What’s Wrong with the World

Wow, Frank, thanks! I had absolutely no idea this was going on, so you're putting me into the picture for the first time.

It seems to me Moreland is _obviously_ right. In fact, I've sometimes over the years wondered if my idea that "some Baptists, etc., are opposed to the idea of the natural law" is a caricature, based on an over-interpretation of my own memories of childhood and young adulthood, but it seems it's not a caricature.

C. S. Lewis's fiction was the big breakthrough for me away from this idea. It was always quite clear from the sheer _fact_ of writing fiction of his sort (both Narnia and, even more, the space trilogy) that Lewis thought we could get a handle on how things should be, on the moral law, and even on what God might be expected to do in hypothetical situations. The space trilogy made me uncomfortable at first for that very reason. I wondered whether this wasn't somehow presumptuously "telling stories about God." But gradually I realized that there is no problem with that use of the imagination once one no longer believes that the intellect is fallen in such a way that we cannot see God as in any sense _reasonable_ or _comprehensible_.

Since then my involvement in the pro-life movement has done the rest. Attempts to base a prohibition on abortion purely on Scripture are inherently limited. There are some verses that seem to address the human nature of the unborn child, or even to take it for granted. But they are few and inexplicit. And of course, human nature being endlessly inventive for evil, there are always going to be horrible things people think of to do that don't fall under any category expressly addressed in Scripture. We have to have access to morality by way of the natural light.

By the way, I didn't by that comment mean to endorse JP's view in the cessationist/continuationist controversy. I don't have much of a horse in that race and am willing to be guided by the evidence. I'm what you might call a "contingent cessationist." And it seems, too, that the sociological analysis of the evangelical tendency to cessationism may not be correct there. That controversy is ancient. The Latin martyrdom of Felicity and Perpetua, circa 200 A.D., begins with a polemical defense of continuationism, making it clear that the controversy was already raging then. So it seems implausible to say that many evangelicals reject visions, dreams, and words of prophecy and wisdom as continuing revelations _just because_ they are reacting to the charismatic movement or being reactionary generally.

“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” 2 Tim 2:15 ESV

Mr. Beckwith, this is one example in Scripture (special revelation) that gives the exegete the moral notion to interpret texts accurately, apart from “so-called” natural law.

Stephen:

I think you're missing the point of my critique of Henry. I am not suggesting that one cannot find in Scripture passages that affirm that one ought to be moral in a variety of situations and circumstances including the reading of texts. After all, one must have a prior understanding of one's moral obligation to read texts before one reads 2 Tim 2:15. That is, the first time you read this passage, you probably understood it to mean that one ought to properly exegete God's word. But you could not have come to that conclusion unless you accepted a more general principle--one ought to interpret texts accurately--that was logically prior to your reading of 2 Tim 2:15. So, just like Carl F. H. Henry, you must rely on a moral law known apart from scripture in order to properly exegete the scripture that you claim does not require that one must rely on a moral law known apart from scripture.

Having said that, it seems there is a good reason to believe that "word of truth" in 2 Tim 2:15 may not be referring to the written Word of God. The context of the passage seems to be oral interaction between Christians, not exegesis of Scripture (I Tim 2:14-19):

Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his,"[a] and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.

So, now we have a dispute. You think this passage is an instruction for textual exegesis. I think it is a discussion on how Christians ought to properly treat the words that come out of their mouths when communicating the Gospel.

I'm not saying my interpretation is correct. But one can raise plausible reasons as to why your interpretation is not obvious.

Warmly,
Frank

Yes, you also need to have vision in order to see the words, read the text, understand, and so forth (or sufficient nerve endings in the fingers for Braille, etc).

As God’s image bearers, we are cognitive beings; sentient life forms, rational creatures. We have emotions, reason, senses, and all that. I’m not saying that apart from Scripture, natural man and his natural understanding doesn’t exist.

Scripture reveals to us that we will have an understanding (Prov. 3:5). In revealing this to us, Scripture commands us not to lean on our own understanding. Scripture reveals to us that wisdom is given by God, not inherent in man or from nature. Scripture reveals to us that knowledge and understanding come from the mouth of God, not from man’s fallen reason.

“For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding;” Prov. 2:6 ESV

Let’s put it this way, if you removed any and all biblical pollution from the world and left man to himself in nature, he would never escape the darkness which is the futility of his mind.

Morals, truth, and meaning, as revealed in Scripture, would never be discovered by man’s reason alone. As fallen individuals, I as an example, we are confronted with the truth about God while still in our fallen and corrupted state. Scripture reforms our distorted view of reality, and is a means toward conforming us into the moral character of Christ. When we approach the text in our fallen state, many times we find that it is our remaining sin that the Scriptures take aim at confronting. When we sanctify Christ as Lord in our heart/mind (1 Pet. 3:15) and take every thought captive to obey Christ, we are no longer relying on natural anything, but supernatural everything.

