# Four arguments against the compromise solution called Theistic Evolution



## ChristianTrader

Here are four arguments against the compromise solution between Naturalism and Theism called Theistic Evolution (taken from the book *Philosophical Foundations* by Surrendra Gangadean)

1)Man is a Body/Soul Unity

Naturalism (N) maintains that there is no soul which exists apart from the body. Historic Theism (HT) affirms that man is a body/soul unity and the soul survives the death of the body. Theistic evolution (TE), like (HT), maintains that man has a soul which survives the death of the body and, in addition, incorporates evolution by saying that a hominid became human when God infused a soul into it. TE's view of the infusion of a soul requires saying that the life and the soul are not the same. But since the soul is the center of awareness, and since the hominid, without a soul, already had some form of perceptual awareness, having both life and soul would produce two centers of awareness, which is contrary to the unity of one conscious self. This would also permit the soul to leave the body and for the being to continue to be alive. Neither N or HT would find this compromise possible or plausible.

2)Concept of Human Equality

Both N and TE would claim evolution is continuing, even in man, and therefore some humans are naturally more fitted to survive than others. The ideology of a superior group or race would be hard to resist by a consistent N or TE, even when they would find it hard to accept. HT would reject this ideology and affirm that all men are created equal, in the image of God, and that creation has ended.

3)The Divine Goodness

N and TE would affirm that the struggle to survive and physical death are natural. TE would further affirm that these are compatible with divine goodness. HT would affirm the original creation was very good, that animals devouring each other in nature, and old age, sickness, and death in human beings, are incompatible with the divine power and goodness manifested in the original creation. HT affirms that natural evil (the curse) was imposed in connection with moral evil (the fall). Darwin attempted to reconcile his 19th century deistic conception of God with waste and pain in nature by distancing God from the creation by a long process of evolution.

4)Science and Divine Intervention

N finds any introduction of God to fill the gaps in explanation in the natural world as unnecessary (god of the gaps) and a source of illimitable arbitrariness. TE must introduce God to infuse a soul into the body and to guide the process of micro-mutations which would, in most cases, be harmful to an organism's improvement in evolution. HT holds that God is necessary to create each kind, to sustain the creation, and to rule the creation in order to restrain and remove moral evil. The acts of God in creating and sustaining the universe are necessary for, and supportive of, scientific investigation. Divine intervention (miracles), understood in light of creation, fall and redemption, are not arbitrary and do not undermine rational understanding of the world.


----------



## jwright82

Wow, thank you for sharing this! I never thought of things that way at all. My own arguments against evolution attack the logical status of their so-called proofs. But thank you for adding to my bullets so to speak.


----------



## ChristianTrader

jwright82 said:


> Wow, thank you for sharing this! I never thought of things that way at all. My own arguments against evolution attack the logical status of their so-called proofs. But thank you for adding to my bullets so to speak.



This excerpt from the book is not about refuting evolution. The point is to defend evolution is to defend naturalism. One cannot use the benefits of theism to make up for the various weaknesses of evolution/naturalism. If naturalism falls, then so does evolution.


----------



## SRoper

I think argument one is good against the TE position as it is commonly stated. However, I wonder if it would stand up to the traditional understanding that all animals have souls, but the human soul is distinguished as being a rational soul (or to use the language of the Standards, a "reasonable soul"). The TE could then say that God endowed the brute soul of the hominid with the faculty of reason.

Argument two appears to equivocate on "equality." Men are not equal in terms of intelligence, strength, or ability as I think all agree; they are equal in terms of being in the image of God. Even many HT acknowledge micro-evolution, and it seems strange to deny this for the case of humans. In any case, belief in micro-evolution is not the same as belief that some group in the aggregate is superior in some category which is not the same as racism.

Argument three is good as far as TE affirms natural evil affecting humans.

I'm not sure I understand the force of argument four. It seems that both TE and HT would come under the same criticism that divine intervention appears to undermine a rational understanding of the universe.


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> Here are four arguments against the compromise solution between Naturalism and Theism called Theistic Evolution (taken from the book *Philosophical Foundations* by Surrendra Gangadean)



Thankyou for the information. I will keep a look out for the book. The arguments are all very effective but they are only lopping off the branches. The axe needed for the root of the tree is "Revelation." Revelation demands that man be receptive to the creative will of God. The only true God is the God of revelation. The only true worship is the worship which bows to His sovereign will and purpose. Theistic evolution makes man a creative genius who is capable of finding out God by tracing His footprints in His works. Such a genius determines the God he worships and serves. At its root this religion is no better than the practice of those who lived without the revelation of God and brought in "divinity" as a control for the uncontrollable elements of life.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are four arguments against the compromise solution between Naturalism and Theism called Theistic Evolution (taken from the book *Philosophical Foundations* by Surrendra Gangadean)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thankyou for the information. I will keep a look out for the book. The arguments are all very effective but they are only lopping off the branches. The axe needed for the root of the tree is "Revelation." Revelation demands that man be receptive to the creative will of God. The only true God is the God of revelation. The only true worship is the worship which bows to His sovereign will and purpose. Theistic evolution makes man a creative genius who is capable of finding out God by tracing His footprints in His works. Such a genius determines the God he worships and serves. At its root this religion is no better than the practice of those who lived without the revelation of God and brought in "divinity" as a control for the uncontrollable elements of life.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure if I am following. The function of the excerpted book is to expound what can be known about God by natural revelation. One conclusion is that natural revelation can tell us which God claim is correct and how we are supposed to live. It cannot tell us how to become right with God in our fallen state. I am not understanding your negative view on "Such a genius determines the God he worships and serves." Aren't we obligated to decide which God is the correct one over against various other claims of Godhood?

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> Aren't we obligated to decide which God is the correct one over against various other claims of Godhood?



"Salvation is of the Jews." Is that what God did with Israel? Certainly not. He revealed Himself through His servants the prophets.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't we obligated to decide which God is the correct one over against various other claims of Godhood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Salvation is of the Jews." Is that what God did with Israel? Certainly not. He revealed Himself through His servants the prophets.
Click to expand...


Let me attempt to answer a different way. Let us say that one is born in an Islamic country, knowing only good Muslims there entire life. One is never presented with the Gospel. When Judgment day comes, should one be able to have confidence that the claims of Islam are true and they will be saved. Or does natural revelation, outside of ever seeing a Bible, show that Islam's claims are false.

If we agree here, then I am confused as to what the dispute is.

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> Let me attempt to answer a different way. Let us say that one is born in an Islamic country, knowing only good Muslims there entire life. One is never presented with the Gospel. When Judgment day comes, should one be able to have confidence that the claims of Islam are true and they will be saved. Or does natural revelation, outside of ever seeing a Bible, show that Islam's claims are false.
> 
> If we agree here, then I am confused as to what the dispute is.



In the scenario you have painted the problem emerges because the Mohammedan is never presented with the Gospel. If an evangelical Christian had have come into contact with the Mohammedan he would have had the opportunity to learn about the gospel if the evangelical Christian was inclined to share it with him. It only would have aggravated the problem if the evangelical Christian decided the gospel was not sufficient in and of itself and that a bridge of morality and religion needed to be built before the gospel could be shared with the Mohammedan.

There is obviously a natural theology on which special revelation builds its message, but the very fact Scripture has built on this foundation means it is the exclusive domain of Scripture and can never be regarded as an area of public domain.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me attempt to answer a different way. Let us say that one is born in an Islamic country, knowing only good Muslims there entire life. One is never presented with the Gospel. When Judgment day comes, should one be able to have confidence that the claims of Islam are true and they will be saved. Or does natural revelation, outside of ever seeing a Bible, show that Islam's claims are false.
> 
> If we agree here, then I am confused as to what the dispute is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the scenario you have painted the problem emerges because the Mohammedan is never presented with the Gospel? If an evangelical Christian had have come into contact with the Mohammedan he would have had the opportunity to learn about the gospel if the evangelical Christian was inclined to share it with him. It only would have aggravated the problem if the evangelical Christian decided the gospel was not sufficient in and of itself and that a bridge of morality and religion needed to be built before the gospel could be shared with the Mohammedan.
> 
> There is obviously a natural theology on which special revelation builds its message, but the very fact Scripture has built on this foundation means it is the exclusive domain of Scripture and can never be regarded as an area of public domain.
Click to expand...


What is the exclusive domain of scripture beyond what I wrote above? I never wrote that Salvation is possible outside of the information only available in special revelation. It seems that you want to say that I cannot know that Islam is false, etc. until I come into contact with the Bible?

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ChristianTrader said:


> It seems that you want to say that I cannot know that Islam is false, etc. until I come into contact with the Bible?


