Reformed Forum on Natural Theology

[A.Joseph]

This is excellent! I left a couple of comments under the video clip. I believe Pastor Tipton is on the right side of this ‘debate/discussion’ compared to, say, Pastor Trueman (who I respect a great deal), who seems to be a bit too enamored with the case for natural theology as I heard on a recent episode of MoS. (I’m not saying Trueman supports the RCC conception).

What is natural theology without the revealed word of God? but a secondary consideration…

Lane Tipton provides helpful clarification to Van Til's oft-misunderstood rejection of natural theology. Van Til strongly affirms both natural revelation and natural knowledge of God as inescapable and concreated, respectively. His polemic against natural theology is aimed rather at the Roman Catholic conception of the image of God, in which Adam does not innately possess knowledge of God but must acquire it by reasoning from natural effects to supernatural cause.

 

[RamistThomist]

His polemic against natural theology is aimed rather at the Roman Catholic conception of the image of God, in which Adam does not innately possess knowledge of God but must acquire it by reasoning from natural effects to supernatural cause.

Tipton/CVT is conflating a number of issues here. One can reject the donum superadditum and still hold to natural theology. Turretin does. That said, it's not clear that Rome rejects innate ideas by holding to the donum. In fact, Rome would say (or at least Aquinas) would that man already has knowledge of God. He just suppresses it.

Thomas Aquinas rejects the idea that the existence of God is self-evident. He does not say that man is born with a blank slate.

 

[Deleted member 11889]

I will confess (as a total ignoramus on the topic of natural theology) why some people get so up in arms about it. What is natural theology other than the evidence of God and a moral created order referred to in such places as Ps. 19 and Rom. 1?

 

[Taylor]

I will confess (as a total ignoramus on the topic of natural theology) why some people get so up in arms about it. What is natural theology other than the evidence of God and a moral created order referred to in such places as Ps. 19 and Rom. 1?

Here is what Van Til says:

"It is of basic importance that what has just been said about God’s revelation in the world of nature and of man be not confused with what is called natural theology. Natural theology is the result of the interpretative reaction that sinful man has given to the revelation of God to him in the created world. When we speak of revelation in nature we speak of an act of God directed manward. When we speak of natural theology we speak of a reaction on the part of man directed Godward. This distinction is all important for a proper exegesis of Romans one."​

​

—Cornelius Van Til, The Protestant Doctrine of Scripture, Logos Edition., vol. 1, In Defense of Biblical Christianity (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1967), 56.​

 

[RamistThomist]

Natural theology is unavoidable. You have to use natural theology (e.g., laws of logic) in order to say "I believe in God." And while some say that "special revelation" corrects natural theology, it's not so easy. Sinful man, regenerate or not, can just as easily misuse the laws of logic and meaning in interpreting Scripture. In fact, we see this misuse all the time. And few people will seriously say that special revelation's passages on the four corners of the earth corrects natural revelation's commitment to a spherical earth.

 

[A.Joseph]

Tipton/CVT is conflating a number of issues here. One can reject the donum superadditum and still hold to natural theology. Turretin does. That said, it's not clear that Rome rejects innate ideas by holding to the donum. In fact, Rome would say (or at least Aquinas) would that man already has knowledge of God. He just suppresses it.

Thomas Aquinas rejects the idea that the existence of God is self-evident. He does not say that man is born with a blank slate.

Also, the natural man is ignorant of his presuppositions (or God given functionality). I mean, he takes many existential things for granted. Man is created with the ability and capacity to think, reason, problem solve, survive, etc, because God has designed us this way, with certain functional capabilities for survival and self-preservation.
https://reformed.org/apologetics/my-credo-by-cornelius-van-til/

@BayouHuguenot natural man, as in, unregenerate

 

[RamistThomist]

or that the natural man is ignorant of his presuppositions. https://reformed.org/apologetics/my-credo-by-cornelius-van-til/

I'm not sure if you are saying that only presups point out the unbelieving man's presuppositions or if you are agreeing with Aquinas and adding an addendum.

Every classical apologist worth his salt will acknowledge that unbelieving man has presuppositions and is probably ignorant of them. In fact, if he is a TV/News-watching American Voter, he is almost certainly ignorant of them.

 

[A.Joseph]

I'm not sure if you are saying that only presups point out the unbelieving man's presuppositions or if you are agreeing with Aquinas and adding an addendum.

