What is the limit of Natural Revelation and Natural Theology?

Angelo Neves said:
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...
Click to expand...
I think you're referring to the Great Tradition correct? If I'm wrong then please correct me. If I'm right than it seems odd from one point of view that that is the direction you took it. It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that that argument is being used by some as a conversation stopper. You or anyone else could've answered the questions in some form but everyone chose not to.
There's nothing wrong with that at all. Sometimes all of us get wrapped up debates with opposing sides, thats being human. But we don't think through the arguments or definitions on either side to be prepared for discussion and/or debate over the issues.
Back to my point the Great Tradition argument is useful at times but unnecessarily glosses over things. Was Turtillian (sure I misspelled that) a classical apologist? Maybe depending on how you define it I guess. The point being no set of useful definition of the Great Tradition will be rich enough to include everyone we want to in opposition to ther other people (outside of what is contained in the creeds).
 
jwright82 said:
I think you're referring to the Great Tradition correct? If I'm wrong then please correct me. If I'm right than it seems odd from one point of view that that is the direction you took it. It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that that argument is being used by some as a conversation stopper. You or anyone else could've answered the questions in some form but everyone chose not to.
There's nothing wrong with that at all. Sometimes all of us get wrapped up debates with opposing sides, thats being human. But we don't think through the arguments or definitions on either side to be prepared for discussion and/or debate over the issues.
Back to my point the Great Tradition argument is useful at times but unnecessarily glosses over things. Was Turtillian (sure I misspelled that) a classical apologist? Maybe depending on how you define it I guess. The point being no set of useful definition of the Great Tradition will be rich enough to include everyone we want to in opposition to ther other people (outside of what is contained in the creeds).
Click to expand...
Both Traditions
But I've said that I prefer don't focus on Van Til, Clark or Cheung
I've sent the secondary quote (If I remember correctly). I could try to find the others quotes that I saw before here, but I prefer to leave it

My focus in the thread is much more the limit of Natural Revelation and Natural Theology, than debate about the existence of Natural Theology...
 
If anyone is interesting in a classical approach to natural theology, Puritan Matthew Barker gives a solid example in his Natural Theology: or, the Knowledge of God from the Works of Creation. And best of all, it's in English.
For an example of Reformed Orthodox classical apologetics, Jacques Abbadie, Vindication of the Truth of the Christian Religion (vol. 1, 2) is very solid. And a similar work by Philippe Du Plessis Mornay is positively referenced by Van Mastricht and other writers of the era.
While Paulus Voet's Theologia Naturalis Reformata is the most elaborate, systematic approach to natural theology from the Reformed Orthodox.
 
Charles Johnson said:
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.
Click to expand...
Now, I saw this point on WLC
Q. 121. Why is the word Remember set in the beginning of the fourth commandment?
A. The word Remember is set in the beginning of the fourth commandment, partly, because of the great benefit of remembering it, we being thereby helped in our preparation to keep it, and, in keeping it, better to keep all the rest of the commandments, and to continue a thankful remembrance of the two great benefits of creation and redemption, which contain a short abridgment of religion; and partly, because we are very ready to forget it, for that there is less light of nature for it, and yet it restraineth our natural liberty in things at other times lawful; that it cometh but once in seven days, and many worldly businesses come between, and too often take off our minds from thinking of it, either to prepare for it, or to sanctify it; and that Satan with his instruments much labor to blot out the glory, and even the memory of it, to bring in all irreligion and impiety.
Click to expand...
 
Charles Johnson said:
If anyone is interesting in a classical approach to natural theology, Puritan Matthew Barker gives a solid example in his Natural Theology: or, the Knowledge of God from the Works of Creation. And best of all, it's in English.
For an example of Reformed Orthodox classical apologetics, Jacques Abbadie, Vindication of the Truth of the Christian Religion (vol. 1, 2) is very solid. And a similar work by Philippe Du Plessis Mornay is positively referenced by Van Mastricht and other writers of the era.
While Paulus Voet's Theologia Naturalis Reformata is the most elaborate, systematic approach to natural theology from the Reformed Orthodox.
Click to expand...
Thanks
 
Angelo Neves said:
Now, I saw this point on WLC
Click to expand...
The Confession of Faith explicitly distinguishes the aspects of the 4th commandment that are natural and those that are positive:
As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him
Click to expand...
 
Charles Johnson said:
This is what Amandus Polanus had to say on the existence of God:
Click to expand...
Thank you that was a pleasant read. Taking into account the historical context in which he's writing, to expect him or anyone of his time to anticipate Darwin or computers is ridiculous, its seems like a good amount of evidences and under developed arguments. That's not a problem if one takes into account the development of the classical method by more recent apologists.
Also his lack of defining God is problematic but again in his time there was a sort of agreed upon definition to work from. Also something more recent apologists could refine.
But that aside how does the more recent classical apologist overcome the limits to natural theology that I laid out?
 