I would say, with Van Til in _The Infallible Word_, that natural revelation is only perspicuous to the Christian. Romans 1-3 establishes that man suppresses what may be known of the true God in his ethical hostility to Him. Apart from special Revelation, which _converts_, how is a man supposed to overcome the spiritual death he is born enslaved to? As Paul says in Ephesians 2, we all were enslaved to the futility of our thinking which was enslaved to sin, BUT GOD.... The "But God..." is the Gospel through Special Revelation and a true natural theology cannot be constructed without it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

More on this idea:


> How is natural theology necessary?
> 
> Scripture does not claim to speak to man in any other way than in conjunction with nature. God's revelation of Himself in nature combined with His revelation of Himself in Scripture form God's one grand schem of covenant relationship of Himself with man. The two forms presuppose and complement one another.
> 
> It was necessary in the garden as the lower act of obedience learned from avoiding the tree of knowledge of good and evil man might learn the higher things of obedience to God. The natural appeared in the regularity of nature.
> 
> After the fall, the natural appears under to curse of God and not merely regular. God's curse on nature is revealed along with regularity. The natural reveals an unalleviated picture of folly and ruin and speaks to the need for a Redeemer.
> 
> To the believer the natural or regular with all its complexity always appears as the playground for the process of differentiation which leads ever onward to the fullness of the glory of God.
> 
> What is the authority of natural revelation?
> 
> The same God who reveals Himself in Scripture is the God who reveals Himself in nature. They are of the same authority even if the former is superior in clarity than the latter. We are analogues to God and our respect for revelation in both spheres must be maintained and it is only when we refuse to act as creatures that we contrast authority between natural and special revelation. What comes to man by his rational and moral nature (created in God's image) is no less objective than what comes to him through the created order as all is in Covenant relationship to God. All created activity is inherently revelational of the nature and will of God.
> 
> What is the sufficiency of natural revelation?
> 
> It is sufficient to leave men without excuse for their sin and denying the God they know they are created to worship but insufficient at revealing the grace of God in salvation. Natural revelation was never meant to function by itself (as above) but it was historically sufficient as it renders without excuse. God's revelation in nature is sufficient in history to differentiate between those who who would and who would not serve God.
> 
> What is meant by the perspicuity of natural revelation?
> 
> God's revelation in nature was always meant to serve alongside His special revelation. God is a revealing God and the perspicuity of nature is bound up in the fact that He voluntarily reveals. Both natural and special revelation would be impossible if God remained incomprehensible as He is in Himself (archetypal theology). Man cannot penetrate God as He is Himself - he cannot comprehend God. But created man may see clearly what is revealed clearly even if he does not see exhaustively. Man need not have exhaustive knowledge in order to know truly and certainly.
> 
> God's thoughts about Himself are self-contained but man is an analogue who thinks in covenant relation to the One who created him. Thus man's interpretation of nature follows what is fully interpreted by God. Man thinks God's thoughts after him - not comprehensively but analogically.
> 
> The Psalmist doesn't declare that the heavens possibly or probably declare the glory of God. Paul does not say that the wrath of God is probably revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. Scripture takes the clarity of God's revelation for granted at every stage of human history. The God who speaks in Scripture cannot refer to anything that is not already authoratively revelational of Himself for the evidence of His own existence. Everything exists that is His creation.
> 
> It is no easier for sinners to accept God in nature than it is for them to accept Him in Scripture. The two are inseparable in their clarity. We need the Holy Spirit to understand both. Man must be a Christian to study nature in a proper frame of mind.


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> It seems that you want to say that I cannot know that Islam is false, etc. until I come into contact with the Bible?



To begin with, Islam makes claims about the Bible. So it is impossible to evaluate Islam without at least comparing it with the Bible. Further, it makes claims about the prophet of God. It is only on the understanding that all the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Jesus that the claims of the prophet can be proven to be false. As the divine-human person of Jesus is a matter of special revelation, and this truth is necessary to prove the falsehood of Islam, it should be obvious that special revelation is needed to prove that Islam is false from a Christian perspective. Without the truth, one might suspect a falsehood, but he can't prove a falsehood.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that you want to say that I cannot know that Islam is false, etc. until I come into contact with the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To begin with, Islam makes claims about the Bible. So it is impossible to evaluate Islam without at least comparing it with the Bible. Further, it makes claims about the prophet of God. It is only on the understanding that all the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Jesus that the claims of the prophet can be proven to be false. As the divine-human person of Jesus is a matter of special revelation, and this truth is necessary to prove the falsehood of Islam, it should be obvious that special revelation is needed to prove that Islam is false from a Christian perspective. Without the truth, one might suspect a falsehood, but he can't prove a falsehood.
Click to expand...


What is necessary to prove falsehood? To demonstrate a contradiction. A contradiction with what? A contradiction with what is known through natural revelation. That Islam goes beyond this and makes false claims about Christianity and the Bible is further proof of falsehood. Not the only proof.

CT

---------- Post added at 07:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 PM ----------




Semper Fidelis said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that you want to say that I cannot know that Islam is false, etc. until I come into contact with the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> I would say, with Van Til in _The Infallible Word_, that natural revelation is only perspicuous to the Christian. Romans 1-3 establishes that man suppresses what may be known of the true God in his ethical hostility to Him. Apart from special Revelation, which _converts_, how is a man supposed to overcome the spiritual death he is born enslaved to? As Paul says in Ephesians 2, we all were enslaved to the futility of our thinking which was enslaved to sin, BUT GOD.... The "But God..." is the Gospel through Special Revelation and a true natural theology cannot be constructed without it.
Click to expand...


How does one reconcile the Romans 1:18-20 with the view that natural revelation is only perspicuous to the Christian? Does not the claim of "without excuse" imply that other options have no rational basis? If that is true then how does one make the claim that natural revelation is not perspicuous to the non Christian? As far as I understand the sin of Romans 1, is a sin of rebellion against what is right. Rebellion does not imply lack of perspicuity. Rebellion only works if the rule broken is perspicuous. I am not (nor could I) argue against the unregenerate being slaves to sin. However that does not change the discussion.

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ChristianTrader said:


> How does one reconcile the Romans 1:18-20 with the view that natural revelation is only perspicuous to the Christian? Does not the claim of "without excuse" imply that other options have no rational basis?


This has already been answered but you have failed to apprehend what has already been presented.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Semper Fidelis said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does one reconcile the Romans 1:18-20 with the view that natural revelation is only perspicuous to the Christian? Does not the claim of "without excuse" imply that other options have no rational basis?
> 
> 
> 
> This has already been answered but you have failed to apprehend what has already been presented.
Click to expand...


In this thread or somewhere else? 

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader

Rev. Winzer,
Is there a theological reason that you believe that Islam can be shown to be false on a neutral, reasoning fashion without ever having heard the gospel or knowing the truth of Christianity?

CT


----------



## jwithnell

It is significant that the Muslims occupy a part of the world first reached by the gospel. This is a people that had the truth presented to them but freely chose to accept falsehood -- who with access to special revelation, should have clearly seen the falsehood. And they are certainly part of the "all" that is referred to in "what is evident about God is known to all." 

The latter statement should bring general revelation in line with special. I do not believe that one is given preeminence over the other, they are both ways to know about God and His world, though general does not have specific information regarding salvation, as is acknowledged in WCF. 

Although I have not read the work specifically cited, I believe Mr. Van Til's approach to general revelation is to see a division in how it is interpreted. A Christian's understanding of the natural world will be antithetical to that of a non-believer. No doubt special revelation has created this antithesis -- allowing the believer to think God's thoughts after Him as he examines the world around him, a perspective unavailable to the non-believer. But what has been made known through general revelation is enough to convict.

Pitting theistic evolution against creationism creates a false dilemma and tends to pit general (TE) verses special revelation (C) as has been amply demonstrated in this thread. Intelligent design establishes a more stable view of both forms of revelation without favoring one over the other.


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> Is there a theological reason that you believe that Islam can be shown to be false on a neutral, reasoning fashion without ever having heard the gospel or knowing the truth of Christianity?



I think my earlier posts are sufficient to show that I don't believe this.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a theological reason that you believe that Islam can be shown to be false on a neutral, reasoning fashion without ever having heard the gospel or knowing the truth of Christianity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think my earlier posts are sufficient to show that I don't believe this.
Click to expand...


Okay, since this is the case, you have no principled object to showing Islam is false without an appeal to the truth of Christianity, correct? Let me show how this can be done. Natural revelation reveals natural law and how we have violated that natural law put forward by the infinite, eternal God. Every attempt at a religion must answer how we can regain a right standing with the creator. Islam states that a finite creature can make up for the evil on his record by certain actions. This only makes sense if God's justice is subservient to his mercy. Or another way of saying it, is that His justice is not infinite. That is inconsistent with the revelation of God in natural revelation. Therefore Islam is false. Knowing whether or not the comments concerning Christianity are true or false, is not necessary to invalidate Islam.

