do Protestant theologians who emphasize the limitations of fallen human faculties, stressing instead the special need for divine grace. See also deism.
3. Natural theology is the attempt to find evidence of the existence of God without recourse to any special or supposedly supernatural revelation.
4. Natural theology is that part of the philosophy of religion dealing with attempts to prove the existence of God and other divine attributes purely philosophically, that is, without recourse to any special or supposedly supernatural revelation.
These were on the first page of Google. Each definition stresses the claim to be entirely independent from special revelation, or by human reasoning alone.
>> Are you saying that those who do not yet have the spirit of God are going to be convinced by reason, to believe “spiritually appraised” things prior to having Him indwelling them leading them to truth?
Your question assumes that the evidence for the existence of god, and of Christ’s deity, are spiritually appraised.
Since I deny this, I am unable to answer your question, as stated, either way; It’s like the question “Have you admitted to beating your wife, yet?”
>> By definition, a successful natural theology argument is void of special revelation (i.e. purely natural). Caleb fails to see this because he has drawn (and is depending on) an inadequate analogy; or, more likely, the inadequacy of his chosen analogy demonstrates he has not understood the issue.
If my attempt at arguing for natural theology fails because it is not void of “special revelation”, then stop calling my attempt “natural theology”.
Call it whatever you want, but I claim that at least some types of what you call “special revelation” (which, apparently, I would call general revelation), are intellectually assent-able [?] by the unsaved, and, further, that such assent is a prerequisite of salvation.
Steve,
It seems that some professing Christians think the mind did not fall with the rest of humanity, therefore man can reason his way to God. Romans 8:7 dismisses this outright, as does 1Cor. 2:14.
Rom 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.
1Co 2:13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. 14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
Thanks for the quick definitions of Natural Theology.
Hello,
Morey complies with me. THe law of God is written upon the hearts of all via the Imago Dei. However, the reprobate close their eyes and ears and surpress the truth which they otherwise should and do know. Thus no excuse.
Hi Denise,
“It seems that some professing Christians think the mind did not fall with the rest of humanity, therefore man can reason his way to God. Romans 8:7 dismisses this outright, as does 1Cor. 2:14.”
This is basically the Thomistic position in a nutshell. Aquinas and subsequent “Thomists” show their cards in their arguments that although the “will of man” is wayward due to the fall, the mind of man was relatively preserved – or unaffected.
Not only are these distinctions invalid due to false categories, but they are easy to refute with Scripture.
To Jean Cauvin,
“Morey complies with me. THe law of God is written upon the hearts of all via the Imago Dei.”
1. When did Morey comply with you?
2. Which law?
Stephen,
I like “my” anology to linguistic conceptual boxes. If you don’t, throw it out. I shall miss it.
Still, the question remains: what justifies giving BT special treatment? You think there is BT inspite of the influence of general revelation on biblical theologians and that there is no NT given the influence of special revelation on would be natural theologians. To harp once again on this point, so far, no reason’s been put forth as to why we should think BT remains at all if we are to accept the reasoning of the OP.
More precisely, the reasoning of the OP:
7) NT requires purity from special revelation
BT does not require purity from general revelation.
Worry: Why think
if you think 7)? One might if she thinks either that (a) BT entails a kind of conceptual box that differs from that of NT in so far as it is a conceptual box; or that (b) BT entails a method that differs from that of NT.
It’s clear to me that (a) is false. And it’s clear that (b) is true. It’s not clear that holding (b) justifies one’s holding 7) and 8). Since (a) is false, I think we’ve a good reason for not holding 7) and 8). But then (if we affirm 7) and deny 8)) we’ll have a reason to doubt BT (and NT): BT is rarely pure from general revelation (and NT is rarely pure from BT).
I prefer to deny 7). This position makes it easy to affirm that both BT and NT are genuine projects. It would be odd to have to explain away, after all these years, what various theologians had always (mistakenly) thought they’d been doing.
the happy face is supposed to b ”
“.