Angelo Neves said:
Both Traditions
But I've said that I prefer don't focus on Van Til, Clark or Cheung
I've sent the secondary quote (If I remember correctly). I could try to find the others quotes that I saw before here, but I prefer to leave it

My focus in the thread is much more the limit of Natural Revelation and Natural Theology, than debate about the existence of Natural Theology...
Click to expand...
I'm confused, I didn't mention any of those people in my post. If your referring to the fact that I as a Vantillian approach this question from his perspective (without mentioning him I might add) than guilty as charged! But I can no more lay down my perspective anymore than anyone else can. So without explaining what you mean, I'm confused.
But I've given you plenty of limits, do you wish to discuss them or did you just want food for thought and not engage them? Either way is fine by me. I'm trying to ascertain what your end goal is: just information to mull over or to discuss them? Either way is fine.
As far the existence of natural theology as you put it. If the limitations put on natural theology seem to hard to bear and that leads to questioning the existence of natural theology than that is the natural progression of the reasoning process, not me confusing questions.
 
Last edited:
Using natural theology/classical apologetics, can one ever hope to "prove" anything more than some generic form of theism? That seems to be a huge limitation of natural revelation/natural theology.
 
CGS said:
Using natural theology/classical apologetics, can one ever hope to "prove" anything more than some generic form of theism? That seems to be a huge limitation of natural revelation/natural theology.
Click to expand...
Depends on what one is trying to do. Do I think I can prove the Self-Contained Concrete Universal from classical apologetics? Of course not. But there are a number of atheist avenues I can block. That's where conversation comes in and ministering to people.
 
jwright82 said:
Thank you that was a pleasant read. Taking into account the historical context in which he's writing, to expect him or anyone of his time to anticipate Darwin or computers is ridiculous, its seems like a good amount of evidences and under developed arguments. That's not a problem if one takes into account the development of the classical method by more recent apologists.
Also his lack of defining God is problematic but again in his time there was a sort of agreed upon definition to work from. Also something more recent apologists could refine.
But that aside how does the more recent classical apologist overcome the limits to natural theology that I laid out?
Click to expand...
The classical apologist starts with proving 1) there is a God, with certain attributes, and then argues 2) that the bible is divinely inspired, based on its contents, then 3) argues, based on the bible, for the Trinitarian God of Scripture. We would never claim that the basic theistic arguments prove the God of the bible in particular, without any reference to Scripture.
The Westminster Confession actually states the arguments or marks we use to prove the Scripture is from God:
"We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God"
(WCF 1.5)
Click to expand...
Of course, the Holy Spirit has to make these arguments effectual.
 
CGS said:
Using natural theology/classical apologetics, can one ever hope to "prove" anything more than some generic form of theism? That seems to be a huge limitation of natural revelation/natural theology.
Click to expand...
Yes. See #72, where I point out the evidences of the Scripture's divine origin which are taught in our Confession of Faith.
 
Charles Johnson said:
Yes. See #72, where I point out the evidences of the Scripture's divine origin which are taught in our Confession of Faith.
Click to expand...
But that is evidence that is internal to the Word of God itself (i.e. special revelation), not from nature/general revelation/natural theology/classical apologetics. Scripture has its own intrinsic qualities/excellencies that prove that it is the Word of God and which "are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God". As Chad Dixhoorn states in his commentary on this section of the WCF, "In a very real sense, we can say that Holy Scripture is self-authenticating."
 
Charles Johnson said:
The classical apologist starts with proving 1) there is a God, with certain attributes, and then argues 2) that the bible is divinely inspired, based on its contents, then 3) argues, based on the bible, for the Trinitarian God of Scripture. We would never claim that the basic theistic arguments prove the God of the bible in particular, without any reference to Scripture.
The Westminster Confession actually states the arguments or marks we use to prove the Scripture is from God:

Of course, the Holy Spirit has to make these arguments effectual.
Click to expand...
Ok. What god? With no definition to work from I'll assume your definition would be the confessions. How would you "prove" the confessional definition of God? Thats seems a tall order for anyone to do, myself included, without proving some god out there.
Point two. I wholeheartedly agree with the confession on the evidences (that's all they are) and proof by the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. So I'm good there, except how does accepting this section demand I accept all of classical apologetics? Don't think that proves that.
Why can't a Vantillian affirm the confession here? Most (all?) do. I think the problem is you put to much weight on the confession and tradition than it can hold.
But the OP was on the limits of natural theology, I gave many and no one has responded. That may be one more limit, an idea that can only be defended in the abstract.
The wonderful section that was provided to me does nothing but show a good example of how.
 