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a theological reason that you believe that Islam can be shown to be false on a neutral, reasoning fashion without ever having heard the gospel or knowing the truth of Christianity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think my earlier posts are sufficient to show that I don't believe this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, since this is the case, you have no principled object to showing Islam is false without an appeal to the truth of Christianity, correct?
Click to expand...


There seems to be a fault in communication somewhere. Can you please read over the quotations above and tell me if your question makes any sense in this context? To put the matter bluntly, I don't believe in neutral reasoning at all.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a theological reason that you believe that Islam can be shown to be false on a neutral, reasoning fashion without ever having heard the gospel or knowing the truth of Christianity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think my earlier posts are sufficient to show that I don't believe this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, since this is the case, you have no principled object to showing Islam is false without an appeal to the truth of Christianity, correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There seems to be a fault in communication somewhere. Can you please read over the quotations above and tell me if your question makes any sense in this context? To put the matter bluntly, I don't believe in neutral reasoning at all.
Click to expand...


Okay, so you have a theological objection to showing that Islam is false without known the gospel or knowing the truth of Christianity? I took your answer to mean that you have no objection. I would love to see what objection you have against my claim against Islam or how it presupposes one knowing the truth of Christianity?

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> Okay, so you have a theological objection to showing that Islam is false without known the gospel or knowing the truth of Christianity? I took your answer to mean that you have no objection. I would love to see what objection you have against my claim against Islam or how it presupposes one knowing the truth of Christianity?



You have a foundation -- natural theology. Is it a neutral foundation, that is, something upon which both groups can agree to allow each other to build their case? No, it is no such foundation. Each group demands the exclusive right to build its own system on this foundation. In the process the foundation itself is adapted to the building. There is not even a hint that either Christianity or Islam neutrally appropriates natural theology. Further, both systems lay claim to further revelation which cannot be determined to be true by appeal to natural theology. Both maintain doctrines which require special revelation; and the doctrines peculiar to special revelation, as all theologians attest, depend on the will of the revealer, not on anything which can be discovered in nature.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so you have a theological objection to showing that Islam is false without known the gospel or knowing the truth of Christianity? I took your answer to mean that you have no objection. I would love to see what objection you have against my claim against Islam or how it presupposes one knowing the truth of Christianity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a foundation -- natural theology. Is it a neutral foundation, that is, something upon which both groups can agree to allow each other to build their case? No, it is no such foundation. Each group demands the exclusive right to build its own system on this foundation. In the process the foundation itself is adapted to the building. There is not even a hint that either Christianity or Islam neutrally appropriates natural theology. Further, both systems lay claim to further revelation which cannot be determined to be true by appeal to natural theology. Both maintain doctrines which require special revelation; and the doctrines peculiar to special revelation, as all theologians attest, depend on the will of the revealer, not on anything which can be discovered in nature.
Click to expand...


Lots of people claim or demand a lot of stuff. Either the claims can be justified or they cannot be. Either you are interpreting natural theology correctly or you are not. Just because an exclusive claim is made does not imply that it is worthy of respect or is consistent with natural revelation. Now is it possible that a false religion could only be shown to be false by an appeal to some truth revealed in the Bible? I do not currently believe that to be the case, but I am very open to changing my mind. My claim however is much simpler. If such exist, Islam is not it. Islam's special revelation claims contradict natural revelation. Therefore it is false.

Lastly, your response seems to reduce down to: my argument against Islam cannot work because you cannot stand the idea of it working. You have put forth no good reason to believe that the reasoning is flawed.

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> Lastly, your response seems to reduce down to: my argument against Islam cannot work because you cannot stand the idea of it working.



That's one sure way to turn a person off from speaking with you.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, your response seems to reduce down to: my argument against Islam cannot work because you cannot stand the idea of it working.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one sure way to turn a person off from speaking with you.
Click to expand...


You have dodged responding to my post on Islam since the conversation went that direction. You have steadfastly refused to show that the premises are false or that the premises presuppose knowing the truth of Christianity. I asked you directly, _"I would love to see what objection you have against my claim against Islam or how it presupposes one knowing the truth of Christianity?"_ Your response? Not one premise was touched, nor was my reasoning from premises to conclusion touched. All that happened was my conclusion was rejected. What was put forth was some sort of generic argument that in principle that which is revealed by a certain religions version of special revelation cannot be judged by general revelation. That is absurd on its face (If a religious book claims that 1+1=3, then I am not allowed to contradict that based solely of knowledge of general revelation). If the new revelation makes claims concerning things known by general revelation, it cannot contradict them! I stand by my statement above: "_You have put forth no good reason to believe that the reasoning is flawed."_

If that is an offensive position, then such is just the current state of things.

CT


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

CT,

I think you misunderstand Rev. Winzer's position and his clear answer: "To put the matter bluntly, I don't believe in neutral reasoning at all." While you may be claiming you have found a way to argue Islam false without appeal to special revelation, using natural revelation alone, the opposing position is simply that your claim has no properly justified epistemological warrant.

Again, Rev. Winzer: "There is not even a hint that either Christianity or Islam neutrally appropriates natural theology. Further, both systems lay claim to further revelation which cannot be determined to be true by appeal to natural theology. Both maintain doctrines which require special revelation; and the doctrines peculiar to special revelation, as all theologians attest, depend on the will of the revealer, not on anything which can be discovered in nature."

You are simply not appropriating natural theology in some neutral vacuum, nor can you assert anything truthful about "God's infinite justice", as you are setting out in your argument from natural theology "alone", without understanding what God has revealed about his justice, etc.

AMR


----------



## ChristianTrader

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> CT,
> 
> I think you misunderstand Rev. Winzer's position and his clear answer: "To put the matter bluntly, I don't believe in neutral reasoning at all." While you may be claiming you have found a way to argue Islam false without appeal to special revelation, using natural revelation alone, the opposing position is simply that your claim has no properly justified epistemological warrant.



Okay, we can get somewhere now. On what basis is the claim not justified?



> Again, Rev. Winzer: "There is not even a hint that either Christianity or Islam neutrally appropriates natural theology. Further, both systems lay claim to further revelation which cannot be determined to be true by appeal to natural theology. Both maintain doctrines which require special revelation; and the doctrines peculiar to special revelation, as all theologians attest, depend on the will of the revealer, not on anything which can be discovered in nature."
> 
> You are simply not appropriating natural theology in some neutral vacuum, nor can you assert anything truthful about "God's infinite justice", as you are setting out in your argument from natural theology "alone", without understanding what God has revealed about his justice, etc.
> 
> AMR



So God has not revealed his infinite justice in natural revelation? If he has then where am i off? To a certain extent, I would be following Princeton's goal of using reason rightly. If one does not wish to call that "neutral" then I am fine with that. 