BLAST! it’s supposed to be “eight”.
Hi Caleb,
“Still, the question remains: what justifies giving BT special treatment?”
It is the express teaching of God in Scripture that apart from God’s revelation, man is in “pitch black darkness” and “without knowledge.” Statements such as these are sure to tighten the scowl of philosophy students and professors because it authoritatively rebukes their efforts as sinful vanity.
Natural theology attempts to provide an explanation of something that is not contained in it’s own pool of information. Thus it’s explanations are erroneous.
PITCH BLACK DARKNESS.
WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE.
Robert Morey comments, “The darkness of natural man is not just intellectual. The Bible also uses ‘darkness’ to speak of man’s moral hatred of and aversion to God and the light revealed in Christ and in Scripture. Because man is totally depraved in his fallen state, his thoughts, words, and deeds are morally averse to and antagonistic toward the God of the Bible. (An Exposition of the Book of Job Syllabus, pg. 46)”
The OP states that NT fails. We have yet to receive a refutation. If you believe that NT does not fail, then please provide an example of a successful NT argument. I am open to correction and I pray that I remain open all the days of my life. But Scripture so thoroughly refutes the premises that NT depends on and thus I am very skeptical towards it. I bow my whole self before God in Christ as revealed in Scripture, an act that Scripture considers worshipful and virtuous.
I exhort you to do so as well – all of you.
>> Natural theology attempts to provide an explanation of something that is not contained in it’s own pool of information.
It may help by starting with a teenie baby step question.
Let me try something here:
Is the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 spiritually discerned? Or can the unsaved also comprehend this fact?
Stephen,
Do you mean to imply that unless we take your view we have not worshipped God?
you said: It is the express teaching of God in Scripture that apart from God’s revelation, man is in “pitch black darkness” and “without knowledge.” Statements such as these are sure to tighten the scowl of philosophy students and professors because it authoritatively rebukes their efforts as sinful vanity.
I say: I guess such statements make me scowl because I don’t know why one would believe them. I just don’t think it’s true that one can’t have knowledge apart from scripture. In the vein of G.E. Moore, alls I need for this point are premises that entail examples of knowledge apart from scripture from which I can conclude such knowledge is possible. I hope you don’t ask me to produce said examples.
You’ve interpreted those passage one way. If your’s is the only or best way to read those passages, then I would have to deny them (on pain of denying what for all the world seem very obvious counterexamples to your claim about knowledge). Of course, many more-educated-than-myself Christians agree with me (having better-than-mine arguments and so on). So it’s at least arguably the case that your’s is not the best way to read those passages. (Note: this is not an argumentum ad populum).
you said: Natural theology attempts to provide an explanation of something that is not contained in it’s own pool of information. Thus it’s explanations are erroneous.
I say: Not so. NT attempts to explain the natural world. The natural world just is the extent of the information pool of NT. Of course, NT appeals to things (i.e. makes inferences and so on) that are supposed to be outside of that pool. But doing so is allowed within the perameters of abductive argumentation. One can’t be accused of drawing on special revelation if she postulates the existence of some non-natural entity that is compatable with the deliverences of special revelation in order to explain the natural world.
you say: The OP states that NT fails. We have yet to receive a refutation.
I say: I thought I did. Here it is again.
1) OP assumption: for NT (and not BT) to be genuine, it must be done in a vacuum.
2?) Neither BT or NT is done (in our culture) in a vacuum.
3) So far, we lack a basis for treating BT differently from NT insofar as it is a concepual box.
4) So we’ve no basis for denying the genuine or “pure” expression of NT while allowing for the genuine or “pure” expression of BT if NT is not in a vacuum.
5) But then we’ve no basis for (1).
6) So either both BT and NT are genuinely possible, or neither is.
The assumption of the OP has the absurd implication that BT isn’t genuinly possible. It is genuinly possible. So I must deny the assumption of the OP.