When read in light of this, natural law and natural theology is viewed and understood as darkness, of which Scripture is light.

I would love to discuss the "word of truth" passage with you. Would you be willing to go to the original languages? Or did you have in mind more of a philosophic discussion?

Stephen Macasil
Jude 3

"When we sanctify Christ as Lord in our heart/mind (1 Pet. 3:15) and take every thought captive to obey Christ, we are no longer relying on natural anything, but supernatural everything."

I think that the entire first chapter of John's gospel supports this statement. The exercise of reason alone, even by a man with a terminal degree in philosophy, won't help that man find Truth in Scripture, if he has not the ability to put his ego and his intellect aside in order to listen to the small, still voice of the Holy Spirit.

...we are no longer relying on natural anything,...

Better take that poetically, not literally, or you'll starve to death.

Zippy, supernatural EVERYTHING!

Here are some sections of Matt. 6...

11 Give us this day our daily bread,

31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

Death has lost it's sting. My day of death has been appointed. I trust that my Father in heaven will supernaturally provide food for me. This has been revealed to me in Scripture. This is why I give thanks to God for the food I am given by Him to eat.

Yes, but Stephen, you don't find out _how_ to get your daily bread--how to drive a car, program a computer, or any of a zillion other factual things you need to know--from the Bible. Really, you can't take this "Bible for everything" matter literally.

"Really, you can't take this "Bible for everything" matter literally."

I would say this is actually not a question of "can't" but a question of "don't", or, more accurately, of "choose not to." There is nothing natural stopping any person from giving everything he has to the poor and following the example of Jesus, who had no place to rest his head. Nothing, that is, other than fear and social pressure.
There is, in fact, no way of knowing that the homeless "bum" carrying the sign saying "Repent: the End is Near" whether in a cartoon, or on a city street, is not a saint.

Wycliffite "the Bible literally IS identical to the second Person of the Trinity" theology seems to be alive and well in certain parts of Christianity, as indicated by some of the comments on other blogs about this tempest. In my view that involves a 'displacement' of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, confected by a priest validly ordained through apostolic succession, which truly is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. Rather than approaching, consuming, and becoming one with Christ literally in the Eucharist, one literally consumes and becomes one with Christ in the reading of the canonical text (much as Muslims come into the Real Presence of Allah in the recitation of the Alcoran of Mahomet). The underlying historical reason for this seems to be that in order to confect a Bible one needs only a secular printing press; whereas to confect the Sacrament one needs a visible apostolic Church founded by Christ, with all that that entails.

But of course consuming the Eucharist merely requires humanity, mouth and tongue, whereas "consuming" a text requires a whole natural law natural theology intellectual foundation -- even if one self-contradictorily denies that requirement. To his credit Wycliffe seemed at least at times to understand this, to understand the need to "divorce" the consumption of Scripture-as-text from every other contingent (upon logic, natural law, natural reason, hermeneutics, etc) consumption-of-text; thus his literal equation of Scripture with the Uncreated Logos, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity.

There seem to be layers of confusion here. Consider this statement: "I think that the entire first chapter of John's gospel supports this statement. The exercise of reason alone, even by a man with a terminal degree in philosophy, won't help that man find Truth in Scripture, if he has not the ability to put his ego and his intellect aside in order to listen to the small, still voice of the Holy Spirit."

The first chapter of John is exactly the point. The Word, the Logos, is the source of creation. So, reason is never ontologically alone; it ultimately depends on God. But "reason" is more than syllogistic logic, empirical knowledge, or analytical calculation. It is the intellectual power of the soul to acquire knowledge of the order and nature of things. It seems to be something that God took for granted when he rightly condemned Cain for killing Abel. There was no written Word of God, and no criminal statutes at the time. And yet, Cain was expected to know that murder was wrong. When God destroyed the world by a flood, the people at the time had no awareness of any Word of God written. Yet, they had acted in ways that they knew were wrong that justified God's punishment. Plato (see Gorgias, Republic) rightly saw the failure of moral relativism, just as Christians do. And yet, he was not informed by special revelation.

