What is the limit of Natural Revelation and Natural Theology?

But...I think Van Til would argue that unbelievers are acting on Christian presuppositions/biblical worldview ("borrowed capital") - a worldview that can only be derived from special revelation - when they do math, science, etc. So of course special revelation does not tell you anything specific about the quadratic formula, but Van Til never claimed that it did.
As a Thomist, seeing God as prior in the order of being (though not in knowing), I don't disagree. My only qualm is that "giving an account of x" is irrelevant to the definition of knowledge as justified, true belief. If one, on the other hand, holds to a coherentist* theory of knowledge, then giving an account of x is necessary.

* I know CVT said he doesn't hold to either coherentist or correspondence theories of truth, but statements like "given an account of" lean heavily coherentist.
 
But I think the question is "if that the Old apologetic founded in Reformeds and Puritans ismot the Reformed Apologetic"
He criated a new different system, and it's not correctly by bible, reformed theology or reason.
So all futher development or refinement in theology/apologetics after the Puritans is completely new/different, not correct nor biblical, and no one after them had anything important to contribute to the Reformed tradition?

Can you provide specific examples where Van Til departed from the Westminster standards, which he subscribed to?
 
This statement of his could mean several things:

1) Natural revelation never existed in the abstract and there was always special revelation.

2) Natural revelation must always have special revelation to interpret it.

(1) is true. (2) is false. Special revelation tells me nothing about the quadratic formula.
You know Van Til is famous for saying "unbelievers can count, many times better than believers but can he "account" for counting?" I think that frames the whole discussion can a comprehensive and "deep to the root" understanding (not use of) of creation be possible if Christian theism isn't true and can Christian theism be the foundation by which we interpret reality to its deepest core? That interpretation requires special revelation.
 
But I think the question is "if that the Old apologetic founded in Reformeds and Puritans ismot the Reformed Apologetic"
He criated a new different system, and it's not correctly by bible, reformed theology or reason.
How is that? I'm not arguing for "the Reformed apologetic" but you seem to be claiming he's against everything biblical, reformed, and rational? I wonder if you could flesh out what you mean?
 
As a Thomist, seeing God as prior in the order of being (though not in knowing), I don't disagree. My only qualm is that "giving an account of x" is irrelevant to the definition of knowledge as justified, true belief. If one, on the other hand, holds to a coherentist* theory of knowledge, then giving an account of x is necessary.

* I know CVT said he doesn't hold to either coherentist or correspondence theories of truth, but statements like "given an account of" lean heavily coherentist.
He holds to a revealational epistemology.
 
Can you be more specific about what you deem to be heterodox in the Van Til quote I provided or the way I summarized his views? He did not deny the Reformed doctrine of general/natural revelation...if that's what you mean? However, he may have placed more limits on its value than some other Reformed theologians.
I think natural theology, creation and apologetics.
And, in some sense, I think it could affect antroplogy and theontology too.
 
How is that? I'm not arguing for "the Reformed apologetic" but you seem to be claiming he's against everything biblical, reformed, and rational? I wonder if you could flesh out what you mean?
I'm sorry for the confusion
Not everything biblical, reformed and rational.
Only in the specific point discussed here.
 
Limits of natural theology are this. Thought experiment: my neighbor says he/she believes in "god", good so do I.
Good got a nice start from natural theology. Van Til asks "is that really theology or just simply revelation?" He continues "theology is a rational exercise, discursive in nature. Did you check their work to make sure their neutral starting point logically entails the conclusion? After all a good piece of knowledge (theology) can't be true if its arrived at by use of fallacies."
He continues "what sort of god are they believing in? A candy shop god who tries to give us everything we want? Thats hardly the God of scripture." "You see once you get them to define what God they're talking about than you see that apart from special revelation they can't/won't define God by the bible."
"But they know all kinds of things apart from revelation. My plumber is an atheist and the most knowledgeable plumber I've met" you may respond.
Van Til continues "good they know all sorts of things, sometimes better than us. But you said or implied that natural theology can prove this or that and I'm asking if you can't even get the definition of God right from natural theology than how useful is it?"
The classical apologist lays out highly complex argument for existence of God. Van Til says "well I stand corrected you can discursivlly prove some undefined God from nature if you only have a master's degree, or something equivalent, to build that theology up. Hardly the everyone that Paul has in mind in Romans but its somebody, somewhere, using reason correctly that might come to that conclusion."
He continues "let's set aside natural theology for a second and stick with general revelation instead. We know from Paul that this revelation is clear and available to all apart from discursive reasoning, or else you fall into the trap layed out above. So its immediate not just from without but within. That is the only way do justice to what Paul says." Thats his view as far as I can tell. At least my argument is in the spirit of Van Til’s view.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry for the confusion
Not everything biblical, reformed and rational.
Only in the specific point discussed here.
So you're referring to natural theology alone? Read my last long post and tell me how you would respond please. I think it sums up the limits of natural theology.
 