Or to put it another way (as I did above), the OP holds both
7) NT requires purity from special revelation, and
BT does not require purity from general revelation.
However, it lacks a basis for holding both. Because: it’s false that (a) BT entails a kind of conceptual box that differs from that of NT [qua] conceptual box; and though it’s true that (b) BT entails a method that differs from that of NT, it’s not clear that holding (b) justifies one’s holding both 7) and 8). In fact, since (a) is false, I think we’ve a good reason to think it doesn’t, namely this: conceptual boxes that do not differ qua conceptual box should not be treated differently qua conceptual box. Holding both 7) and
treats the conceptual boxes of NT and BT differently. If we treat them differently, it cannot be qua conceptual box.
But neither can we treat them differently given (b). At least there’s no reason to think we can yet.
So we cannot hold both 7) and 8). My suggestion is to deny the OP’s assumption, i.e. deny 7) while holding 8). Here’s why: if we affirm 7) and deny
we’ll have the absurd implication I already mentioned that BT is rarely a genuine possibility (since it is rarely free from the influence of general revelation.)
While I’m not sure if I’ve offered refutations, I’ve at least offered rebuttals of the proposition that NT fails.
Hi Agilius, Your question doesn’t require spiritual discernment to answer, so yes a spiritually dead person can reason the truth of the equation so long as they were taught and mastered basic math.
Can I pervert your question? Lets say that in your equation, there is a key that modifies the numerical value of the addends that is evident to some beings and not evident to others. The alternate value to each addend will affect the value of the sum in such a way as to make it elusive to those without the key-[it wont make sense to them].
You may have a strategy to deal with the answer to your original question, and I’ll be interested to see where you intend to go with it, so I’ll be glad to see where that goes.
Brad B
Agilius,
You asked, “Is the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 spiritually discerned? Or can the unsaved also comprehend this fact?”
This question assumes that there are such “things” out there called “brute facts.”
I think John Frame said it well when he wrote, “there are no ‘brute facts,’ facts that are devoid of interpretation. All facts are what they are by virtue of God’s interpretation of them. And just as facts are inseparable from God’s interpretation of them, so our understanding of facts is inseparable from our interpretation of them. Stating a fact and interpreting it are the same activity.”
Frame, J. M. (1987). The doctrine of the knowledge of God. A theology of lordship (140). Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing.
Caleb,
“Do you mean to imply that unless we take your view we have not worshipped God?”
>>I said: “I bow my whole self before God in Christ as revealed in Scripture, an act that Scripture considers worshipful and virtuous. I exhort you to do so as well – all of you.” It’s an exhortation. Have you ever been exhorted? It’s biblical.
Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called ‘today,’ that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. (Heb. 3:12-13 ESV)
>>I said: It is the express teaching of God in Scripture that apart from God’s revelation, man is in “pitch black darkness” and “without knowledge.” Statements such as these are sure to tighten the scowl of philosophy students and professors because it authoritatively rebukes their efforts as sinful vanity.
“I guess such statements make me scowl because I don’t know why one would believe them.”
>>You are obligated to believe the truth. I suggest that you examine yourself to see if you are even in the faith. Outright denials of express teachings in Scripture indicate the proximity of apostasy or the evidence of it in full swing.
“I just don’t think it’s true that one can’t have knowledge apart from scripture.”
>>Is it your view that in order for something to be true “you” must be able to think it? That’s rationalism, which is idolatry.
“In the vein of G.E. Moore, alls I need for this point are premises that entail examples of knowledge apart from scripture from which I can conclude such knowledge is possible. I hope you don’t ask me to produce said examples.”
>>It is your choice to choose Moore the humanist over God.
“You’ve interpreted those passage one way. If your’s is the only or best way to read those passages, then I would have to deny them (on pain of denying what for all the world seem very obvious counterexamples to your claim about knowledge).”
>>Obvious to whom and on what basis? Are you prepared to offer a counter-exegesis?