Every classical apologist worth his salt will acknowledge that unbelieving man has presuppositions and is probably ignorant of them. In fact, if he is a TV/News-watching American Voter, he is almost certainly ignorant of them.

I’m saying everything we know, we know cause God created us to know. Gave us the ability to know. But do we truly know?

On just a cursory reading, isnt that what VanTil is getting at? On the flip side, according to Pastor Lane, the Roman Catholic conception has too high a view of man’s reason and experience to acquaint himself with the true God. (I’m not sure exactly how Aquinas fits).

Are you sure that you have a firm understanding of VanTil, like, where he’s really coming from?

 

[A.Joseph]

So, the natural man has God given understanding (which is a basic trait of our natural design). But we’ve gone astray so we don’t recognize such basic traits as God given. We are fallen men created in the image of God. We are God’s creation, yet totally depraved. Pre-regenerate, our understanding of everything (or all things) is stunted.

 

[RamistThomist]

I’m saying everything we know, we know cause God created us to know. Gave us the ability to know. But do we truly know.

I agree. As it stands that statement is Scottish Common Sense Realism.

On just a cursory reading, isnt that what VanTil is getting at?

No, for CVT's project to work, one must first presuppose skepticism to the unbeliever to show that he doesn't actually know anything on his terms.

On the flip side, according to LT the Roman Catholic conception has to high a view of man’s reason and experience to acquaint himself with the true God. I’m not sure exactly how Aquinas fits.

That sort of "depends." As to "how high" Rome's view of reason is, that probably depends on the theologian in question. In any case, it is an emphasis argument.

coming from

Yes, Except for his work on psychology of religion, I have read everything he has written. I took apologetics under Frame. I've read everything Frame has written (except for his ST).

 

[RamistThomist]

As to man's reason. Yes, man unaided can reason to God's existence. He can know that God is. He needs grace to become a believer. Remember, Thomas Aquinas was an absolute predestinarian. Also, unaided reason cannot get you to the Trinity.

 

[RamistThomist]

So, the natural man has God given understanding (which are Christian presuppositions). But we’ve gone astray so we don’t recognize them as God given. We are fallen men created in the image of God. God’s creation - totally depraved. Our understanding of everything is stunted.

I am not so sure I would say our understanding is our presuppositions. Presuppositions are objects of thought. Our understanding is our faculties of thought.

 

[A.Joseph]

I am not so sure I would say our understanding is our presuppositions. Presuppositions are objects of thought. Our understanding is our faculties of thought.

I mean the unregenerate are taking these things for granted (they are subconscious presuppositions -the ability to think and reason- without acknowledgment of the source of these things). This is the person with the stunted, incomplete view of everything.

“The irony of it all-the leaders of the Jews did not love and serve the God of Abraham at all! Like the nations about them, and especially the Greeks, they had become worshipers of the creature rather than the Creator! They made their own apostate moral consciousness the standard of right and wrong. With their notion of a “living Torah” they were able, so they thought, to do justice to the changelessness of the law and, at the same time, to live according to the principles of the “new morality.”

It is in the face of this Pharisaic opposition that Jesus’ assertion of his identity as Son of God and Son of man stands out in its significance. Every fact in dispute between the Pharisees and Jesus involved the ultimate claim that Jesus was the Son of God, and, as such, the promised Messiah. Jesus told the Pharisees, in effect, that they had twisted beyond recognition the meaning of every word of the Old Testament.

It was natural, therefore, that they should think of Jesus as a blasphemer. Not that the idea of blasphemy could have any meaning on their view of things. If Jesus’ claim to be the promised Messiah, the Son of God, were true, then they, the Pharisees, were reactionaries, revolutionaries, apostates. They were intellectually, morally, and spiritually wrong in everything they said and did.” - CVT

“The traditional method had explicitly built into it the right and ability of the natural man, apart from the work of the Spirit of God, to be the judge of the claim of the authoritative Word of God. It is man who, by means of his self-established intellectual tools, puts his “stamp of approval” on the Word of God and then, only after that grand act, does he listen to it. God’s Word must first pass man’s tests of good and evil, truth and falsity. But once you tell a non-Christian this, why should he be worried by anything else that you say. You have already told him he is quite all right just the way he is! Then the Scripture is not correct when it talks of “darkened minds,” “wilful ignorance,” “dead men,” and “blind people”! With this method the correctness of the natural man’s problematics is endorsed. That is all he needs to reject the Christian faith.” - CVT

 

[RamistThomist]

Those are all assertions by CVT. They might be true assertions, but they are just assertions

 

[A.Joseph]

Bill Gates may be a genius. But collectively you trump him in your understanding of all things cause he’s missing the most essential piece responsible for absolutely all things. He knows only a perverted version of all things because of his Godless perspective. He lacks the most important insight of all.