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis

2. The use and place of natural theology in the Christian context: Du Moulin and Turretin. The somewhat varied approach of the Reformed orthodox to the question of natural knowledge of God, particularly the use of a threefold paradigm of natural, scriptural, and evangelical or natural, legal, and evangelical, like Calvin’s distinction between the natural knowledge of God in creation, apart from the aid of Scripture, and the natural knowledge of God available to Christians with the aid of Scripture, sets a series of boundaries on the usefulness of natural theology—boundaries that are observed and developed by the Reformed orthodox.
Du Moulin’s foundational treatment of this problem manifests considerable respect for the mind, speaking of it as the greatest faculty of the soul and of knowledge of the truth as the “principal ornament and perfection of the understanding.” The greatest height of understanding, moreover, is the knowledge of God. We note here the traditional bipartite view of man as body and soul, the latter being the inclusive term comprising the various spiritual faculties as its organs. Du Moulin’s respect for the powers of the mind is tempered, however, from the very outset of his argument by his view of the necessity of revelation: because God is not an object to be perceived but is the fountain of light by which man perceives all things, “God cannot be known … unless he infuse our souls with true knowledge of himself.” (This language of divine illumination, it should be noted, hardly fits the explanation of Protestant scholasticism as utterly Aristotelian: the language belongs definitively to the Augustinian tradition and its philosophically realist, somewhat platonizing approach to the problem of knowledge. What is more, among the medieval scholastics this approach is found not in Aquinas but in Bonaventure and various Augustinian theologians.)
This necessity of revelation leads Du Moulin to make a distinction between reason and revelation, philosophical concepts and theological doctrines. That man has an inherent knowledge of God is demonstrated both by pagan religion and by his general acceptance of the laws deduced from nature. Philosophers, furthermore, have deduced conceptions of God as Unmoved Mover, as first efficient cause, as Creator and Orderer of the world. Because of this knowledge of God apart from scriptural revelation, Du Moulin sees the need to elaborate upon man’s natural ability and define its limits. In the first place, natural knowledge of God is not entirely idolatrous—even though it has been put to wrongful use. Nature conveys some true knowledge of God to man, even if it is insufficient.
Even so, natural theology contains the idea of God as “the most perfect Being, from whom flows and on whom depends all entity and perfection.” From this definition follow the attributes of eternity, simplicity, and wisdom. If pagan religions show the sinfulness and idolatry of the wrongful use of this natural knowledge of the divine, philosophy can manifest the more positive ability of the natural man to conceive of God rightly. Philosophy can state the perfections of God, albeit in an imperfect manner. What the natural man lacks is the pure knowledge of God as revealed in his Word. A supernatural revelation is necessary if there is to be any true religion. It alone provides true, saving knowledge. It alone teaches true worship of God. The two components of true religion, knowledge and observance, must rest upon supernatural revelation. The entire discussion of the positive elements of natural theology stands, therefore, within the bounds of the Reformed paradox of the fractured remains of the imago Dei and the gift of virtues by common grace. Man’s conscience still provides a basic knowledge of the Law, nature still mediates some sense of the divine existence and command, and God still nurtures civic virtues—but none of these gifts is of any soteriological significance.
Du Moulin elaborates further upon this problem: reason and the law in nature provide knowledge of God as Creator, as master of life, and as giver of the requirements for right regulation of life. They also give a vague notion of what God is in himself, apart from his relation to external objects. Here Du Moulin clearly allows, albeit in a limited degree, for a metaphysical theory drawn out of nature. Reason and law also give man a sense of terror, an awareness of sinfulness, and a consciousness of just punishment. Yet a definite limit is set upon man’s knowledge of God—the corruption of his nature. Indeed, Du Moulin can go so far as to state that without the gospel, all knowledge of God and his works is useless speculation (no matter how correct) and a burden upon the conscience. Only the gospel reveals God as he wills to be toward man—as Father and Redeemer. The problem is not so much the utter unavailability of natural knowledge of God, then, as its inefficacy.
These statements lead Du Moulin to set forth the basic tenets for Christian theological anthropology, including especially the problem of the relation of the fall to the image of God in man. As first created, in God’s image, man was characterized by holiness and righteousness. Such was the imago Dei in its purity—a spiritual rectitude and a basis for communion with God. Then man “revolted from God of his own accord and by the suggestion of the Devil, whereupon sin came into the world and by sin death and malediction.” The imago Dei was not totally lost, but disfigured by sin so that there remains in every man some sense of the divine and a small seed of honesty and justice. There can now be no complete and saving knowledge of God through reason or nature, but because of the remnant of knowledge and because of our perception of the Law, we are all left without excuse in our sins. Thus, the entire anthropological and soteriological structure of Reformed theology must be brought to bear on the prolegomena, to the end that the initial epistemological statement of the system recognizes the impossibility of saving knowledge apart from the divine initiative. Despite the great respect he manifests for reason and philosophy throughout his treatise, Du Moulin, like Aretius—and, for that matter, like Calvin—concludes that revelation supplies man’s only hope: the epistemological problem is surmounted only in Christ, only in the One who reveals God as Father.
Du Moulin and his orthodox brethren, therefore, were unable to develop a theological epistemology without adumbrating their subsequent soteriological arguments, the primary point at issue being the theme of the duplex cognitio Dei. Du Moulin points out that, for the sake of man’s salvation, God sent his only begotten Son into the world to be united with human flesh. The Son, who is one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit, assumed human nature “without diminution of the divinity or mixture of the natures.” We note here the trinitarian ground motif of Reformed thought as well as the distinctive christological pattern with its emphasis on the divine transcendence. Christ, as the God-man, is the Mediator who joins and therefore reconciles these otherwise disparate extremes. In his human nature, writes Du Moulin, the Son of God performed the work of redemption, fulfilling the laws and making satisfaction for sin. He is the Author of eternal life to all who believe in him, for in him we are made sons of God through faith and by the “Spirit of Adoption.”
Du Moulin can therefore write, “… though God inhabits inaccessible light, he has made himself visible in some manner in his Son, who is the image of invisible God and God with us. Whosoever endeavours to come to God by any other way shall find him a Judge and not a Father.” The duplex cognitio Dei thus creates a paradox of the union and disunion of philosophy and theology in the great orthodox systems: on the one hand, God is the fountain of light by which we perceive all things, while on the other we cannot truly receive this divine light apart from Christ. Thus—if as Calvin said—knowledge of God and knowledge of self are intimately related, there can be no truly useful unregenerate knowledge. Philosophy, although it is a crucial adjunct to theology, stands under judgment, and even the nominally nonsoteriological loci of the system cannot be understood without faith. Again we see that the prolegomena are not an isolated point of departure but in fact depend upon the system they propose to ground.
The impact of the duplex cognitio Dei is stronger in some systems than others. In the era of the Reformation, Calvin and Viret mark the high point of its influence whereas Musculus and Vermigli develop somewhat different perspectives on the problem and are more open to natural theology. In the era of early orthodoxy the situation is similar: the duplex cognitio Dei is powerfully enunciated by Du Moulin and Polanus, while its influence is less apparent in the works of Scharpius, Gomarus, Alsted, and Walaeus—although each of the latter sets up barriers to the use of natural theology. Even so, in the high orthodox era, Heidegger and van Mastricht stand out as holding to a clear separation between natural and supernatural theology, while Turretin and Pictet see a vague promise in Christian philosophy. Turretin, moreover, can echo strongly the language of the duplex cognitio Dei.
Turretin can argue that salvation, after the fall, depends upon “the revealed Word of the Law and the Gospel.” The issue, argues Turretin, is not the existence of natural theology or natural religion: “we may admit, indeed, some sort of natural theology arising from the light of nature, upon which supernatural theology may be built—for example, that God exists, that God is to be worshipped.” The issue against the Arminians, is that such natural religion or natural theology cannot provide adequate or proper foundations (principia adaequata et propria) for true religion:


Wherefore Curcellaeus wrongly distinguishes faith in God from faith in Christ, as if the former is absolutely necessary to salvation, the latter only the result of divine revelation; for there can be no true and saving faith in God, that is not conjoined with faith in Christ, John 14:1. For we are unable to believe in God unless it is through Christ.


Ultimately, then, natural theology is not a foundation for true knowledge of God, even though it contains some truth. Turretin does not elaborate how this natural theology can be “built” upon—since it is clear that no one can move from natural to supernatural theology apart from the gracious revelation of God in Christ. He may have in mind a pedagogical or legal use of natural theology as described by Charnock and corresponding with the Reformed doctrine of the threefold use of the Law, or he may be pointing, much as Pictet would, toward an initial use of the proofs of God’s existence in Christian theology, and therefore toward the beginnings of a more rationalistic theology. In either case, however, a sharp line remains between the nonsaving character of natural theology and the salvific character of supernatural theology. At no point is there a clear movement of Reformed theology toward rationalism—rather, we find, in the spectrum of opinion on natural revelation and natural theology, a consistent concern to identify the distinctively soteriological character of Christian doctrine, so that the usefulness of natural theology, even as written by the regenerate, is questioned.
This conclusion carries even in those few places where the seventeenth-century orthodox do in fact speak of a natural basis of some sort for supernatural theology. We have already cited one such passage from Turretin: in his discussion of the role of reason in matters of faith, Turretin can also acknowledge a few “rays of natural light and certain first principles, the truth of which is unquestionable” that remain in the sin-darkened human understanding. These truths, Turretin continues, are not only true in the context of nature, but also in the context of grace and the “mysteries of the faith.” In very much the same vein, Owen can indicate that “the inbred principles of natural light, or first necessary dictates of our intellectual, rational nature” provide a “rule unto our apprehension” of all things, even of divine revelation. Witsius can even declare that the faint glimmerings of the natural light provide a “foundation” on which the gospel can build: “for as grace supposes nature, which it perfects; so the truths revealed in the gospel, have for their foundation those made known by the light of nature.” Although Witsius here addresses calling and, specifically, the character of the natural knowledge that seems to call human beings to God, only to leave them without excuse in their sins, he also, like Turretin and Owen, raises the issue of the positive relationship of natural reason and the truths it knows to revelation and supernatural theology.
Despite Turretin’s intimation that one can “build” on natural revelation and Witsius’ use of the term “foundation” it is clear that they do not intend to undermine their prior assumption that “supernatural theology” is “strictly called revealed, because its first principle is divine revelation strictly understood, and [because] it is grounded on the word, not on creatures.” Rather Turretin’s intention is to elaborate his other claim that theology drawn on other forms of knowing “as a superior from inferiors” in the very specific sense that it “presupposes certain previously known things upon which it builds revelation.” Thus, despite the fact that reason and faith “are of different classes, the former natural, the latter supernatural,” they are not “opposed”: rather “reason is perfected by faith and faith supposes reason.” Not corrupted reason, but reason “as sound and in the abstract” concurs with and supports theology. Indeed, as Owen indicates, reason can discern when theological claims are illegitimate—as in the case of the utterly irrational Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. This is not a mystery from beyond reason, like the Trinity, but a teaching that is contrary to reason—as Turretin would say, a doctrine that proposes not incomprehensible but incompossible things.137




Muller, R. A. (2003). Post-Reformation reformed dogmatics: The rise and development of reformed orthodoxy; volume 1: Prolegomena to theology (2nd ed.) (297–302). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Semper Fidelis said:


> Indeed, as Owen indicates, reason can discern when theological claims are illegitimate—as in the case of the utterly irrational Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. This is not a mystery from beyond reason, like the Trinity, but a teaching that is contrary to reason—as Turretin would say, a doctrine that proposes not incomprehensible but incompossible things.137
> Muller, R. A. (2003). Post-Reformation reformed dogmatics: The rise and development of reformed orthodoxy; volume 1: Prolegomena to theology (2nd ed.) (297–302). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.