>>I said: Natural theology attempts to provide an explanation of something that is not contained in it’s own pool of information. Thus its explanations are erroneous.
You said: “Not so. NT attempts to explain the natural world.”
>>Here again you show your lack of understanding of the subject being discussed. I have already provided simple definitions of NT to show you that you are not understanding what the adherents throughout history have said it was. Example, you said:
“NT attempts to explain the natural world.”
This is simply incorrect. You should have written, “NT attempts to explain the natural world [without any appeal to special revelation; by way of “unaided” human reason alone].
Your general broad-brush, sweeping over statement would define any attempt to explain the natural world as natural theology, even if it were done with 777 appeals to special revelation. Paley, et al, would have dismissed your comments as sheer ignorance!
“While I’m not sure if I’ve offered refutations, I’ve at least offered rebuttals of the proposition that NT fails.”
>>The request was to provide an example of a successful natural theology argument, not an argument for the possibility that natural theology may be valid.
Is anyone willing to post a successful natural theology argument that does what it’s proponents claim?
>> You may have a strategy to deal with the answer to your original question, and I’ll be interested to see where you intend to go with it, so I’ll be glad to see where that goes.
I understand that your response, thus far, is subject to qualification, according to new information.
>> I think John Frame said it well when he wrote, “there are no ‘brute facts,’ facts that are devoid of interpretation. All facts are what they are by virtue of God’s interpretation of them. And just as facts are inseparable from God’s interpretation of them, so our understanding of facts is inseparable from our interpretation of them. Stating a fact and interpreting it are the same activity.”
You should know that, since the Bible nowhere teaches this doctrine formally, that to hold this doctrine requires that one believe that there are rules of interpretation to which Biblical concepts, *as expressed in the written phrases of the Bible*, conform; Further, these rules must be known prior to making any sense of the phrases of the Bible … *any* sense.
From here, debunking this claim is as simple as showing that there is at least one concept that is taught in the Bible that can be grasped by the unsaved. But I imagine that under closer examination, the list of what may be called a “Biblical concept”, will become shorter than previously realized.
But this is not the issue; So I can grant you, for argument’s sake, that there are no “brute facts”, and that facts are inseparable from God’s interpretation of them.
The point of my 2 + 2 = 4 question is that, despite man’s fallen nature, there are things about god’s creation which he can not only grasp, but grasp *perfectly*, such that, in grasping, the unsaved himself is evidence that the Fall did not affect the _capacity_ to reason.
>> Your general broad-brush, sweeping over statement would define any attempt to explain the natural world as natural theology, even if it were done with 777 appeals to special revelation. Paley, et al, would have dismissed your comments as sheer ignorance!
Irrelevant. Your rebuttal of my understanding of the term “Natural Theology” is only effective insofar as it addresses my understanding of the term; After all, it is *my* understanding of the term which you claim to rebut.
Understand that I got the definition of “Natural Theology” from how I’ve heard it used – and I’ve never heard it referred to as you claim it to have been. I’m not pulling a bait-and-switch, here – and I highly doubt that anyone else is, either.
Perhaps we’re all talking past each other. I happen to not think so, even in spite of your mischaracterization of my understanding of Natural Theology; But at least it would be worth considering at which points we *are* talking past each other.
Or, perhaps, you understand the term in a more specific way than it was intended – like you seem to do with the term “philosophy” – such that you are unable to understand them as *categories*, the definition of which, _as categories_, no one disputes, but into which different people have placed differing particulars.
Well, that’s why this usually becomes an epistemological/anthropological debate. I find it too strong a statement to say that the fall did not affect the capacity to reason. I don’t see how that statement can cohere with the mounds of biblical passages that reveal the contrary.
2=2+4 is not known perfectly if it is viewed as a fact separated from God’s interpretation of it.
“”"Your rebuttal of my understanding of the term “Natural Theology” is only effective insofar as it addresses my understanding of the term; After all, it is *my* understanding of the term which you claim to rebut.