So all futher development or refinement in theology/apologetics after the Puritans is completely new/different, not correct nor biblical, and no one after them had anything important to contribute to the Reformed tradition?

Can you provide specific examples where Van Til departed from the Westminster standards, which he subscribed to?
No. I'm Partial Preterist, so I have a different eschatology of most reformed and puritans
I think my specific kind of cessationism is different too

But I was speaking about natural theology, apologetics and creation
I think the quotes sent by others users in this thread show that he does not follow WCF
As Gordon Clark too
I think no pressup can follow one puritan confession of faith (LBCF, WCF and Savoy)

I recommend to take a look on this
 
No. I'm Partial Preterist, so I have a different eschatology of most reformed and puritans
I think my specific kind of cessationism is different too

But I was speaking about natural theology, apologetics and creation
I think the quotes sent by others users in this thread show that he does not follow WCF
As Gordon Clark too
I think no pressup can follow one puritan confession of faith (LBCF, WCF and Savoy)

I recommend to take a look on this
There is no contradiction between being a Vantillian and a belief in natural law. Myself and most of the faculty of WSC see no problem with it, ask Dr. Clark. But I saw no reference to natural theology or classical apologetics in those confessional quotes do Van Til, most of WSC/WTS, Vantillians in general, and myself miss something?
 
Limits of natural theology are this. Thought experiment: my neighbor says he/she believes in "god", good so do I.
Good got a nice start from natural theology. Van Til asks "is that really theology or just simply revelation?" He continues "theology is a rational exercise, discursive in nature. Did you check their work to make sure their neutral starting point logically entails the conclusion? After all a good piece of knowledge (theology) can't be true if its arrived at by use of fallacies."
He continues "what sort of god are they believing in? A candy shop god who tries to give us everything we want? Thats hardly the God of scripture." "You see once you get them to define what God they're talking about than you see that apart from special revelation they can't/won't define God by the bible."
"But they know all kinds of things apart from revelation. My plumber is an atheist and the most knowledgeable plumber I've met" you may respond.
Van Til continues "good they know all sorts of things, sometimes better than us. But you said or implied that natural theology can prove this or that and I'm asking if you can't even get the definition of God right from natural theology than how useful is it?"
The classical apologist lays out highly complex argument for existence of God. Van Til says "well I stand corrected you can discursivlly prove some undefined God from nature if you only have a master's degree, or something equivalent, to build that theology up. Hardly the everyone that Paul has in mind in Romans but its somebody, somewhere, using reason correctly that might come to that conclusion."
He continues "let's set aside natural theology for a second and stick with general revelation instead. We know from Paul that this revelation is clear and available to all apart from discursive reasoning, or else you fall into the trap layed out above. So its immediate not just from without but within. That is the only way do justice to what Paul says." Thats his view as far as I can tell. At least my argument is in the spirit of Van Til’s view.
There is no contradiction between being a Vantillian and a belief in natural law. Myself and most of the faculty of WSC see no problem with it, ask Dr. Clark. But I saw no reference to natural theology or classical apologetics in those confessional quotes do Van Til, most of WSC/WTS, Vantillians in general, and myself miss something?
This quote, but I think it's a secondary quote

Van Til: “revelation in nature was never meant to function by itself. It was from the beginning insufficient without its supernatural concomitant.” (Wooley, The Infallible Word, 275).
 