The problem, I agree, is philosophical, not biblical. But it is the philosophy of William of Ockham. He gave us nominalism and voluntarism, which has been accepted hook-line-and-sinker by some contemporary Reformed-types (though not all) who don't realize that their doing of theology and reading of Scripture has been strongly shaped by it. The idea of God's capriciousness does not come from the Bible per se; it comes from a voluntarist understanding of God read back into Scripture. For example, the idea that justification is only forensic, again has Ockhamist roots. This is why Luther hated Aristotle and loved Ockham. After all, once one is committed to the idea that natures and essences are merely words for what we empirically observe rather than things out-there with real ontological status, then there is no nature for grace to change.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with employing philosophy in doing theology. It is indispensable. But some philosophical schools of thought are more congenial to Christian theism than others. Ockham's was not. An important work in this regard is John Paul II's Encyclical, Fides Et Ratio, which you can find here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

Rodak, even the saintly bum with the sign needs to know all manner of secular things not found in the Bible--like where the local soup kitchen is, or where the highway is, or how to find a place to sleep at night. Again, you _can't_ find out everything you need to know about every subject from the Bible. Literally can't. As Zippy says, if you try, you'll be dead.

Mr. Beckwith, the question then becomes: who's reason? Man's reason or God's reason? Scripture reveals to us that we are not to lean on our own understanding. I don't think anyone is denying that man has "intellectual power of the soul to acquire knowledge..." What is at stake is who's we are to rely on.

Revealed Theologians (those whom are opposed to natural theology), are simply putting forth the biblical argument that man and his reason alone cannot construct a unified field of knowledge within which he can understand himself, the world around him, his meaning, his purpose, etc. This is why Plato never came to the conclusion "do all things to the glory of God." Plato was in darkness, and offers nothing of benefit to Christians besides a wonderful example of the absolute necessity of God's self-disclosure of Himself by way of special revelation.

Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor. 4:1-6 ESV

I would like to ask you about your Cain example. Are you saying that Cain's action was wrong because he knew it was wrong but did it anyway?

Of course, natural theology is incomplete. No natural theologian has ever claimed that it can provide to us the whole counsel of God. This is why St. Thomas Aquinas wrote of Divine Law, by which he meant those things revealed to us only by special revelation for the salvation of our souls. The Angelic Doctor would say Amen to the claim that "man and his reason alone cannot construct a unified field of knowledge within which he can understand himself, the world around him, his meaning, his purpose, etc."

In The Summa Theologica (Q. 91, art.4) St. Thomas squarely confronts the issue of the relationship between natural law, human law, and revelation. The question is asked "whether there was any need for divine law?" And by divine law St. Thomas means the Scriptures. Thomas presents and replies to three objections to the necessity of divine law. However, prior to replying to these specific objections, St. Thomas provides four reasons for affirming that "besides the natural and human law it was necessary for the directing of human conduct to have a divine law."

For example, St. Thomas writes that it is quite clear that when man reflects on his nature he comes to see that he has certain ends or purposes which flow from his natural ability. However, "if man were ordained to no other end than that which is proportionate to his natural ability, there would be no need for man to have any further direction, on the part of his reason, in addition to the natural law and humanly devised law which is derived from it." But man is designed for eternal happiness that exceeds his natural ability. For this reason, God must provide to man a revelation in addition to natural and human law so that man can be directed to fulfill his divine purpose.

So, at the end of the day, Stephen is a peeping Thomist. :-)

Stephen,

You cannot even find your Bible, much less understand what the little squiggly black marks on the page mean, without using reason. The fact that rational thought is unselfconscious in these cases does not make it nonexistent.

"Lean not unto thine own understanding" is not an injunction for you to stop using reason or an indictment of natural theology. It is an injunction not to forget the commandments passed on by a godly father, and by extension, the commandments of God. For an example of someone who expressly violated this verse, look at John Toland, or Matthew Tindal, or Voltaire, or David Hume.

"Are you saying that Cain's action was wrong because he knew it was wrong but did it anyway?"

That would seem to be the case. Cain had the capacity to know good from evil because his parents ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This knowledge is what allows a human being to be a moral agent. It is also the reason that the first humans were expelled from the Garden. Prior to the Fall, humans only had to choose from among their appetites. This took no more reason that a doggy needs to go for his bowl, rather than his leash.
But reason allows us to talk ourselves into choosing evil often enough that only by relinquishing our dependence on reason and accessing the truth through prayer and divine grace can we hope to know the good. Our soul must turn away from the world, and toward God. We must relinquish our delusional "mastery" and practice obedience. It was Cain's reasoning out that he had been treated unfairly, which hurt his pride, that caused him to kill his brother. Had he not been able to work this out in his mind, he could have accepted it as God's will, and gone about his business. The Good is written on our hearts, which is the sense in which we are made in God's image. The machinations of the rational mind is what turns us away from our gifts. Reason has become indispensable, but at great cost.

Well, so much for mathematics, music, and a knowledge of God and the good, not to mention naming the animals. On Rodak's view, Adam in the garden had a mind no higher than that of an animal, but he had a really, really, loving heart.