It’s why design arguments (and thus the sanctity of life) fail with so many. While for us it’s so obvious.

 

[A.Joseph]

I guess VanTil could be saying, for example, that I can build a house better than a licensed carpenter, if I’m regenerate and he is not. But I don’t think that’s what he’s saying, do you?

I think he may be saying that God made the trees for the wood, provided men with the ability to create according to necessary specifications, etc. We, the regenerate, have the right knowledge and understanding of the Source for all these things and much, much more….. How much more for spiritual matters?

 

[RamistThomist]

I guess VanTil could be saying I can build a house better than a licensed carpenter if I’m regenerate and he is not. I don’t think that’s what he’s saying do you?

I think he may be saying that God made the trees for the wood, provided men with the ability to create according to necessary specifications, etc. We have the right knowledge and understanding of the source for all these things and much, much more…..

How much more for spiritual matters?

I don't know if he is saying that or not (though I am familiar with that problem). If he is saying that, then it is laughably wrong. I don't think he is.

Your second paragraph seems more to his thought. I suppose that being regenerate is good for those things, but being regenerate doesn't change anything about 2+2 = 4

 

[A.Joseph]

No, for CVT's project to work, one must first presuppose skepticism to the unbeliever to show that he doesn't actually know anything on his terms.

I guess I almost agree with CVT here, especially seeing how everything is perverted and corrupted. But I will have to chew on it.

I believe man can conceive of the unknown God and will be judged and shown mercy accordingly.

As always, I appreciate the exchange and respect your knowledge.

 

[A.Joseph]

Here’s another great quote from CVT from the link I included earlier in the thread:

“The Calvinist, therefore, using his point of contact, observes to the non-Christian that if the world were not what Scripture says it is, if the natural man’s knowledge were not actually rooted in the creation and providence of God, then there could be no knowledge whatsoever. The Christian claims that non-Christians have made and now make many discoveries about the true state of affairs of the universe simply because the universe is what Christ says it is. The unbelieving scientist borrows or steals the Christian principles of creation and providence every time he says that an “explanation” is possible, for he knows he cannot account for “explanation” on his own. As the image-bearer of God, operating in a universe controlled by God, the unbeliever contributes indirectly and adventitiously to the development of human knowledge and culture.”

The underlined portion is what I meant when I said that the natural man uses Christian presuppositions. Everything is a Christian presupposition but only a true Christian acknowledges this.

 

[RamistThomist]

“The Calvinist, therefore, using his point of contact, observes to the non-Christian that if the world were not what Scripture says it is, if the natural man’s knowledge were not actually rooted in the creation and providence of God, then there could be no knowledge whatsoever.

As it stands, this is correct. A common criticism to presuppositionalists is that they confuse the order of being with the order of knowing. RC Sproul is very clear on this point: without God not only can you not know anything, you wouldn't even exist (that is true because of the cosmological argument). Presuppositionalists err in thinking that this order of being is also the same as the order of knowing, and it manifestly is not. In terms of being, God is logically prior. In terms of knowing, he usually isn't. Before I can even say "I believe in God," I have to first use the laws of logic and natural revelation to even get to that point.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'll restate it another way. The distinction between order of knowing and order of being doesn't refute the essence of presuppositionalism. A presuppositionalist can (and ought!) affirm it. If presuppositionalists would drop their idea that miracles need to be presupposed for validity (a contradiction in terms), drop their bombastic rhetoric on how everyone is autonomous, then I probably wouldn't have too much of a problem with it.

 

[A.Joseph]

As it stands, this is correct. A common criticism to presuppositionalists is that they confuse the order of being with the order of knowing. RC Sproul is very clear on this point: without God not only can you not know anything, you wouldn't even exist (that is true because of the cosmological argument). Presuppositionalists err in thinking that this order of being is also the same as the order of knowing, and it manifestly is not. In terms of being, God is logically prior. In terms of knowing, he usually isn't. Before I can even say "I believe in God," I have to first use the laws of logic and natural revelation to even get to that point.