The Reformed generally state that God's existence and attributes (simple, immutable, eternal, omnipotent, just, merciful, etc) are revealed in nature, as well as the moral law (thou shalt not murder, commit adultery, etc).
This lines up well with Romans 1-2, which says his "eternal power and Godhead" is revealed, and that "the work of the law written in their hearts."
The following is not revealed in nature: the Trinity, the gospel, the work of Christ, etc.
Do you think the Days of the creation and/or the 4th Commandament can be achieved by Natural Revelation, without the Scriptures?
Or Is this an exception?
Or there is an exception with the entire first table?
 
So you're referring to natural theology alone? Read my last long post and tell me how you would respond please. I think it sums up the limits of natural theology.
Almost it
Natural Theology, Creation (in some sense) and Apologetics

I think it CAN affect Antropology and Theontology too, considering Rm 1 and Acts 16
But somethings don't follow directly some logical implications, so I only think it can affect
 
But I prefer to focus more in the limit of Natural Revelation and Natural Theology than focus on Van Til, Clark and Cheung
 
Do you think the Days of the creation and/or the 4th Commandament can be achieved by Natural Revelation, without the Scriptures?
Or Is this an exception?
Or there is an exception with the entire first table?
The Reformed have always said the 4th commandment has both natural and positive aspects. The natural/moral law aspect would be setting aside time for the worship of God. Specifically doing so one day in seven, on Sunday, requires special revelation.
 
But I prefer to focus more in the limit of Natural Revelation and Natural Theology than focus on Van Til, Clark and Cheung
Fair enough. I already gave you limits to natural theology but here's some more. Natural theology is not natural revelation. One is from God alone the other is a rational and discursive method for "proving" truths about God from natural revelation alone. What truths though? What value are these truths? Do they get one out of the trap I mentioned before? I don't see how.
To equate natural revelation with natural theology is a category confusion by definition. It seems that some people confuse the two not so much in theory but in practice and make it a confessional issue. What do I mean.
Some people want to see natural theology and classical apologetics as the confessional view. But even in the above website the confession speaks of natural/general revelation not classical apologetics and natural theology. The only way that argument sticks is if one assumes no difference between the category theology and revelation. That's a limit in the argument.
Another limit. We hear a lot about how the Reformed Orthodox believed in natural theology but no illustrations or examples on how they built it up are given? Its one thing to say the Reformed Orthodox believed in natural theology therefore you must believe in natural theology. And another thing to show how Reformed Orthodoxy did build a positive theology from nature alone. If you can't do it in practice than thats a serious limit.
 
For the record I'm not opposed to natural theology per se. Just to claims that we must affirm it without seeing any fruitful example of it. Why should I do the hard work of trying to build up some version of natural theology just to see if it works or not, that's not my job. And since the Bible and confessions only refer to what can be known by natural revelation they are moot points to bring up without examples of positive knowledge that can be proven from nature alone. And every quote I've read presented by Reformed Orthodoxy seems to be referring to natural revelation I don't think they get you very far, unless I missed something.
 
For the record I'm not opposed to natural theology per se. Just to claims that we must affirm it without seeing any fruitful example of it. Why should I do the hard work of trying to build up some version of natural theology just to see if it works or not, that's not my job. And since the Bible and confessions only refer to what can be known by natural revelation they are moot points to bring up without examples of positive knowledge that can be proven from nature alone. And every quote I've read presented by Reformed Orthodoxy seems to be referring to natural revelation I don't think they get you very far, unless I missed something.
There are a lot of examples of natural theology, classical apologetics, and theistic proofs in the Reformed Orthodox.
A few that come to mind are Turretin, Polanus, Heidegger, Paulus Voetius, Matthew Barker, Van Mastricht, and Alsted. Not to mention works of "special metaphysics" which get into the issue, like Senguerdius. The fullest system of natural theology is that of Paulus Voetius, Gisbertus Voetius's son.
 
The Reformed have always said the 4th commandment has both natural and positive aspects. The natural/moral law aspect would be setting aside time for the worship of God. Specifically doing so one day in seven, on Sunday, requires special revelation.
I know that

But and about that the world was created in 6 days? Is it possible by natural revelation?