Mr. Beckwith,

You are the first natural theologian that I have heard say "Of course, natural theology is incomplete." When we ask the question "what is the origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty?", and one answers "man's reason, man's faith, man's experience, or man's feelings, our response to them is that those abstracted aspects of man that have been absolutized as the standard measure of all things, are incomplete and will not be sufficient means to achieving certainty (like a taxi cab that you paid to take you to the airport that drops you off a mile short, making you walk the rest of the way).

To narrow the discussion just a bit, this philosophical disagreement is directly tied into the way apologetics and evangelism is done. I am not for or against presuppositionalism or evidentialism, I haven't bought in to those as the only choices, I think it is a false dichotomy. At Faith Defenders/Biblical Thought, our apologetic method is "Doxological Apologetics."

Doxological Apologetics

The primary motivation of apologetics ought to be the glory of God. Thus, apologetics should not be seen primarily as an academic and philosophical exercise where one is motivated out of a quest for intellectual enlightenment. Rather, the motivation for defending the faith should arise out of a sincere heart of love and gratitude for Jesus Christ. Apologetics should be man loving God with a renewed mind (Romans 12:2).

So, if we are to contend for the faith that has been delivered once for all to the saints (Jude 3), we must first sanctify Christ AS LORD in our heart/mind, making us ready to give a defense (1 Pet. 3:15), continually taking captive (as if prisoners of war) every thought under the Lordship of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5)!

Thanks for the nick-name Frank, but I'm hardly a peeping Thomist. I have demonstrated that the 5 traditional proofs are a bust. Aquinas stole them from the Muslims (al-Ghazali, Averroes), who stole them from Aristotle who was trying to prove the existence of a being that was "thought thinking itself." Aquinas ended up with a lesser god by way of his invalid arguments. The 5 proofs borrow from the Bible, making his argument invalid. And his biggest fallacy was attempting to make his way from the finite to the infinite by way of human reason alone. Any method that aims to prove the existence of the God of the Bible and can validly end up with Shiva is not a method that Christians should use, especially if intellectual credibility is desired.

What problems did Adam have to solve, prior to the Fall? Whether Adam said "Pig!" or "Gip!" when presented with a swine is not really a matter of any substance. Adam was "higher" than a beast, certainly; he had language. But all his needs were provided for. He didn't need a roadmap to the nearest soup kitchen.

Tim, you can't even understand my position with reason, so what's your point?

Rodak,

"...ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This knowledge is what allows a human being to be a moral agent."

You may have a terminal problem here. If free moral agency presupposes the knowledge of good and evil which chronologically came after the eating of the fruit of the tree of the KoG&E, then on what grounds can Adam & Eve be held accountable for the sin of eating it?

Stephen,

The point is that your strong claims about natural theology are prima facie absurd. If you insist on redefining terms that have existing meanings, you must expect to have to do some explaining to people who are participants in the conversation that stretches back across the centuries.

Here's an example. You write to Frank:

You are the first natural theologian that I have heard say "Of course, natural theology is incomplete."

"...what grounds can Adam & Eve be held accountable for the sin of eating it?"

That's a very good question for which I have no clear-cut answer. The sin is obviously disobedience. But the story makes it explicit that Adam and Eve knew good and evil only after eating of the fruit:

3:22 Yahweh God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand, and also take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever...”

Clearly, A&E were to obey without understanding why. I hate to keep comparing our first parents to beasts, but they were apparently expected to obey much as a good dog obeys.

Tim, I think you're right.

"you must expect to have to do some explaining to people who are participants in the conversation that stretches back across the centuries."

There is no such thing as Natural Theolog-y, only Natural Theolog-ies. I have found it difficult to lump all natural theologies under one broad brushstroke. Perhaps that is where we should have started: defining our terms (who's never heard that before :)

Natural Theology: theology deriving its knowledge of God from the study of nature independent of special revelation - Merriam-Webster

This is a fairly accurate definition, however, not all natural theologians would adopt this reduced statement as their position.

Then we have Paley's version, and on and on.

From William to William (Paley to Lane Craig), Western, European, British, White, Judeo-Christian apologists claim that they base Christianity on universal and absolute truths. These universal truths are known, understood, believed, accepted as true, by all of mankind regardless of time, place, race, culture, or religion. When asked for proof of these universal truths, the general answer is that they are "intuitive" and "self-evident."

How can an idea be truly self-evident and intuitive if it has not been known or believed by all people throughout all of human history in all places and in all times? If one man's self-evident truth is another man's self-evident lie, evidently we didn't have a "self-evident" truth to begin with.

One example of this is free-will. (not to spark the free-will debate here, only an example) Endless theologies are built around the universal and absolute truth of free-will. When asked of the origin of the idea of free-will, the answer is usually that it is intuitive and self-evident. When asked if the Bible teaches free-will or not, the universal is preferred over Scripture, read back into Scripture, thus proving free-will.