Primarily, the context of this discussion, in order to avoid confusion or even absurdity, is apologetics.

The way some of these discussions are framed, or, shall I say, taken out of context, necessitates a disclaimer regarding the original context of the discussion.

Who was CVT writing to and for? what did he have in view? I’m not saying his views on these matters shouldn’t be able to stand outside of his original context. But the foundation should be acknowledged by later critics.

 

[A.Joseph]

If presuppositionalists would drop

1. their idea that miracles need to be presupposed for validity (a contradiction in terms),
2. drop their bombastic rhetoric on how everyone is autonomous,

then I probably wouldn't have too much of a problem with it.

I do believe presuppositionalists could come off pretty hardcore. Patience and compassion are a must for sure.

I’m sorry, could you further clarify your 2 requirements so I better understand those points? Thanks!!!

 

[RamistThomist]

I do believe presuppositionalists could come off pretty hardcore. Patience and compassion are a must for sure.

I’m sorry, could you further clarify your 2 requirements so I better understand those points? Thanks!!!

1*) CVT in one passage (I have it at home) said one must presuppose the miracles in Scripture. That's not how Scripture uses miracles. A miracle is supposed to confirm the message (that is the number one argument cessationists use). If a miracle has to be presupposed in order to be believed, then what is the point of the miracle?

2*) See almost any passage where classical apologists are called autonomous for appealing to man's autonomous reasoning.

 

[Ethan]

2*) See almost any passage where classical apologists are called autonomous for appealing to man's autonomous reasoning.

As a believer thinking analogically, I can't satisfactorily prove the truth of the our self-contained triune God to someone thinking univocally unless they step into my shoes and acknowledge the creator-creature distinction. Doesn't the classical approach deny this? I've been forced to dip my toes into apologetics as I'm finishing up AP101 at WTS. I read Fesko's Reforming Apologetics as well to try and see both sides but the class has me currently leaning more into Van Til. I'd appreciate any insight.

 

[A.Joseph]

1*) CVT in one passage (I have it at home) said one must presuppose the miracles in Scripture. That's not how Scripture uses miracles. A miracle is supposed to confirm the message (that is the number one argument cessationists use). If a miracle has to be presupposed in order to be believed, then what is the point of the miracle?

I think you are conflating things on this point and ultimately conceding to the skeptics. Scripture attests to the greatest miracle of all in the Resurrection. Our knowledge of this is received by divine revelation. So your true statement does not negate CVTs. If CVT uses the word ‘presupposed’ it would be better if he said is ‘revealed by’ or ‘received by revelation’ or just ‘revelation’…. ‘attests’ or something like that.

Maybe the problem isn’t that the non-believer doesn’t believe these things but that we doubt them.

 

[RamistThomist]

As a believer thinking analogically, I can't satisfactorily prove the truth of the our self-contained triune God to someone thinking univocally unless they step into my shoes and acknowledge the creator-creature distinction. Doesn't the classical approach deny this?

No. I would first attack univocal knowledge and prove analogy. In any case, the unbeliever has no reason to step into your shoes. In fact, he won't, otherwise he would already be a believer.

 

[Ethan]

No. I would first attack univocal knowledge and prove analogy. In any case, the unbeliever has no reason to step into your shoes. In fact, he won't, otherwise he would already be a believer.

Can you explain how that is different than presuppositionalism? It looks to me like proving the impossibility of the contrary.

 

[RamistThomist]

Can you explain how that is different than presuppositionalism? It looks to me like proving the impossibility of the contrary.

If an unbeliever for some reason decided to step into the believer's shoes, then he would be agreeing with him.

Classical apologists have no problem showing internal consistencies in a false worldview. Naturalists cannot account for abstract entities. That's not what "impossibility of the contrary" means. Impossibility of the contrary (or the strong, global form of TAG) makes a far stronger claim: it asserts that *no* worldview save Christianity can account for x, y, z. The simple problem is they can't possibly know that. They haven't examined every single worldview.

It looks like this. They present it as

a V ~a (let ~ stand for the total of non-Christian worldviews)

In order for this disjunctive syllogism to be accurate, they have to then negate ~a, which would yield a. They cannot do that for the simple fact they don't know every single system. In practice it looks like this

a V ~a
~b
Therefore, a.

That's a logical fallacy.

 

[A.Joseph]

Here’s the whole enchilada by the way….