Understand that I got the definition of “Natural Theology” from how I’ve heard it used – and I’ve never heard it referred to as you claim it to have been.”"”
>>This is ignorance at best, dishonest at worst. Un-believable…
“Or, perhaps, you understand the term in a more specific way than it was intended – like you seem to do with the term “philosophy”
>>Philosophy = worldview. What’s the big deal? Where do I “seem to do?”
I really hope you guys are not beginning to play games because you have just found out that you have misunderstood what natural theology means all this time. Seriously, if you are just learning for the first time what the term refers to then just say so.
Hi Steven, I think that the term “natural theology” is meant to describe evidence in the creation that “speaks” of God or points to Him. Your distinction about general revelation where it is God who’s speaking vs. NT, is critical.
Unless one is attempting to blurr the distinction, it seems pretty clear that these two are incompatible or should I say non interchangeable. I’m still wrestling with understanding it all the more fully.
Brad B
Stephen,
You said: It is the express teaching of God in Scripture that apart from God’s revelation, man is in “pitch black darkness” and “without knowledge.” Statements such as these are sure to tighten the scowl of philosophy students and professors because it authoritatively rebukes their efforts as sinful vanity.
I said: I guess such statements make me scowl because I don’t know why one would believe them.
Look, we all must attempt to reconcile our worldviews with our experience (and vice versa). Within human experience there are clear cut cases of knowledge apart from scripture. These instances pose problems to the credibility of passages in which such knowledge is supposed to be impossible or implausible. If there were no other reasonable way to read those passages, indeed we would be faced with the choice between chucking our common-sensical epistemology or chucking the view that scripture is inerrant.
But we’re not faced with that choice. There are other plausible reads on the passages you allude to that account for our epistemological experiences of the world and are orthodox. Thus, we are in no need to choose between our experience and a view of scripture in which it is inerrant.
You said: You are obligated to believe the truth. I suggest that you examine yourself to see if you are even in the faith. Outright denials of express teachings in Scripture indicate the proximity of apostasy or the evidence of it in full swing.
I say: From someone who thinks that for most of his life Thomas Aquainus was apostate, I doubt I’ll be viewed any better.
You said: Is it your view that in order for something to be true “you” must be able to think it?
I say: No.
I said: “NT attempts to explain the natural world.”
You said: This is simply incorrect. You should have written, “NT attempts to explain the natural world [without any appeal to special revelation; by way of “unaided” human reason alone].
I say: Even so, it’s still correct that “NT attempts to explain the natural world.”
you said: Your general broad-brush, sweeping over statement would define any attempt to explain the natural world as natural theology, even if it were done with 777 appeals to special revelation. Paley, et al, would have dismissed your comments as sheer ignorance!
I say: I don’t think he would have been that mean. I don’t think of NT that way. I just think it can be done consistently by someone whose been influenced by the ideas of BT.
you said: Is anyone willing to post a successful natural theology argument that does what it’s proponents claim?
I hesitate to, because we can’t even agree on what knowledge is. A theory of epistemology should account for actual cases of knowledge or else explain why they only seem to be knowledge and are not. You theory of epistemology does neither. It is too strong. That is, it demands far too much and thus is unrealistic given our experience.
As for an argument out of the loins of NT… I hesitate to offer one given you probably aren’t persuaded by the above to alter your view of knowledge. I’ll suggest one anyway. I’m sure you’ve much to say about the Kalam argument. I’ve heard arguments to the affect that it fails as a “good” argument. That is, it fails to be persuasive. I haven’t heard it argued that it fails as an instance of NT. What do you say? Well, I mean, I know what you’ll say. It fails, right? But why think so?
The premises and conclusion are consistent with one’s never having been influenced by special revelation or BT. And given that one can think in dual conceptual boxes (as implied in (1)-(6) and in my denial of the conjunction of (7) and (8), so far so good), the premises and conclusion of the Kalam argument are consistent with one’s having received the influence of BT and special revelation.