Like Natural Theologians, Revealed Theologians base Christianity on universal and absolute truths. The difference between the two is concerning the origin of the universal and absolute truth. One says nature, the other says revelation.

As I pointed out, the outcome of this debate determines how we as Christians do apologetics and evangelism. Theology determines apologetics.

And I'm enjoying this discussion!

The creation myth also leaves this enigma hanging: if everything that God made and put into the Garden was good, where did the Serpent come from? Or, since the Serpent is only described as "subtle", not as evil, why was the Serpent punished by God for having tested Adam and Eve and found them wanting? Since the same verses I quoted above indicate that Adam and Eve *never were immortal*, did the Serpent not tell Eve the truth when he told her that she would not die *as a result of* eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? And did eating the fruit not, by God's own testimony, accomplish exactly what the Serpent told her it would accomplish?

Stephen:
[Stephen's understanding of] Scripture reveals to us that we are not to lean on our own understanding.

I definitely don't plan to lean on my understanding of that, because I don't think it is coherent. I think I am going to have to parse that sentence as asserting its own irrationality, and although that does give rise to something of a Godelian paradox I think the assertion-of-its-own-irrationality part is true.

Frank:
I'm definitely not as well-versed in the standard moves as my fellow bloggers here, in part since I've never been in a position where I've had to try to make my Christianity centrally about the Bible as opposed to being centrally about Christ Crucified in the Eucharist and in part because they (a group which includes you) are just bloody smarter than me on the subject. But I guess I'm not 100% on board with the roots of bible-idolatry being historically Ockahamite, or shall I say being limited strictly to Ockhamism. Wycliffe at least thought of himself as a metaphysical realist in contrast to Ockham and his followers, if I recall correctly, though (again if my understanding is correct) that ended up leading him to his own kind of la la land in which he identified Scripture literally with the Second Person of the Trinity.

How can an idea be truly self-evident and intuitive if it has not been known or believed by all people throughout all of human history in all places and in all times?

Because people are unreasonable. They claim not to know all kinds of things that they really do know; which is not an indictment of reason. They even claim things like that their understanding of Scripture is that we are not to trust our understanding.

Stephen,

It is not a good idea to define an intellectual discipline or an historical tradition by an appeal to the dictionary. Lexicographers are human, and they are rarely experts on most of the subjects they touch on. In this case, you sense that the dictionary definition is not quite right; I agree, but I would state my dissent more strongly.

It is a better procedure to read through at least a few dozen works of the people who have, both by their own explicit profession and by the common acknowledgment of scholars who have come after them, worked within and contributed to that discipline or tradition and to see how they have described what they were doing.

There have been, here and there, a few misguided Natural Theologians who attempt to

base Christianity on universal and absolute truths.

This point is important, because it seems that you are implicitly setting up an opposition between reason and revelation that is by no means present in the minds of those who advocate and work in natural theology. They see reason as playing a twofold role: (1) to lead us (if we are willing diligently to follow) to a knowledge of some things that may prepare us the more readily to receive a revelation, and (2) to enable us to discriminate among the myriad purported revelations, setting aside the false and embracing the true.

Thus, Locke:

Reason is natural revelation, whereby the eternal Father of light and fountain of all knowledge, communicates to mankind that portion of truth which he has laid within the reach of their natural faculties: revelation is natural reason enlarged by a new set of discoveries communicated by God immediately; which reason vouches the truth of, by the testimony and proofs it gives that they come from God. So that he that takes away reason to make way for revelation, puts out the light of both, and does much what the same as if he would persuade a man to put out his eyes, the better to receive the remote light of an invisible star by a telescope.
Essay IV, 19, 4

It is for this reason that George Park Fisher, in the third chapter of his Manual of Natural Theology, speaks of the necessities of man which natural religion fails to meet.

It is for this reason that, even before he wrote his Natural Theology, William Paley wrote the Horae Paulinae and A View of the Evidences of Christianity.

It is for this reason that Richard Watson opens his Defence of Revealed Religion with a presentation of the argument from design and then follows it up immediately with a presentation of the argument for the authenticity and credibility of the New Testament.

This explains why Thomas Chalmers closes over three hundred densely packed pages of his Bridgewater treatise On the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God with a chapter entitled "On the Defects and Uses of Natural Theology" in which he absolutely rejects an "academic theism" that "might seem to leave a revelation or a gospel wholly uncalled for."

This is why William Lane Craig, in his popular apologetic works and talks, commonly presents the Kalam cosmological argument -- not as an alternative route to Christianity, but as a prolegomenon, to shake the presumption of self-satisfied philosophical naturalism -- and then follows it with the historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus.