I think if you know there is a week and we know the natural duty of "rest and worship god by a entire day", by creation, we can think in the seventh day
Because is the last day of the week, so we will rest of our labor too
 
For the record I'm not opposed to natural theology per se. Just to claims that we must affirm it without seeing any fruitful example of it. Why should I do the hard work of trying to build up some version of natural theology just to see if it works or not, that's not my job. And since the Bible and confessions only refer to what can be known by natural revelation they are moot points to bring up without examples of positive knowledge that can be proven from nature alone. And every quote I've read presented by Reformed Orthodoxy seems to be referring to natural revelation I don't think they get you very far, unless I missed something.
For you, when the confession uses "natural revelation", "natural law", "light of nature" and these kind of speech, they are arguing for a kind of natural theology?
 
Fair enough. I already gave you limits to natural theology but here's some more. Natural theology is not natural revelation. One is from God alone the other is a rational and discursive method for "proving" truths about God from natural revelation alone. What truths though? What value are these truths? Do they get one out of the trap I mentioned before? I don't see how.
To equate natural revelation with natural theology is a category confusion by definition. It seems that some people confuse the two not so much in theory but in practice and make it a confessional issue. What do I mean.
Some people want to see natural theology and classical apologetics as the confessional view. But even in the above website the confession speaks of natural/general revelation not classical apologetics and natural theology. The only way that argument sticks is if one assumes no difference between the category theology and revelation. That's a limit in the argument.
Another limit. We hear a lot about how the Reformed Orthodox believed in natural theology but no illustrations or examples on how they built it up are given? Its one thing to say the Reformed Orthodox believed in natural theology therefore you must believe in natural theology. And another thing to show how Reformed Orthodoxy did build a positive theology from nature alone. If you can't do it in practice than thats a serious limit.
I think they are different issues, but I think that reformed tradition or all entire christian tradition affirm both.

Westminster Standards are not my standards*, so I will leave this confessional part for a Westminster brother answer

BTW I know 1689 Agree with WCF in these points...
 
But I was speaking about natural theology, apologetics and creation
I think the quotes sent by others users in this thread show that he does not follow WCF
As Gordon Clark too
I think no pressup can follow one puritan confession of faith (LBCF, WCF and Savoy)
Again...please provide specific proof/examples of where Van Til and all presuppositionalists depart from the WCF? Which chapter(s) and section(s) of the WCF are they at odds with? If you are going to make the claim that Van Til (and apparently everyone claiming to be presuppositionalists) are heterodox and at odds with the Reformed confessions, then you need to be prepared to back that up with evidence. That is a bold accusation against a man who spent his entire career defending the Reformed faith both from the pulpit and in the seminary classroom...and I'm sure that accusation would also apply to many folks here on the PB who are presuppositionalists.

"Throughout his writings Van Til vigorously affirmed the standard Reformed doctrine of general (natural) revelation. He consistently argued that the first chapter of Romans teaches not only that all people can know God through nature, but that they do know God and his moral requirements because of natural revelation. We may deny the revelation of God in all things, but we cannot escape it. Because the universe reveals God to all, all know him."
-
Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr.
 
Last edited:
There are a lot of examples of natural theology, classical apologetics, and theistic proofs in the Reformed Orthodox.
A few that come to mind are Turretin, Polanus, Heidegger, Paulus Voetius, Matthew Barker, Van Mastricht, and Alsted. Not to mention works of "special metaphysics" which get into the issue, like Senguerdius. The fullest system of natural theology is that of Paulus Voetius, Gisbertus Voetius's son.
Thank you that is most helpful. Could you say give some general type of argument they generally used? We'll keep it off of specific people to make it manageable for both of our sakes. A general argument would show what kind of theology we're talking about. Also how would you and/or they have answered let's say some of the problems I previously mentioned, to be fair and manageable?
 
