# The Christian God In Nature



## Bryan (Dec 25, 2004)

I'm still reading Through Van Til's The Defense of the Christian Faith. Very good book although a lot is over my head since I don't have a background in philosophy. I do however have a question about something Van Til says. I don't have the direct quote in front of me but in it he says soemthing along the lines of; looking at nature you should be able to see not just that it has a creator, but that the creator is the Christian God. 

Now I can see looking at nature and seeing a creator, one that is concerned about His creation. I could see some of his attributes, and I can even see by looking at nature my sinful self. But these things do not mean that it's the Christian God I'm seeing in nature is it? How much of the Chrsitian God does Van Til expect the unbeliever to see?

Bryan
SDG


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 25, 2004)

If you could cite the reference that would be helpful. I have the book and I'd like to review the context. 

I'm not prepared to summarize Van Til's thinking on this point -- perhaps other Van Tillians here can? -- but although there is a definite difference between general and special revelation, Romans 1 leaves no doubt that all men are guilty of suppressing the true knowledge of God. Man is made in the image of God, however, and thus can never fully escape God's revelation of himself, much as they would like to. Truly, the heavens declare the works and glory of God. And not just a Deistic God, but the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who made all things in the space of six days, and all very good. If man was only accountable by the fact of general revelation to acknowledge some vague generic "god" then Romans 1 loses its meaning. It is the true God of which knowledge is suppressed and therefore, man knows that God is, but foolishly says in his heart that God isn't.


----------



## Bryan (Dec 25, 2004)

I'll try to find it. Might take a while, I have to remeber to put marks in my books.

Bryan
SDG


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 25, 2004)

It's been a while since I read it but I think his thinking is more along the lines of Romans 1. Paul Manata will probably give a much more sufficient answer  
Anyway, everyone knows the only true living God in some sense because man is made in His image, and the natural world around us was designed to glorify Him alone, not some general deity. But, because of our fallen condition, man refuses to acknowledge and submit to the one true God, and suppresses the truth proclaimed around him in nature, instead ascribing the attributes he sees to created things and to imaginary deities. The only way for man to overcome this fallen state is for his mind to be renewed through the sovereign work of the Spirit with the faithful preaching of the Word. Only then can his eyes be fixed and opened up to again see the glory of the only true God in creation. Bottom line: if nature glorifies a god, it can only glorify the living true God, the Christian God, since He is the only one who exists.

[Edited on 26-12-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 26, 2004)

VT's point is that nature doesn't simply witness to "a" god, but "the" God.

Because the nature of the "debate" is about which "world-view" makes sense of reality/nature (Christian theism vs. all comers), the unbeliever is forced to justify his "no-god" or "other" god conclusion. This he cannot do consistent with whatever non-Christian world-view he has chosen. Any other world-view fails to give an adequate account for nature. It satisfies _him_ temporarily and ordinarily under his preferred delusions, but if he is confronted with the inconsistensy/irrationality he has to choose. If he chooses to maintain his surface irrationality, his "faith" has won the agument for now. Or he may choose to grasp desperately for a "better" delusion; for example, note A. Flew's uncomfortable "switch"... to a new set of blinders. But if he wants a truly reasonable explanation for reality he has to acknowledge the God who is revealed in His creation.

The facts nature reveals about God are indeed limited to specific attributes and to the certainty and fearfulness of accountability and judgment. Here is the unvarnished choice. Will one submit to this revealed God or not? Will he reach desperately for his comfortable blinders again? Will he acknowledge his hatred for this God and stare unblinkingly at the mouth of hell yawning beneath him? Will he try making for himself a religion of self-salvation? Or will he (by grace) cry out in brokenness to that God for some solution? "What must I do to be saved?" Only the oppression of an awakened conscience can drive us to God, if anything will.


----------



## Momo (Dec 26, 2004)

Bryan, and others,

I think the link below will provide some help in understanding Van Til's model of the witness of Yahweh to the regenerate and unregenerate mind alike. 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reformed-epistemology/message/169

Blessings,

Momo


----------



## Bryan (Dec 30, 2004)

Thanks guy.

Paul he must have mentioned it earlier in the book somewhere as well becasue I hadn't read that part of the book until yesterday. It makes mroe sense now.

Bryan
SDG


----------



## LaMontre (Jan 31, 2005)

Awsome thoughts.

To me, if the creation points to a creator then the attributes found in it would describe him.

Which is exactly what we find.

I think too, that the Romans 1 passage (while it speaks of idols of stone etc.) applies quite readily to atheism today.

Of course today evolutionism and naturalism and humanism have taken the place of idols of wood and stone. Yet they are part and parcel of the same spiritual problem. "They did not like to retain God in their knowledge."

And so theY "hold back" (supress?) the truth awaiting "the next experiment" or "the next scientific discovery". 

It is simply a distraction from the thruth they discover with each new finding.....the truth that was in their hearts from the beginning. 

So the purpose of "general revelation" being to lead one to "special revelation" (Jesus is the Christ), is stifled by this "mental supression" of the truth.

Anybody ever read that book, "If there is a God why are there atheists?"

I think he was onto something in that book.


----------