Examples like this may easily be multiplied by anyone who has read much of the relevant literature.

Finally, many natural theologians, including St. Thomas, hold that although the premises of the arguments of natural theology may be uncontroversial, the arguments themselves are frequently matters of some subtlety and are not suited to persons of all capacities. Not all natural theologians agree, and the case may vary from one argument to another. But it is certainly not true in general to say, as you do above, that

From William to William (Paley to Lane Craig), Western, European, British, White, Judeo-Christian apologists claim that they base Christianity on universal and absolute truths. These universal truths are known, understood, believed, accepted as true, by all of mankind regardless of time, place, race, culture, or religion. When asked for proof of these universal truths, the general answer is that they are "intuitive" and "self-evident."

"...the arguments themselves are frequently matters of some subtlety and are not suited to persons of all capacities."

Alphas, please submit a CV, cover letter, and three letters of recommendation from professionals able to evaluate your capacities.

Betas need not apply.

I think, too, that it's important to note a difference between natural theology and a knowledge of moral truths by the natural light/law. The latter is more likely to be a matter of direct intuition knowable by all men than some of the specific arguments that go under the former heading.

Rodak,

How can you persist in retaining your noble egalitarianism in light of your own obvious intellectual superiority to all of those silly ejumucated people who have to study things before they talk about them?

Tim--

It's my innate humility at work. ;-P

Or, let's say it's my conviction that "things" can be talked about without resort to specialized vocabularies developed in esoteric philosophical disciplines for purposes confined to academia. This is particularly true when the "things" in question are the "things" of Christianity, which is patently accessible to any normal person as revealed in scripture and in the preaching of persons with a vocation to preach. If not, the entire ministry of Jesus Christ was a vanity and a failure.
If you can't deliver your accumulated truths to non-specialists, in ordinary language, then you are cut off from communication with most of mankind, and your valuable knowledge is trapped within the fraternity of a tiny elite. That's not what Christianity is about, imHo.

Rodak,

Brace yourself -- we may agree here, which would indicate that you missed my point. St. Thomas argues that even those without education or the mental capacity to follow complex proofs of the existence and attributes of God can know these things with perfect security through the medium of special revelation.

Some of the arguments of natural theology are complex. You don't really want to deny this, do you? Go here, for example. Or here.

“I definitely don't plan to lean on my understanding of that, because I don't think it is coherent.” - Tim

Tim, you just did.

“They [unreasonable people] even claim things like that their understanding of Scripture is that we are not to trust our understanding.”

Sooner or later this foolishness was bound to happen. Immature and irrational blog-flamers always destroy meaningful conversation.

“Lexicographers are human, and they are rarely experts on most of the subjects they touch on.”

…and natural theologians are???

“This point is important, because it seems that you are implicitly setting up an opposition between reason and revelation that is by no means present in the minds of those who advocate and work in natural theology.”

Tim, you need to slow down and read the discussion that has been taking place here since Frank posted this entry. Regardless of what things seem like to you, it has nothing to do with what I am actually saying. I am not “implicitly setting up an opposition between reason and revelation,” I am arguing from the biblical position that sets up an opposition between man’s reason and God’s revelation. I have already stated that man is rational, and that man has an understanding. Nowhere have I stated that man does not have reason, or that man is not to use reason in his understanding of Scripture, the world around him, his relationship to God etc. Scripture says to trust in the LORD with all you heart, and do not lean on your own understanding (philosophy LXX). This is not optional. It is a command. Instead, in all your ways acknowledge Him, and he shall direct your path.

Just look at your own inability to decipher what’s going on here, in black and white (and some blue). Your own understanding has led you to many misunderstandings. It can’t be trusted, God can be trusted. Lean not, in other words, do not bear your weight upon as if with a staff or cane, your own natural philosophy.

Since this site is now infected by blog-flamers, namely, Tim, expect my participation to diminish.

The argument is concerning the effect that natural theology has on apologetics and evangelism, and its failure to recognize the creation/fall/redemption aspects of metaphysics.

Mr. Beckwith, maybe we can continue the 2 Timothy debate via email. Thanks for providing the forum! It was fun…

Stephen,

In your first two block-quoted comments, you're confusing me with Zippy, from whom the quotations are actually coming. Then you go on to attack me as if I had directed the comments at you. Please try not to do that; it's annoying.

(I think you're also missing Zippy's point, as he was replying to Rodak, not to you. But he can respond for himself.)

Natural theologians have expertise in natural theology. When it comes to defining a discipline, what the practitioners of that discipline actually do is the important thing. I have provided various instances that seem to me to indicate that you have a misconception of the nature of natural theology as it is actually practiced by a substantial number of people engaged in the enterprise. You might want to reflect on the possibility that you're attacking a straw man.