For you, when the confession uses "natural revelation", "natural law", "light of nature" and these kind of speech, they are arguing for a kind of natural theology?
Well natural theology and natural revelation are two different categories of things and you cannot confuse the two. To jump from clear affirmations of natural revelation to affirmations of natural theology is a jump in logic. Unless of course you are willing to commit a category mistake in your argument, which invalidates it. And what those phrases have to do with classical apologetics is beyond me.
To be clear if someone wants to practice classical apologetics that is fine by me, I will stand shoulder to shoulder with my brother and/or sister in the faith to do so. With the unbeliever having no knowledge of a "family squabble" over method (keep it in the family, its none of their business).
But this business, which Vantillians started, of seeing who's confessional and who's not is a burden of proof beyond which the evidence can hold. Trying to smuggle in classical or presuppositional methods as the confessional method is in my opinion is alosing argument.
But to your point, those references may be implying a natural theology of some kind. I don't think so but you do than what kind? Give some practical definition to start out with, please.
 
Trying to smuggle in classical or presuppositional methods as the confessional method is in my opinion is alosing argument.
I agree with this statement...although it is interesting that the Westminster Divines chose the self-authenticating Holy Scriptures- rather than the classic theistic proofs - as the starting point and foundation for the greatest Reformed confession ever written. ;)
 
I agree with this statement...although it is interesting that the Westminster Divines chose the self-authenticating Holy Scriptures- rather than the classic theistic proofs - as the starting point and foundation for the greatest Reformed confession ever written. ;)

They did so because they saw the scriptures as the princinpium cognoscendi, not the principium essendi.
 
Thank you that is most helpful. Could you say give some general type of argument they generally used? We'll keep it off of specific people to make it manageable for both of our sakes. A general argument would show what kind of theology we're talking about. Also how would you and/or they have answered let's say some of the problems I previously mentioned, to be fair and manageable?

This is what Amandus Polanus had to say on the existence of God:

Chapter IV​

In which it is demonstrated that God exists.​

Seeing as there were atheists in ancient times, and there are today, who deny God, there, we will briefly teach that God exists, though it is a principle; that is, an axiom that is self-authenticating and indemonstrable, and therefore, it should be believed by all simply, and without demonstration.
Theodorus Cyrenaeus and Evemerus Tegeates thought there is no God, as Plutarch testifies, and after him, Bishop Theodoret of Cyrus, in the second sermon of de curatione Graecarum affectionum. But how many are Christians only in name, and in matter of fact are atheists, and deny God? Ps. 14. “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God.”
It can be demonstrated by a demonstration of ‘because’ that God exists, even though Petrus de Alliaco, in I. Rabbini Mosis, following the delusions of the Jews, denied it. Moreover, this demonstration is the cause of the knowledge of God that we call acquired, which must be distinguished from innate and infused knowledge.
Therefore, nature and reason teach all men, even those ignorant of the Word of God, that God exists, sufficiently for them to be inexcusable, Rom. 1:19-20, as the following indications show:
  1. The consideration of the world, the mass, the skillful production, the form, the continuous sustaining, the very wise governance, the innumerable variety, the order of bodies, the diverse movement, and the admirable virtues of which teach that there is some intelligent nature from which all of these things come. Ps. 8, 19, Rom. 1:19-20. “Seeing as τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, that which can be known of God, is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For the invisible things of him are clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” Act. 14:17, “Nevertheless, he did not leave himself without witness, in that he did good and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.” From here, that axiom repeated by the gentile philosophers: “nothing is the cause of itself,” unless the prior and the consequent are the same as it. It would be no less foolish than false to affirm that the same thing is in the same sense simultaneously in potency and act. At any rate, a cause was needed which would produce the world and all its parts. Diagoras openly and explicitly denied that God exists, and not having wood to cook his turnips with, he cut up a statue of Hercules, as Athenagoras relates in Legatio pro Christianis. And in the same place, he recalls that an infamous rumor of three scandalous acts was spread concerning Christians: impiety, that they did away with Gods, cannibalistic feasts, and incestuous copulation. But Athenagoras proves that these scandalous deeds were slanderously attributed to Christians. Justin Martyr testifies that Christians were called atheists, Apologia II. ad Antoninum Pium Imperatorem. But Christians by no means deny that God exists. It is a delusion of the heathens; and therefore, we take up nature arguments to prove that God exists. Hermes Trismegistus said in Poemandres, “Indeed, God cannot be penetrated by human reason, but he can be touched by hands.”
  2. The principles innate in us, which are the starting points of doctrines, which it is necessary to have been engraved in the minds of man by an intelligent nature. Rom. 1:19.
  3. The special knowledge naturally inherent in us that God exists.
  4. The proper testimony of our conscience, upon thunder and other unusual storms, earthquakes, which is frightened, and fears God the judge on account of wicked deeds, and thus, shudders with some trepidation, as may be seen in Caesar Caligula, as Suetonius testifies on Caligula, ch. 51.
  5. Punishments for evil deeds, inflicted upon the wicked even in this life, concerning which Thucydides says, μεγάλων ἀδικημάτων μεγάλαι τιμωρίαι εἰσὶ παρὰ Θεοῦ. “To great evil deeds belong great acts of vengeance from God.”
  6. The establishing and conserving of political order.
  7. Particular virtues and motions in heroic persons. Hence, by Homer, heroes are called “god-like.”
  8. Indications of future things. Cicero said concerning divination, “If there is divination, there are gods.”
  9. The end of all natural things. For, since it is most certain in all things, and so very few things, rather, have a view to or perceive that end to which they constantly are inclined and continue, it is wholly necessary for there to be some mind that understands all things, and governs particular things and directs them to their ends.
  10. The series of causes that does not progress into infinity, leading by hand, as it were, to some first mover, upon whom all motions, actions, and effects depend.
  11. Worship itself, whether religious or superstitious, introduced by fear of the deity.
  12. The common confession and consent of all peoples, even the most savage. “For no people is so barbaric that it does not judge that there is some god, indeed, so that men prefer to have a false god to none at all: certainly, a sense of the divinity sits so highly in our hearts.” Cicero, Tusc. Sen. 1.21. ep. 118. Divinus ille Jamblichus, de mysteriis. ch. 1.
  13. A sense of the goodness of God; that is, of the immense spiritual and corporal benefits of God. For that we live, that we move, and that we exist is a benefit of his. Act. 14:15. And so many benefits of his surround us that he is nearly felt by us, Act. 17:27. Seneca, de benefic. 4.4.
  14. The excellence of our mind. For, that we reason, that we dispute in our mind, and that we think up various arts and exercise them, is done by the benefit of God. The soul, in itself, is immobile, and at the same time, by its will it governs all the motions of the body, it reveals itself by admirable effects, and yet, it is not discerned with the eyes, nor can it be comprehended with sharpness of mind. This compels us to think that there is some mind that goes, moves, and guides all these things: that there is a Spirit in whom we live, move, and have our being. Man even sees and feels in himself that there is a God, whether he beholds the body or considers the soul.
  15. The immortality of our soul. For the soul goes forth to God, when it departs this body, and flies away as from a prison: and the gentiles said that the soul is our little part of the divine breath.
  16. Admirable, remarkable, and unexpected events that could not be done except by a most powerful nature, with which the theater of human life is full.
From these very many arguments, it can be clear to any, even one ignorant of the Holy Scriptures, that God exists. And thus, absolutely all men know that God exists from the touch of divinity, before all use of reason. And thus, Thomas Aquinas and other scholastics deny in vain that God is known in himself.
The Holy Scripture, rather, and the Christian Faith sufficiently teach for salvation that God exists and whatever is to be believed concerning him, as shall be clear further on.
 
I agree with this statement...although it is interesting that the Westminster Divines chose the self-authenticating Holy Scriptures- rather than the classic theistic proofs - as the starting point and foundation for the greatest Reformed confession ever written. ;)
They start the larger catechism out with this:
"Q. 2. How doth it appear that there is a God?
A. The very light of nature in man, and the works of God, declare plainly that there is a God..."
 
They start the larger catechism out with this:
"Q. 2. How doth it appear that there is a God?
A. The very light of nature in man, and the works of God, declare plainly that there is a God..."
They did so because they saw the scriptures as the princinpium cognoscendi, not the principium essendi.
You guys saw the emoji indicating it was a joke...right? I even prefaced it by saying I agreed with the statement that one can't "smuggle in classical or presuppositional methods as the confessional method...".
 
Back
Top