I am making a pretty similar claim against Islam. Either it works or it does not work. Either it smuggles in things only known to be true from the Bible or it does not.

It seems that there are at least a few people who believe that natural revelation can sit in judgment of special revelation claims.

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis

In your haste to skim and validate your claim you have actually ignored the context of that statement. Re-read the context and you will see that this is not unaided reason at work.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Semper Fidelis said:


> In your haste to skim and validate your claim you have actually ignored the context of that statement. Re-read the context and you will see that this is not unaided reason at work.


Exactly.

More on the matter....



> Extract from _Dictionary of Theological Terms_ entry on "Epistemology":
> 
> A consistently Christian epistemology recognizes the ontological Trinity as the ultimate starting point of all knowledge. It sees all the universe as God’s creation and holds that no fact of creation can be properly described without reference to God the Creator. In other words, every fact must be recognized as a created fact, or it cannot be properly recognized at all.
> 
> Thus, man’s thinking cannot be creative, but analogical. If he is to speak truly, man must say what God has already said. The triune God who has given us the Bible as His infallible revelation must be the ultimate starting point of all our knowledge. That is not to say that the Bible must become our source book for the study of, say, biochemistry or physics, but it is to say that all investigation into these and all other subjects must be interpreted in the light of the Bible.
> 
> God is the constitutive Creator and interpreter of the facts of the universe. Man can be only a re-interpreter. Man's highest achievement is to think God’s thoughts after Him. That is the true use of analogy—to think of things as God does.​


Or, from 


> Van Til in his _Survey of Christian Epistemology_:
> 
> The necessity of reasoning analogically is always implied in the theistic conception of God. If God is to be thought of at all as necessary for man’s interpretation of the facts or objects of knowledge, he must be thought of as being determinative of the objects of knowledge. In other words, he must then be thought of as the only ultimate interpreter, and man must be thought of as a finite reinterpreter. Since, then, the absolute self-consciousness of God is the final interpreter of all facts, man’s knowledge is analogical of God’s knowledge. Since all finite facts exist by virtue of the interpretation of God, man’s interpretation of the finite facts is ultimately dependent upon God’s interpretation of the facts. Man cannot, except to his own hurt, look at the facts without looking at God’s interpretation of the facts. Man’s knowledge of the facts is then a reinterpretation of God’s interpretation. It is this that is meant by saying that man’s knowledge is analogical of God’s knowledge.​



AMR


----------



## ChristianTrader

Semper Fidelis said:


> In your haste to skim and validate your claim you have actually ignored the context of that statement. Re-read the context and you will see that this is not unaided reason at work.



Oh I read the whole thing. I have the actual book. I simply pulled it off the shelf. It is a really interesting section. Thank you for pointing it out. I have no problem admitting error when appropriate. I still see no reason to admit such in this situation. I am also more confused by your most recent comment. What are you saying aided Owen's use of reason in this situation? It cannot be exegesis of the Bible. He is not saying, "You are wrong because you are forgetting X, or Y passage." It would make even less sense to say that the Holy Spirit helped him to see the impossibility of the situation. That would just push the argument back a step because the RCs claim the same Holy Spirit assistance. He is making a simple claim that the doctrine is nonsense and against reason. I see no way to imply some special regenerate reason etc.

CT

---------- Post added at 12:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 PM ----------

The problem is that you are now making Van Til and followers the standard for Reformed/Confessional Theology! (on this issue)



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your haste to skim and validate your claim you have actually ignored the context of that statement. Re-read the context and you will see that this is not unaided reason at work.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> More on the matter....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Extract from _Dictionary of Theological Terms_ entry on "Epistemology":
> 
> A consistently Christian epistemology recognizes the ontological Trinity as the ultimate starting point of all knowledge. It sees all the universe as God’s creation and holds that no fact of creation can be properly described without reference to God the Creator. In other words, every fact must be recognized as a created fact, or it cannot be properly recognized at all.
> 
> Thus, man’s thinking cannot be creative, but analogical. If he is to speak truly, man must say what God has already said. The triune God who has given us the Bible as His infallible revelation must be the ultimate starting point of all our knowledge. That is not to say that the Bible must become our source book for the study of, say, biochemistry or physics, but it is to say that all investigation into these and all other subjects must be interpreted in the light of the Bible.
> 
> God is the constitutive Creator and interpreter of the facts of the universe. Man can be only a re-interpreter. Man's highest achievement is to think God’s thoughts after Him. That is the true use of analogy—to think of things as God does.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or, from
> 
> 
> 
> Van Til in his _Survey of Christian Epistemology_:
> 
> The necessity of reasoning analogically is always implied in the theistic conception of God. If God is to be thought of at all as necessary for man’s interpretation of the facts or objects of knowledge, he must be thought of as being determinative of the objects of knowledge. In other words, he must then be thought of as the only ultimate interpreter, and man must be thought of as a finite reinterpreter. Since, then, the absolute self-consciousness of God is the final interpreter of all facts, man’s knowledge is analogical of God’s knowledge. Since all finite facts exist by virtue of the interpretation of God, man’s interpretation of the finite facts is ultimately dependent upon God’s interpretation of the facts. Man cannot, except to his own hurt, look at the facts without looking at God’s interpretation of the facts. Man’s knowledge of the facts is then a reinterpretation of God’s interpretation. It is this that is meant by saying that man’s knowledge is analogical of God’s knowledge.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AMR
Click to expand...


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

ChristianTrader said:


> So God has not revealed his infinite justice in natural revelation? If he has then where am i off? To a certain extent, I would be following Princeton's goal of using reason rightly. If one does not wish to call that "neutral" then I am fine with that.


CT,

From the responses above, it should now be more clear that Rev. Winzer's earlier implication, that no one reason's from a neutral position, is correct. Moreover, if you are "using reason rightly", you must presuppose the revelation of God in Holy Writ. If you do not make this presupposition, then you have no properly justified epitemological warrant to anything you are asserting, and of course, even this position is not a neutral one. 

AMR


----------



## ChristianTrader

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> So God has not revealed his infinite justice in natural revelation? If he has then where am i off? To a certain extent, I would be following Princeton's goal of using reason rightly. If one does not wish to call that "neutral" then I am fine with that.
> 
> 
> 
> CT,
> 
> From the responses above, it should now be more clear that Rev. Winzer's earlier implication, that no one reason's from a neutral position, is correct. Moreover, if you are "using reason rightly", you must presuppose the revelation of God in Holy Writ. If you do not make this presupposition, then you have no properly justified epitemological warrant to anything you are asserting, and of course, even this position is not a neutral one.
> 
> AMR
Click to expand...


Why must I presuppose the revelation of God in Holy Writ? I am not attacking the correctness of the belief of the triune God of Scripture; I am asking a simple question of why that has to be my starting point in order to be justified.

CT


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

ChristianTrader said:


> The problem is that you are now making Van Til and followers the standard for Reformed/Confessional Theology! (on this issue)


Er, no. I view such a statement as directed to appeal to the hoi polloi and I reject it as merely attempting to deflect the topic elsewhere. Must I quote from the forefathers to avoid anti-Van Til caviling? The matter at hand is properly justified warrant and neutrality of reason. You have been given ample material explaining both and your refusal, "I still see no reason to admit such [error] in this situation" is oddly entrenched.

AMR

---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 AM ----------




ChristianTrader said:


> Why must I presuppose the revelation of God in Holy Writ? I am not attacking the correctness of the belief of the triune God of Scripture; I am asking a simple question of why that has to be my starting point in order to be justified.


What is knowledge? If you know something, knowledge, what is it exactly in your view?

AMR


----------



## ChristianTrader

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you are now making Van Til and followers the standard for Reformed/Confessional Theology! (on this issue)
> 
> 
> 
> Er, no. I view such a statement as directed to appeal to the hoi polloi and I reject it as merely attempting to deflect the topic elsewhere. Must I quote from the forefathers to avoid anti-Van Til caviling? The matter at hand is properly justified warrant and neutrality of reason. You have been given ample material explaining both and your refusal, "I still see no reason to admit such [error] in this situation" is oddly entrenched.
> 
> AMR
Click to expand...


