Natural Theology
I respond to a post on Mere
Orthodoxy
This post is a response to a post from
Peregrine Ward over at MereOrthodoxy. I was going to leave it as a
comment, but I thought my readers might be interested and want to weigh in as
well. Sorry for quoting his whole post, but its nice and concise and I think he
makes his point well. His quote is in blue and then I respond
below:
I have met many theologians who are skeptical of or even hostile to what is commonly called natural theology–in short, the discipline that seeks what knowledge of God might be known apart from special revelation.
An objection to natural theology would run something like this: since the God of the gospel is a Trinity of Persons, and since no natural theologian claims this as a deliverance of his arguments, the god revealed through natural theology is not the God of the gospel and hence not God at all.
This criticism is completely off base. It argues from from principles that the natural theologian, ex hypothesi, does not accept. Natural theology proceeds by reason alone, aided by the best that the sciences and metaphysics have to offer.Special revelation has no jurisdiction over natural theology, and where scripture does refer to it, natural theology is quite obviously affirmed (Romans 1:19-21), contra Barth.
As Aquinas pointed out, there can be several ways of approaching the same conclusion. Arguing that God is good is easy when your interlocutors are Jews or Muslims or Christians: refer them to the scripture you share. Arguing the same to atheists is more difficult: you must use the only authority you share, reason. If best reason points to a being who is the creator and sustainer of the universe, then fooey to the Barthians.
Luther weighed in on this as well. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but he said that investigating creation can be informative but not quite in the way you suggest. He says we indeed see God in the ocean, or in the providence of nature where things we need for survival are provided, like fire. But fire also burns, and people drown in the ocean. So the god we see revealed in nature appears harsh, with good standing alongside the bad in almost equal amounts. It is only when we see the Cross, which can only be revealed through Scripture, that we can know for sure that there truly is a God who is both just and good, and who loves us so immeasurably.
My take on it would be a bit of both - I agree with you that the God revealed in nature (and by reason, etc) can be the same God revealed by Scripture. I think that Romans 1 is absolutely a confirmation that many things about God can be known exclusively from nature. However, those things only reveal our condemnation, not the Cross. So while we are guilty based on nature alone, we cannot be saved apart from God's revelation in His Word, any more than we could be saved apart from The Word becoming flesh.
I would suspect, however, that the intention of natural theology is not to replace but to complement biblical and systematic theology. In this capacity, I would support natural theology because it is another means of learning truth about God (who did, after all, create reason and nature and declared them good). We just need to be conscious about the limits of such inquiry, and maintain our love for scripture over and above any other means of finding truth.
I have met many theologians who are skeptical of or even hostile to what is commonly called natural theology–in short, the discipline that seeks what knowledge of God might be known apart from special revelation.
An objection to natural theology would run something like this: since the God of the gospel is a Trinity of Persons, and since no natural theologian claims this as a deliverance of his arguments, the god revealed through natural theology is not the God of the gospel and hence not God at all.
This criticism is completely off base. It argues from from principles that the natural theologian, ex hypothesi, does not accept. Natural theology proceeds by reason alone, aided by the best that the sciences and metaphysics have to offer.Special revelation has no jurisdiction over natural theology, and where scripture does refer to it, natural theology is quite obviously affirmed (Romans 1:19-21), contra Barth.
As Aquinas pointed out, there can be several ways of approaching the same conclusion. Arguing that God is good is easy when your interlocutors are Jews or Muslims or Christians: refer them to the scripture you share. Arguing the same to atheists is more difficult: you must use the only authority you share, reason. If best reason points to a being who is the creator and sustainer of the universe, then fooey to the Barthians.
Luther weighed in on this as well. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but he said that investigating creation can be informative but not quite in the way you suggest. He says we indeed see God in the ocean, or in the providence of nature where things we need for survival are provided, like fire. But fire also burns, and people drown in the ocean. So the god we see revealed in nature appears harsh, with good standing alongside the bad in almost equal amounts. It is only when we see the Cross, which can only be revealed through Scripture, that we can know for sure that there truly is a God who is both just and good, and who loves us so immeasurably.
My take on it would be a bit of both - I agree with you that the God revealed in nature (and by reason, etc) can be the same God revealed by Scripture. I think that Romans 1 is absolutely a confirmation that many things about God can be known exclusively from nature. However, those things only reveal our condemnation, not the Cross. So while we are guilty based on nature alone, we cannot be saved apart from God's revelation in His Word, any more than we could be saved apart from The Word becoming flesh.
I would suspect, however, that the intention of natural theology is not to replace but to complement biblical and systematic theology. In this capacity, I would support natural theology because it is another means of learning truth about God (who did, after all, create reason and nature and declared them good). We just need to be conscious about the limits of such inquiry, and maintain our love for scripture over and above any other means of finding truth.
Posted: Fri - March 24, 2006 at 09:58 AM | | | | | | |
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Highlighted posts
Blogs of interest
The Thinkery
Anesthetic Smoke
The Bottleneck
A Firm Nail
Eidos : Dr. John Mark Reynolds
Mere Orthodoxy
A Voice in the Wilderness
Jollyblogger
Squiblog
Beyond the Rim
ESV Bible blog
Anesthetic Smoke
The Bottleneck
A Firm Nail
Eidos : Dr. John Mark Reynolds
Mere Orthodoxy
A Voice in the Wilderness
Jollyblogger
Squiblog
Beyond the Rim
ESV Bible blog
Brought to you by
The Church Directory
Counters provided by
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Mar 24, 2006 09:58 AM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Mar 24, 2006 09:58 AM
Search
The Tip Jar
Counter provided by
Brought to you by