We apparently disagree on the interpretation of Proverbs 3:5. It seems to me that, notwithstanding your repudiation of an anti-rationalist position, you have not staked out a clear realm for the operation of reason. How shall we resolve this disagreement? By appeal to ... what?

"Your own understanding has led you to many misunderstandings."

~Stephan Macasil, 2007

"What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach."

~Cool Hand Luke, 1967

Uh, Tim, I don't think Zippy was replying to me in those two block quotes. He was, indeed, replying to Stephen.

Doesn't anybody want to follow up on the questions raised about Genesis by Mr. Beckwith's introduction of the tragedy of Cain?

Dang! You're right, Rodak. It's all so confusing ...

Tim--
Fine. Now that we've got that straight, please explain to me what Eve knew, and when she knew it.

If A&E were punished for disobedience, for what was the Serpent accursed, since he seems to have been speaking truth? If the Serpent was evil, how did he get into the Garden, and from whence? If the Serpent was not created evil, how did he become evil (assuming that since he was accursed, he was evil)?

Rodak,

Huh? Did I say something about Eve?

I thought I was talking (with Stephen) about the nature of the discipline of Natural Theology, which he seems to think is intrinsically unbiblical. I haven't made (here) any claims either for or against the success of the enterprise; we're not that far along yet.

Great example of why I don't lean on my own understanding. Sorry Tim. Please strike-through Tim's name in my previous comment and replace with Zippy. Your point is well taken regarding:

Natural theologians have expertise in natural theology. When it comes to defining a discipline, what the practitioners of that discipline actually do is the important thing. I have provided various instances that seem to me to indicate that you have a misconception of the nature of natural theology as it is actually practiced by a substantial number of people engaged in the enterprise. You might want to reflect on the possibility that you're attacking a straw man.

I don't have any right to regulate what certain persons choose to study in academia in general. It's not my place to judge. The problem that I see is when they begin to lecture to Protestant students that are enrolled in certain Christian universities that have particular doctrinal statements and traditions that are opposed to natural theology's consequences. this creates a tension within the greater curriculum.

I take it you're Roman Catholic, or that many here are. Tim, if I'm wrong, please take no offense. The point is, I would not be allowed, as a Calvinist, to teach soteriology at a Catholic school or church. Nor would I be able to peddle anti-Catholic books, lectures, and literature at a Catholic institution (with the required approval).

Natural theologians however, have been allowed into Protestant schools, bookstores and churches and have peddled their books, lectures, etc., and have no problem sucking up Protestant Evangelical Cash. The Protestant position, historically, is that Scripture alone is the final judge in matters of morals and doctrine. Natural theology cannot fit within those limits. We understand that Roman Catholic's welcome natural theology, natural law and such. We think they're wrong when compared to the Bible, but that's why we're Protestants in the first place. Our commitment to semper reformanda entails that we eliminate natural theology from among our ranks. We respect with the highest respect, Frank Beckwith's departure. We would like to see him pull a bunch of natural theologians out of our schools and maybe start their own school.

So, when Moreland said what he said at ETS, it was an issue for us to deal with. We are in the midst of a powerful reformation at this very moment, and God ordained Moreland's message at the right time. Let it be known, natural theology is fully compatible with Roman Catholicism, but not with those denominations of the Reformation heritage.

Seriously Tim, I apologize.

Stephen:

“They [unreasonable people] even claim things like that their understanding of Scripture is that we are not to trust our understanding.”

Sooner or later this foolishness was bound to happen. Immature and irrational blog-flamers ...

Is it or is it not your own understanding that "Scripture commands us not to lean on our own understanding." ? (That is after all a direct quote). Is citing what you actually said a sign of immaturity and unreason?

...always destroy meaningful conversation.

It seems to me that "meaningful conversation" is begging the question, since precisely what is at issue (at least from my standpoint) is whether what you are contending is or is not even meaningful or coherent.

Ziggy, did you not read my response to Frank's critique of my my response to his critique of Henry? (no wonder things get jumbled quickly)

Yes, you also need to have vision in order to see the words, read the text, understand, and so forth (or sufficient nerve endings in the fingers for Braille, etc).

As God’s image bearers, we are cognitive beings; sentient life forms, rational creatures. We have emotions, reason, senses, and all that. I’m not saying that apart from Scripture, natural man and his natural understanding doesn’t exist.

Scripture reveals to us that we will have an understanding (Prov. 3:5). In revealing this to us, Scripture commands us not to lean on our own understanding. Scripture reveals to us that wisdom is given by God, not inherent in man or from nature. Scripture reveals to us that knowledge and understanding come from the mouth of God, not from man’s fallen reason.