If the matter at hand is properly justified warrant and the neutrality of reason, then that is fine with me. You have some work to justify your assertions about lack of justification. I see nothing but assertions being placed on top of assertions.

CT

---------- Post added at 01:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 PM ----------



---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 AM ----------



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why must I presuppose the revelation of God in Holy Writ? I am not attacking the correctness of the belief of the triune God of Scripture; I am asking a simple question of why that has to be my starting point in order to be justified.
> 
> 
> 
> What is knowledge? If you know something, knowledge, what is it exactly in your view?
> 
> AMR
Click to expand...


I start with a correspondence with reality.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

ChristianTrader said:


> If the matter at hand is properly justified warrant and the neutrality of reason, then that is fine with me. You have some work to justify your assertions about lack of justification. I see nothing but assertions being placed on top of assertions.


Sigh. I took up the discussion after your quite unfair dismissal of Rev. Winzer along the same lines as you do to me now, hoping that it would be edifying to you and perhaps others. If you are going to continue being aggressive, I am happy to move along. While at PB, I am uninterested in the clash of debate that typifies other discussion forum venues. When I want that experience I seek it elsewhere. I post here seeking a respite from personalizations and vitriol. Nevertheless, when someone draws first blood, as you have and continue to do, I am up to the challenge of responding in kind, but I would rather not. 

I have asked you plainly to explain what you think knowledge means. What do you know you know? You can take that up and run with it, or not. I am more than meeting my burden in the discussion, although I am beginning to wonder at what price to my general feeling of well-being in this holiday season. 

AMR


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

ChristianTrader said:


> I start with a correspondence with reality.


Would you not also say that God establishes that reality?

AMR


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ChristianTrader said:


> Oh I read the whole thing. I have the actual book. I simply pulled it off the shelf. It is a really interesting section. Thank you for pointing it out. I have no problem admitting error when appropriate. I still see no reason to admit such in this situation.



Let me point out what you are skipping over:


> Despite Turretin’s intimation that one can “build” on natural revelation and Witsius’ use of the term “foundation” *it is clear that they do not intend to undermine their prior assumption that “supernatural theology” is “strictly called revealed, because its first principle is divine revelation strictly understood, and [because] it is grounded on the word, not on creatures.*” Rather Turretin’s intention is to elaborate his other claim that theology drawn on other forms of knowing “as a superior from inferiors” in the very specific sense that it “presupposes certain previously known things upon which it builds revelation.” Thus, despite the fact that reason and faith “are of different classes, the former natural, the latter supernatural,” they are not “opposed”: rather “*reason is perfected by faith and faith supposes reason.*” *Not corrupted reason*, but reason “as sound and in the abstract” concurs with and supports theology. Indeed, as Owen indicates, reason can discern when theological claims are illegitimate—as in the case of the utterly irrational Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. This is not a mystery from beyond reason, like the Trinity, but a teaching that is contrary to reason—as Turretin would say, a doctrine that proposes not incomprehensible but incompossible things.137


In other words, the way reason is being spoken of here is to show that reason can support theology to show something is not a mystery but is incompossible. BUT (and this is important), this is first understood in the backdrop that supernatural theology is "...grounded on the word, not on creatures". The reasoning that Owen is arguing for is a _Christian_ using reason as a tool to see the true from the false but not a pagan using reason to come to a correct supernatural theology.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I start with a correspondence with reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Would you not also say that God establishes that reality?
> 
> AMR
Click to expand...


I would say that God does establish reality.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Semper Fidelis said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I read the whole thing. I have the actual book. I simply pulled it off the shelf. It is a really interesting section. Thank you for pointing it out. I have no problem admitting error when appropriate. I still see no reason to admit such in this situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me point out what you are skipping over:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite Turretin’s intimation that one can “build” on natural revelation and Witsius’ use of the term “foundation” *it is clear that they do not intend to undermine their prior assumption that “supernatural theology” is “strictly called revealed, because its first principle is divine revelation strictly understood, and [because] it is grounded on the word, not on creatures.*” Rather Turretin’s intention is to elaborate his other claim that theology drawn on other forms of knowing “as a superior from inferiors” in the very specific sense that it “presupposes certain previously known things upon which it builds revelation.” Thus, despite the fact that reason and faith “are of different classes, the former natural, the latter supernatural,” they are not “opposed”: rather “*reason is perfected by faith and faith supposes reason.*” *Not corrupted reason*, but reason “as sound and in the abstract” concurs with and supports theology. Indeed, as Owen indicates, reason can discern when theological claims are illegitimate—as in the case of the utterly irrational Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. This is not a mystery from beyond reason, like the Trinity, but a teaching that is contrary to reason—as Turretin would say, a doctrine that proposes not incomprehensible but incompossible things.137
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, the way reason is being spoken of here is to show that reason can support theology to show something is not a mystery but is incompossible. BUT (and this is important), this is first understood in the backdrop that supernatural theology is "...grounded on the word, not on creatures". The reasoning that Owen is arguing for is a _Christian_ using reason as a tool to see the true from the false but not a pagan using reason to come to a correct supernatural theology.
Click to expand...


First off, let me repeat, I have never advocated building a supernatural theology naturally. I have advocated that reason used by anyone can be used to sit in judgment of false/contradictory supernatural claims. For your explanation to have teeth against my position, you would have to say that if the reasoning done by Owen, was given to an unbeliever, they would not be able to to come to the same conclusion that transubstantiation is nonsense. I see nothing in that article that defends such a position. I have absolutely nothing against - *“reason is perfected by faith and faith supposes reason.” * Faith is not against reason and one's reasoning faculties do not become better once one is regenerated.

My claim since we left the Theistic Evolution portion of the thread is that Islam is against reason. It is also against various supernatural claims made by Christianity, but that is on top of it being against reason.

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ChristianTrader said:


> My claim since we left the Theistic Evolution portion of the thread is that Islam is against reason. It is also against various supernatural claims made by Christianity, but that is on top of it being against reason.


Your claim, when the discussion left TE was this:



ChristianTrader said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankyou for the information. I will keep a look out for the book. The arguments are all very effective but they are only lopping off the branches. The axe needed for the root of the tree is "Revelation." Revelation demands that man be receptive to the creative will of God. The only true God is the God of revelation. The only true worship is the worship which bows to His sovereign will and purpose. Theistic evolution makes man a creative genius who is capable of finding out God by tracing His footprints in His works. Such a genius determines the God he worships and serves. At its root this religion is no better than the practice of those who lived without the revelation of God and brought in "divinity" as a control for the uncontrollable elements of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if I am following. The function of the excerpted book is to expound what can be known about God by natural revelation. *One conclusion is that natural revelation can tell us which God claim is correct* and how we are supposed to live. It cannot tell us how to become right with God in our fallen state. I am not understanding your negative view on "Such a genius determines the God he worships and serves." *Aren't we obligated to decide which God is the correct one over against various other claims of Godhood?*
> 
> CT
Click to expand...

Such knowledge is grounded on the word and not on the creature.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Semper Fidelis said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> My claim since we left the Theistic Evolution portion of the thread is that Islam is against reason. It is also against various supernatural claims made by Christianity, but that is on top of it being against reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim, when the discussion left TE was this:
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankyou for the information. I will keep a look out for the book. The arguments are all very effective but they are only lopping off the branches. The axe needed for the root of the tree is "Revelation." Revelation demands that man be receptive to the creative will of God. The only true God is the God of revelation. The only true worship is the worship which bows to His sovereign will and purpose. Theistic evolution makes man a creative genius who is capable of finding out God by tracing His footprints in His works. Such a genius determines the God he worships and serves. At its root this religion is no better than the practice of those who lived without the revelation of God and brought in "divinity" as a control for the uncontrollable elements of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if I am following. The function of the excerpted book is to expound what can be known about God by natural revelation. *One conclusion is that natural revelation can tell us which God claim is correct* and how we are supposed to live. It cannot tell us how to become right with God in our fallen state. I am not understanding your negative view on "Such a genius determines the God he worships and serves." *Aren't we obligated to decide which God is the correct one over against various other claims of Godhood?*
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such knowledge is grounded on the word and not on the creature.
Click to expand...


I stand by my statement here and do not believe it contradicts my further statements. The issue is simply what can be known by natural revelation. The claim implied there is that all non Christian Theistic religions violate reason. If this is true, no one should have any problem with my God claim stance. If you believe that position to be false, then that is perfectly fine.

Next, let us go back to the bolded claim from the Muller book - *“reason is perfected by faith and faith supposes reason.”* If faith supposes reason, then faith cannot contradict reason. If faith cannot contradict reason then faith must give an account to reason as to how it is not being violated. If this is not the case, then how could Owen use reason to sit in judgment of the faith claim of transubstantiation?