Last edited:
jwright82 said:
I'm confused, I didn't mention any of those people in my post. If your referring to the fact that I as a Vantillian approach this question from his perspective (without mentioning him I might add) than guilty as charged! But I can no more lay down my perspective anymore than anyone else can. So without explaining what you mean, I'm confused.
But I've given you plenty of limits, do you wish to discuss them or did you just want food for thought and not engage them? Either way is fine by me. I'm trying to ascertain what your end goal is: just information to mull over or to discuss them? Either way is fine.
As far the existence of natural theology as you put it. If the limitations put on natural theology seem to hard to bear and that leads to questioning the existence of natural theology than that is the natural progression of the reasoning process, not me confusing questions.
Click to expand...
Sorry If I was not clear and simple
I was not referring for your Vantillian approach
I was referring that my goal was not to focus on pressups, so I've cited all 3 theologians from the major schools

In this thread, my end is about Natural theology limit

Again, Sorry for any incovenient thing that, If I had said it
 
jwright82 said:
Ok. What god? With no definition to work from I'll assume your definition would be the confessions. How would you "prove" the confessional definition of God? Thats seems a tall order for anyone to do, myself included, without proving some god out there.
Point two. I wholeheartedly agree with the confession on the evidences (that's all they are) and proof by the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. So I'm good there, except how does excepting this section demand I accept all of classical apologetics? Don't think that proves that.
Why can't a Vantillian affirm the confession here? Most (all?) do. I think the problem is you put to much weight on the confession and tradition than it can hold.
But the OP was on the limits of natural theology, I gave many and no one has responded. That may be one more limit, an idea that can only be defended in the abstract.
The wonderful section that was provided to me does nothing but show a good example of how.
Click to expand...
We don't prove "what God", strictly speaking, without the Scripture. We only prove that there is a God, infinite, simple, etc.
 
Angelo Neves said:
Sorry If I was not clear and simple
I was not referring for your Vantillian approach
I was referring that my goal was not to focus on pressups, so I've cited all 3 theologians from the major schools

In this thread, my end is about Natural theology limit

Again, Sorry for any incovenient thing that, If I had said it
Click to expand...
No problem what did you think about the limits I gave you?
 
Charles Johnson said:
and then argues 2) that the bible is divinely inspired, based on its contents
Click to expand...
How does one does this without reference to the contents of special revelation? So at this point you have left the realm of purely general revelation. The only thing you can argue for using only general revelation is "there is a God, with certain attributes", i.e. a generic form of theism. Anything beyond that requires special revelation.
 
jwright82 said:
Ok. What about the other questions I had? Also I just assumed, as I said, you meant the confessional definition.
Click to expand...
I'll give it a shot:

Thesis: God is pure act.

1) If God is infinite, then
2) He is One, as there can't be two infinites.
3) If infinite, then eternal.
4) If eternal, then probably unchangeable
 
RamistThomist said:
I'll give it a shot:

Thesis: God is pure act.

1) If God is infinite, then
2) He is One, as there can't be two infinites.
3) If infinite, then eternal.
4) If eternal, then probably unchangeable
Click to expand...
Thsnk you Jacob. Now I'm assuming you're giving some positive content to natural theology? If thats wrong than please correct me.
Thesis, defines God as absolute perfection. Thats fine in that it defines the sort of knowledge to look for and it rules out other definitions not being talked about. Also I'm going to take the liberty of combining pure act (or perfection) with the other attributes you mentioned. 1 and 2 by themselves could be open to pointing out the work of Cantor and different types of infinities, but because its not any old infinity were talking about but perfect infinity Cantor is irrelevant.
Point 3 I think follows from the thesis, God isn't just eternal but perfectly eternal. Not some ever-changing endless thing stuck in infinite time but above and beyond time and space in a perfect eternity.
I can see why you hesitate on unchangeable, with "probably", but I do think it follows from pure act (perfection). I think this is a wonderful definition of the who, along Anselmian lines, we're talking about.
Where at do you go in nature for this knowledge? You've defined a being, a perfect being at that, but where in nature is this theology? How certain is it? How does your definition not suffer at least on the surface from the problems that Anselm had?
Now since this OP was on the limits of natural theology, one other limit could be the usefulness of that knowledge. What use is it to us in any way that a perfect something can be defined?
 
CGS said:
How does one does this without reference to the contents of special revelation? So at this point you have left the realm of purely general revelation. The only thing you can argue for using only general revelation is "there is a God, with certain attributes", i.e. a generic form of theism. Anything beyond that requires special revelation.
Click to expand...
You don't. Why would you?
 