Lastly, To quote the reverend (“rev” as he prefers to be called), Peter Phillips:
“what do you make of the language, “is plain to them,” or “God has shown it to them”, or “have been clearly perceived?” [of Rom 1] Can the believer reasonable argue from General Revelation that God exists? The believer looks at creation and sees His handiwork everywhere; the theater of His glory, as the great reformer once said.”
Caleb,
What is your epistemic starting point?
Peter
>> This is ignorance at best, dishonest at worst. Un-believable…
No; At best, you’ve been chasing a ghost this whole time; And at worst no one else but you has understood the correct definition of NT – which would ultimately be moot, since, in your rebuttal of NT, you are not rebutting NT as understood by everyone else.
I think it would behove you to make sure that those whom you will critique on record – in a book – are saying what you think they’re saying.
>> Philosophy = worldview. What’s the big deal? Where do I “seem to do?”
Consider the following:
- Stephen Macasil, Sep 29th, 2008
In order to determine whether “natural theology” is valid, we must look to those that were never polluted by Special Revelation and see if they (in their complete isolation from special revelation) have identified and established the existence of God.
- Agilius, Sep 30th, 2008
No, all you need to do is ask a proponent of Natual Theology what his reasoning is, and then test his reason against logic.
- Stephen Macasil, Sep 30th, 2008
Which theory of logic? Aristotle’s?
While I certainly have my own understanding of what all entails logic, here I was referring to logic as a category – the particulars of which may be argued.
But you didn’t see my use of the term “logic” as a category – you believe there is such a thing as “Aristotle’s logic”, as opposed to “Aristotle’s *interpretation* of logic”. Maybe Aristotle was wrong about logic, but we all believe that reasoning must be “logical” in order to be considered sound [at the risk of sounding redundant].
Now my point, as it relates to NT, is that, given your inability to see NT as a category – the definition of which everyone but you agrees is *at least*: proving the capacity for reasoning from what is known to exist by everyone, to the conclusion that a god exists -, perhaps you might consider that the people who *you* got your definition of NT actually used the term in a broader sense than you realize, and that you mistook their particulars for the category.
Sure, Aristotle believed certain things to be logical – but not that his particular beliefs, themselves, were the definition of logic; Rather, he believed that his particular beliefs *conformed* to logic – and there are those who disagree with him on this point. And the reason they can disagree with him on this point is that they all had the same understanding of the *category* definition of “logic” – in spite of each person’s particulars. This is what may be happening with your understanding of the term “Natural Theology”. I think you should check this out.
>> 2=2+4 is not known perfectly if it is viewed as a fact separated from God’s interpretation of it.
Either the unregenerate are right about two plus two equaling four, or they’re not; Which is it, and how did they know?
Here is a section from my lecture notes from a class at Talbot that might be fodder for discussion:
Evaluation of the arguments from Natural Theology.
1d. At best the cosmological, teleological, anthropological and moral arguments could give only a vague picture of the Creator as moral, intelligent, personal and powerful. At worst, they are Pagan arguments for a finite God. They are not the same as General Revelation, but arguments based on the mediatorial export of General Revelation.
2d. While Scripture assumes the existence of God; there are inductive implications and inferences for all of the natural arguments except for the ontological argument.
1e. The cosmological and teleological arguments: Ps. 19:1ff; Is 40:26; Ro 1;19-20; Heb 3:4.
2e. The anthropological argument: Gen 1:26-27; Ps 94:9; Acts 17:29
3e. The moral argument: Ro 1:19, 32; 2:14-15.
4e. The argument from desire: Ecclesiastes.
2b The Biblical assumption and affirmation of the existence of God:
In view of the limitations of natural theology to argue for the existence of God, much less the God of Christianity, humanity is left with the revelation of God in Scriptures to know God and affirm His existence.
**I will comment later, but I hope it goes without saying that I don’t endorse these arguments. However, I agree with 2b.