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ChristianTrader said:


> I stand by my statement here and do not believe it contradicts my further statements. The issue is simply what can be known by natural revelation. The claim implied there is that all non Christian Theistic religions violate reason. If this is true, no one should have any problem with my God claim stance. If you believe that position to be false, then that is perfectly fine.


If it is perfectly fine then we have nothing else to discuss but you took issue with Matthew's initial objection on this basis. The whole point is that we _don't_ believe that this much fruition can be gained by natural revelation and the light of nature. It's not as if _no_ pagan ideas can be shown to violate the light of nature (as some of God's eternal attributes are understood as above) but Reformed theologians have insisted that the kind of divine knowledge you're arguing for (all non-Christian Theistic religions shown to be false) is beyond what natural revelation can reveal to man apart from special revelation. This quote is key:



Semper Fidelis said:


> “… though God inhabits inaccessible light, he has made himself visible in some manner in his Son, who is the image of invisible God and God with us. Whosoever endeavours to come to God by any other way shall find him a Judge and not a Father.” The duplex cognitio Dei thus creates a paradox of the union and disunion of philosophy and theology in the great orthodox systems: on the one hand, God is the fountain of light by which we perceive all things, while on the other we cannot truly receive this divine light apart from Christ. Thus—if as Calvin said—knowledge of God and knowledge of self are intimately related, there can be no truly useful unregenerate knowledge. Philosophy, although it is a crucial adjunct to theology, stands under judgment, and even the nominally nonsoteriological loci of the system cannot be understood without faith. Again we see that the prolegomena are not an isolated point of departure but in fact depend upon the system they propose to ground.


Consequently, Owen is not speaking about bare reason ascending to a knowledge of God but he is speaking about a reason that is _already_ grounded in faith illuminated by special revelation. Reason then becomes an aid but it is not the starting point but revelation is. 

Socinians are an example of those who begin with unaided human reason in order to judge theistic truth claims and they can hear no voice but their own.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

ChristianTrader said:


> I would say that God does establish reality.


How do you know this? Is not knowledge properly justified true belief?

AMR


----------



## ChristianTrader

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that God does establish reality.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know this? Is not knowledge properly justified true belief?
> 
> AMR
Click to expand...


Knowledge is properly justified true belief. The question is whether I can have properly justified true belief concerning God without presupposing him from the getgo. I would love to see such demonstrated. I see no way of reading Romans 1 as saying, one is without excuse only if one has access to and/or presupposes the Bible.

I know it because reason and Scripture tell me such.

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ChristianTrader said:


> I see no way of reading Romans 1 as saying, one is without excuse only if one has access to and/or presupposes the Bible.


I don't know who you think has argued this. I don't believe it is Biblical either.




Semper Fidelis said:


> [Natural Revelation] is sufficient to leave men without excuse for their sin and denying the God they know they are created to worship but insufficient at revealing the grace of God in salvation.






Semper Fidelis said:


> There can now be no complete and saving knowledge of God through reason or nature, *but because of the remnant of knowledge and because of our perception of the Law, we are all left without excuse in our sins*. Thus, the entire anthropological and soteriological structure of Reformed theology must be brought to bear on the prolegomena, to the end that the initial epistemological statement of the system recognizes the impossibility of saving knowledge apart from the divine initiative. Despite the great respect he manifests for reason and philosophy throughout his treatise, Du Moulin, like Aretius—and, for that matter, like Calvin—concludes that revelation supplies man’s only hope: the epistemological problem is surmounted only in Christ, only in the One who reveals God as Father.



You are creating a false dilemma:

Either:

a. A person accepts this:


ChristianTrader said:


> One conclusion is that natural revelation can tell us which God claim is correct and how we are supposed to live.



or

b. A person must accept this:


ChristianTrader said:


> I see no way of reading Romans 1 as saying, one is without excuse only if one has access to and/or presupposes the Bible.



I know you are not this obtuse.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Semper Fidelis said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see no way of reading Romans 1 as saying, one is without excuse only if one has access to and/or presupposes the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know who you think has argued this. I don't believe it is Biblical either.
Click to expand...


Please explain - http://www.puritanboard.com/f50/fou...n-called-theistic-evolution-71373/#post913747



Semper Fidelis said:


> [Natural Revelation] is sufficient to leave men without excuse for their sin and denying the God they know they are created to worship but insufficient at revealing the grace of God in salvation.



Given this quote, it seems that we have two options.

1)Bowing the knee to Allah, Baal etc. is not sin and therefore people who do are not without excuse for doing so.

2)Bowing the knee to Allah, Baal etc. is sin, and therefore people are without excuse for doing such even without ever seeing/hearing Special Revelation aka. the Bible.



> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There can now be no complete and saving knowledge of God through reason or nature, *but because of the remnant of knowledge and because of our perception of the Law, we are all left without excuse in our sins*. Thus, the entire anthropological and soteriological structure of Reformed theology must be brought to bear on the prolegomena, to the end that the initial epistemological statement of the system recognizes the impossibility of saving knowledge apart from the divine initiative. Despite the great respect he manifests for reason and philosophy throughout his treatise, Du Moulin, like Aretius—and, for that matter, like Calvin—concludes that revelation supplies man’s only hope: the epistemological problem is surmounted only in Christ, only in the One who reveals God as Father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are creating a false dilemma:
> 
> Either:
> 
> a. A person accepts this:
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> One conclusion is that natural revelation can tell us which God claim is correct and how we are supposed to live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or
> 
> b. A person must accept this:
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see no way of reading Romans 1 as saying, one is without excuse only if one has access to and/or presupposes the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you are not this obtuse.
Click to expand...


The only clarification that I would add is that I have steadfastly maintained that saving knowledge of God is only available in special revelation. Other than that, I steadfastly maintain my claims.

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ChristianTrader said:


> The only clarification that I would add is that I have steadfastly maintained that saving knowledge of God is only available in special revelation. Other than that, I steadfastly maintain my claims.
> 
> CT


I have not claimed otherwise. As we discussed earlier in this thread, however, we all acknowledge that man is without excuse _without Special Revelation_ but Matthew and I have steadfastly maintained that deciding which God claim, among _all_, is not possible _only by means of Natural Revelation_. We agree that Natural Revelation may leave men without excuse and even allow men to know that certain theistic claims are irrational but this is different than stating that Natural Revelation alone will be sufficient to settle all false theistic claims.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Semper Fidelis said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only clarification that I would add is that I have steadfastly maintained that saving knowledge of God is only available in special revelation. Other than that, I steadfastly maintain my claims.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> I have not claimed otherwise. As we discussed earlier in this thread, however, we all acknowledge that man is without excuse _without Special Revelation_ but Matthew and I have steadfastly maintained that deciding which God claim, among _all_, is not possible _only by means of Natural Revelation_. We agree that Natural Revelation may leave men without excuse and even allow men to know that certain theistic claims are irrational but this is different than stating that Natural Revelation alone will be sufficient to settle all false theistic claims.
Click to expand...


Okay the next question is simply, "Do you agree with Rev. Winzer that one cannot know that Islam is false without first knowing the Bible and that it is true or do you agree with me that natural revelation is enough to refute Islam"?

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ChristianTrader said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only clarification that I would add is that I have steadfastly maintained that saving knowledge of God is only available in special revelation. Other than that, I steadfastly maintain my claims.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> I have not claimed otherwise. As we discussed earlier in this thread, however, we all acknowledge that man is without excuse _without Special Revelation_ but Matthew and I have steadfastly maintained that deciding which God claim, among _all_, is not possible _only by means of Natural Revelation_. We agree that Natural Revelation may leave men without excuse and even allow men to know that certain theistic claims are irrational but this is different than stating that Natural Revelation alone will be sufficient to settle all false theistic claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay the next question is simply, "Do you agree with Rev. Winzer that one cannot know that Islam is false without first knowing the Bible and that it is true or do you agree with me that natural revelation is enough to refute Islam"?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...

I agree with the answers that Matthew gave you, which were much more nuanced. The Muslim has access to natural revelation but the Koran further blinds him from the truth and confirms him in his sin. There is not a solution to the problem of this blinding that can be solved by an appeal to natural revelation alone nor will natural revelation free him from this blindness.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Semper Fidelis said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only clarification that I would add is that I have steadfastly maintained that saving knowledge of God is only available in special revelation. Other than that, I steadfastly maintain my claims.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> I have not claimed otherwise. As we discussed earlier in this thread, however, we all acknowledge that man is without excuse _without Special Revelation_ but Matthew and I have steadfastly maintained that deciding which God claim, among _all_, is not possible _only by means of Natural Revelation_. We agree that Natural Revelation may leave men without excuse and even allow men to know that certain theistic claims are irrational but this is different than stating that Natural Revelation alone will be sufficient to settle all false theistic claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay the next question is simply, "Do you agree with Rev. Winzer that one cannot know that Islam is false without first knowing the Bible and that it is true or do you agree with me that natural revelation is enough to refute Islam"?
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with the answers that Matthew gave you, which were much more nuanced. The Muslim has access to natural revelation but the Koran further blinds him from the truth and confirms him in his sin. There is not a solution to the problem of this blinding that can be solved by an appeal to natural revelation alone nor will natural revelation free him from this blindness.
Click to expand...