Charles Johnson said:
You don't. Why would you?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't. But I'm not the one arguing the case for classical apologetics. You are. So... then we are in agreement that natural theology/general revelation can only argue for some vague, generic form of theism, which is step 1 in your argument shown below...correct? At step 2 you must begin to appeal to special revelation, which is self-authenticating. And step 3 also requires special revelation. That was the only point I was making. The OP was asking about the limitations of natural revelation/natural theology. I stated that only being able to "prove" a generic form of theism is a huge limitation. Natural theology/natural revelation only gets you as far as step 1, which in my opinion is a huge limitation. Perhaps you don't see only being able to "prove" a generic theism as a limitation, but I do.

The classical apologist starts with proving 1) there is a God, with certain attributes, and then argues 2) that the bible is divinely inspired, based on its contents, then 3) argues, based on the bible, for the Trinitarian God of Scripture.
 
CGS said:
I wouldn't. But I'm not the one arguing the case for classical apologetics. You are. So... then we are in agreement that natural theology/general revelation can only argue for some vague, generic form of theism, which is step 1 in your argument shown below...correct? At step 2 you must begin to appeal to special revelation, which is self-authenticating. And step 3 also requires special revelation. That was the only point I was making. The OP was asking about the limitations of natural revelation/natural theology. I stated that only being able to "prove" a generic form of theism is a huge limitation. Natural theology/natural revelation only gets you as far as step 1, which in my opinion is a huge limitation. Perhaps you don't see only being able to "prove" a generic theism as a limitation, but I do.

The classical apologist starts with proving 1) there is a God, with certain attributes, and then argues 2) that the bible is divinely inspired, based on its contents, then 3) argues, based on the bible, for the Trinitarian God of Scripture.
Click to expand...
I see. So your idea of classical apologetics is that one's not allowed to argue from Scripture ever, and that's a problem.
Let me respond then by pointing out that's not what classical apologetics is, as I have stated repeatedly here. Arguments from the light of nature alone are only the first step. Presuppositionalism doesn't have an exclusive claim to the old and new testaments.
 
Charles Johnson said:
I see. So your idea of classical apologetics is that one's not allowed to argue from Scripture ever, and that's a problem.
Click to expand...
That's not my idea of classical apologetics at all...I know full well they can argue from Scripture...at least once they've gotten past your step 2 and have sufficiently "proven" that it's God's Word. The question I was addressing is how far will natural theology/general revelation get you in the classical approach before you have to jump to an appeal to special revelation? And the answer is "not very far". Again, the question being discussed is what are the limitations of natural theology/natural revelation? The only thing you can argue for with just natural theology/natural revelation is that "there is a God, with certain attributes"...a vague, generic theism. Everything beyond that requires using special revelation...correct?

As a classical apologist, can you "prove" anything other than a generic form of theism using only general revelation (without special revelation)? If so, what else can be proven using only general revelation (without special revelation)?

If all you can prove with general revelation is some vague, generic form of theism...do you see this as a limitation of general revelation/natural theology? If not, why not?

What you can prove with general revelation + special revelation is irrelevant and outside the scope of this discussion, which is about the limitations of general revelation. I understand that the classical apologist uses both general revelation and special revelation, but for the purposes of this discussion we are narowing the focus to what can be accomplished using only general revelation and what the limitations of general revelation are.
 
Last edited:
I have this question about natural theology, apologetics and theontology:
If
  1. Every sin that happens, only happens because God decrees/permits*
  2. And God only allow it for a good thing in the last (and this is logically necessary by God as Good)
  3. - And the first sin ocurred with Adam
  4. Then there is a good end for this decree/permission
So, by the fall, there is a need of a remisison for the fall has a good end, or a good application?

* I don't want to begin a discussion in God's decree and Providence
 
CGS said:
That's not my idea of classical apologetics at all...I know full well they can argue from Scripture...at least once they've gotten past your step 2 and have sufficiently "proven" that it's God's Word. The question I was addressing is how far will natural theology/general revelation get you in the classical approach before you have to jump to an appeal to special revelation? And the answer is "not very far". Again, the question being discussed is what are the limitations of natural theology/natural revelation? The only thing you can argue for with just natural theology/natural revelation is that "there is a God, with certain attributes"...a vague, generic theism. Everything beyond that requires using special revelation...correct?

As a classical apologist, can you "prove" anything other than a generic form of theism using only general revelation (without special revelation)? If so, what else can be proven using only general revelation (without special revelation)?

If all you can prove with general revelation is some vague, generic form of theism...do you see this as a limitation of general revelation/natural theology? If not, why not?

What you can prove with general revelation + special revelation is irrelevant and outside the scope of this discussion, which is about the limitations of general revelation. I understand that the classical apologist uses both general revelation and special revelation, but for the purposes of this discussion we are narowing the focus to what can be accomplished using only general revelation and what the limitations of general revelation are.
Click to expand...
By the attributes we can't get in the providence and keep it?
I think Classic apologetics consider providence as an argument for God too
If it flows by God's attributes or the providence itself, I don't know
But its used
I guess Paul used something like this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top