The question was never whether or not the Muslim has access to natural revelation. The question was whether that access is enough in and of itself, to show Islam to be irrational and worthy of rejection. This is simply a yes or no question. If the Islamicist does not properly use reason and natural revelation but continue to bow the knee to Allah, then that is close to the definition of without excuse.

Lastly, I see no basis for the claim that natural revelation is not enough to free him from the blindness of the Koran etc. The confessional claim is that there is no saving knowledge of God without special revelation. It is not that false/irrational claims cannot be rejected outside of knowing the Bible. 

CT


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

ChristianTrader said:


> Okay the next question is simply, "Do you agree with Rev. Winzer that one cannot know that Islam is false without first knowing the Bible and that it is true or do you agree with me that natural revelation is enough to refute Islam"?


Actually, the point Rev. Winzer made is (emphasis mine):



armourbearer said:


> To begin with, Islam makes claims about the Bible. So it is impossible to evaluate Islam without at least comparing it with the Bible. Further, it makes claims about the prophet of God. It is only on the understanding that all the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Jesus that the claims of the prophet can be proven to be false. As the divine-human person of Jesus is a matter of special revelation, and this truth is necessary to prove the falsehood of Islam, it should be  obvious that special revelation is needed to prove that Islam is false from a Christian perspective. Without the truth, one might suspect a falsehood, but he can't prove a falsehood.



So, to know, to have a properly justified belief, that Islam is false it is required that one knows the truth claims of the Bible. Hence, the only answer to your question is that one cannot know Islam is false without first knowing the Bible is true. Natural revelation is necessary, but insufficient to succeed in falsifying Islam.

AMR


----------



## ChristianTrader

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay the next question is simply, "Do you agree with Rev. Winzer that one cannot know that Islam is false without first knowing the Bible and that it is true or do you agree with me that natural revelation is enough to refute Islam"?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the point Rev. Winzer made is (emphasis mine):
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> To begin with, Islam makes claims about the Bible. So it is impossible to evaluate Islam without at least comparing it with the Bible. Further, it makes claims about the prophet of God. It is only on the understanding that all the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Jesus that the claims of the prophet can be proven to be false. As the divine-human person of Jesus is a matter of special revelation, and this truth is necessary to prove the falsehood of Islam, it should be  obvious that special revelation is needed to prove that Islam is false from a Christian perspective. Without the truth, one might suspect a falsehood, but he can't prove a falsehood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, to know, to have a properly justified belief, that Islam is false it is required that one knows the truth claims of the Bible. Hence, the only answer to your question is that one cannot know Islam is false without first knowing the Bible is true. Natural revelation is necessary, but insufficient to succeed in falsifying Islam.
> 
> AMR
Click to expand...


That would only be true if one believed that Islam makes no claims that are against reason/against natural revelation but only against Christianity/special revelation. To make your assertion stick, you must demonstrate that such is the case. The argument that I put forward defends the position that Islam makes claims against reason and not just against special revelation.

CT


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

ChristianTrader said:


> That would only be true if one believed that Islam makes no claims that are against reason/against natural revelation but only against Christianity/special revelation. To make your assertion stick, you must demonstrate that such is the case. The argument that I put forward defends the position that Islam makes claims against reason and not just against special revelation.


You will have to unpack your "argument" from natural revelation alone a wee bit more than what you have presented to date:



ChristianTrader said:


> Okay, since this is the case, you have no principled object to showing Islam is false without an appeal to the truth of Christianity, correct? Let me show how this can be done. Natural revelation reveals natural law and how we have violated that natural law put forward by the infinite, eternal God. Every attempt at a religion must answer how we can regain a right standing with the creator. Islam states that a finite creature can make up for the evil on his record by certain actions. This only makes sense if God's justice is subservient to his mercy. Or another way of saying it, is that His justice is not infinite. That is inconsistent with the revelation of God in natural revelation. Therefore Islam is false. Knowing whether or not the comments concerning Christianity are true or false, is not necessary to invalidate Islam.



For example, while claiming natural revelation alone, you offer up "eternal", "right standing", "God's justice subservient to his mercy", among others, that are pregnant with special revelatory knowledge from Scripture.

AMR


----------



## ChristianTrader

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would only be true if one believed that Islam makes no claims that are against reason/against natural revelation but only against Christianity/special revelation. To make your assertion stick, you must demonstrate that such is the case. The argument that I put forward defends the position that Islam makes claims against reason and not just against special revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> You will have to unpack your "argument" from natural revelation alone a wee bit more than what you have presented to date:
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, since this is the case, you have no principled object to showing Islam is false without an appeal to the truth of Christianity, correct? Let me show how this can be done. Natural revelation reveals natural law and how we have violated that natural law put forward by the infinite, eternal God. Every attempt at a religion must answer how we can regain a right standing with the creator. Islam states that a finite creature can make up for the evil on his record by certain actions. This only makes sense if God's justice is subservient to his mercy. Or another way of saying it, is that His justice is not infinite. That is inconsistent with the revelation of God in natural revelation. Therefore Islam is false. Knowing whether or not the comments concerning Christianity are true or false, is not necessary to invalidate Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For example, while claiming natural revelation alone, you offer up "eternal", "right standing", "God's justice subservient to his mercy", among others, that are pregnant with special revelatory knowledge from Scripture.
> 
> AMR
Click to expand...


They are not in the least special revelation concepts. No one needs special revelation to understand any of these terms/phrases. 

1)Eternal. This simply means always existing, no beginning, not bound by time. Something/someone must be eternal in order for anything to be here now; or else we would have something from nothing. That is an incoherent concept. In every explanation of reality, there must be a being that fits this bill. The only difference is who/what is thought to fill this role.

2)Right standing. - This simply implies a natural law (moral law in Christian terms) that we can know and that we have violated. The wrath of the infinite/eternal God revealed in natural revelation spoken of in Romans 1, is against our violation of His law.

3)Justice subservient to his mercy - An implication of an infinite God is that God is not limited by anything (beyond Himself). An implication of being finite is to have limits or be limited. To believe that God's justice can be set aside in favor of his mercy/love, would imply that his justice is limited in a way that His Love/Mercy is not. I believe this to be inconsistent with the God that is known through natural revelation.

The various terms can be/should be unpacked much further, but I see no basis for the claim that they cannot be understood or known only from special revelation.

CT


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

ChristianTrader said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not in the least special revelation concepts. No one needs special revelation to understand any of these terms/phrases.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see...
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)Eternal. This simply means always existing, no beginning, not bound by time. Something/someone must be eternal in order for anything to be here now; or else we would have something from nothing. That is an incoherent concept. In every explanation of reality, there must be a being that fits this bill. The only difference is who/what is thought to fill this role.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So says Islam, determinism notwithstanding.
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2)Right standing. - This simply implies a natural law (moral law in Christian terms) that we can know and that we have violated. The wrath of the infinite/eternal God revealed in natural revelation spoken of in Romans 1, is against our violation of His law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So says Islam's moral oughtness, non-Christianity, notwithstanding.
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3)Justice subservient to his mercy - An implication of an infinite God is that God is not limited by anything (beyond Himself). An implication of being finite is to have limits or be limited. To believe that God's justice can be set aside in favor of his mercy/love, would imply that his justice is limited in a way that His Love/Mercy is not. I believe this to be inconsistent with the God that is known through natural revelation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural revelation declares God _is_ and we _ought_; we _don't_, and _are therefore guilty_. Thus says Islam, Sharia law, sword verses, etc., notwithstanding.
> 
> Now when you start to juxtapose God's attributes of justice, mercy, and go on to declare inconsistencies involving the will of God you have moved beyond natural revelation into the realm of God's declarations of His character in Holy Writ. Islam disagrees on many aspects therein, and you are now back where we started in the discussion, standing atop the foundation of natural revelation smack in the middle of special revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The various terms can be/should be unpacked much further, but I see no basis for the claim that they cannot be understood or known only from special revelation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree. Your words belie a wee bit of believer's hindsight, no? It is all so "obvious" to you, and to me. But then again, we are Christians. From what you have written, I don't think you have formed your argument from natural revelation alone to support your assertions.
> 
> You claim your view "defends the position that Islam makes claims against reason and not just against special revelation". If you have a genuinely objective argument (your "reason used by anyone") then one naturally wonders why there are Muslims.
> 
> May I suggest you construct a hypothetical conversation between the Muslim and this properly functioning reasoning man of yours. Or maybe try formulating a couple of syllogisms that would substantiate your claims. It would help flesh out the bones I am picking at right now.
> 
> AMR
Click to expand...


----------