“For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding;” Prov. 2:6 ESV

Let’s put it this way, if you removed any and all biblical pollution from the world and left man to himself in nature, he would never escape the darkness which is the futility of his mind.

Morals, truth, and meaning, as revealed in Scripture, would never be discovered by man’s reason alone. As fallen individuals, I as an example, we are confronted with the truth about God while still in our fallen and corrupted state. Scripture reforms our distorted view of reality, and is a means toward conforming us into the moral character of Christ. When we approach the text in our fallen state, many times we find that it is our remaining sin that the Scriptures take aim at confronting. When we sanctify Christ as Lord in our heart/mind (1 Pet. 3:15) and take every thought captive to obey Christ, we are no longer relying on natural anything, but supernatural everything.

When read in light of this, natural law and natural theology is viewed and understood as darkness, of which Scripture is light.

So, to answer you:

Is it or is it not your own understanding that "Scripture commands us not to lean on our own understanding." ? (That is after all a direct quote). Is citing what you actually said a sign of immaturity and unreason?

No, it is not my own understanding that "Scripture..." The understanding that I now have is a biblical understanding of my own understanding.

The understanding that I now have is a biblical understanding of my own understanding.

Stephen,

I do not think you have satisfactorily answered Zippy's question. The above statement is incoherent. It does not hold together under close scrutiny and is in fact self-defeating.

Before you can base your understanding off the Bible, you must first be able to interpret the black lines on the white pages. You need to have a hermeneutic. And that cannot be based on Scripture since it is a prerequisite for viewing the arrangement of jots and tittles that make up Scripture as symbols that carry meaning.

Even if you argue that you could acquire a biblical understanding before you could read by having others teach you what Scripture says, you have still not achieved an understanding that is wholly removed from nature. Because before you can be taught anything via the spoken word you must first acquire a hermeneutic that enables you to interpret certain combinations of sounds as symbols that carry meaning.

If human nature and human reason could achieve no "escape [from] the darkness which is the futility of [the human] mind," then human nature and human reason would be incapable of creating a system of written and aural symbols--a language--that carries any meaningful truths about reality; and human nature and human reason would also be incapable of creating a method of interpreting said symbols--a hermeneutic--that would make the meaning carried in them present to our understanding. Thus, by your own premise, human language is incapable of carrying any meaningful truths about reality, and even if it was the human mind is incapable of making any such truths present to our understanding because it could not reliably extract meaning from language.

But Scripture itself has been written in human language. Thus, Scripture itself is left incapable of carrying any meaningful truths about reality or making any such truths present to our understanding. To deny the ability of human nature and human reason to arrive at any relevant truth without Scripture necessarily leads to denying that Scripture carries any truth that we are capable of understanding

Rodak,

Huh? Did I say something about Eve?

Tim--

At 2:32 p.m. on 11/24, Francis Beckwith introduced the story of Cain and Abel into the discussion to illustrate a point.

At 3:31 p.m., Stephen Macasil responded to Mr. Beckwith's reference to Cain by asking: "Are you saying that Cain's action was wrong because he knew it was wrong but did it anyway?"

At 4:40 p.m., Stephen's question having gone unanswered, I took it up in a comment beginning: "That would seem to be the case. Cain had the capacity to know good from evil because his parents ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

At 5:07 p.m., Lydia responded to my comment.

At 5:16 p.m., I responded to Lydia.

At 5:45 p.m., Stephen responded to me, asking: "You may have a terminal problem here. If free moral agency presupposes the knowledge of good and evil which chronologically came after the eating of the fruit of the tree of the KoG&E, then on what grounds can Adam & Eve be held accountable for the sin of eating it?"

At 6:55 p.m., I responded to Stephen's query with a quote from Genesis, followed by a comment beginning: "Clearly, A&E were to obey without understanding why."

At 7:35 p.m., I extended my 6:55 p.m. comment.

At 11:43 p.m., feeling that the question of what Adam and Eve knew and what powers of reason they possessed, and when they possessed those powers, was very relevant to the on-going conversation, since we are discussing the origin, nature and limits of human knowledge. I, therefore, invited your thoughts, as a professional epistemologist, on the issue of what Eve knew, and when she knew it.

I turn the mike over to you.

Stephen,

Apology accepted -- obviously, in my own post, I was likewise careless in reading the prior interactions between Rodak and Zippy. It happens.

You write:

The Protestant position, historically, is that Scripture alone is the final judge in matters of morals and doctrine. Natural theology cannot fit within those limits.

Several other participants in the discussion here (Frank, Rodak, Zippy) are Catholic, but I am not. Indeed, I am Protestant both by temperament and by conviction. I am not, however, Reformed. It seems to me that this may be an important piece of the puzzle in our conversation.

Rodak,

Sorry, I'm just not interested in that thread of the discussion.

"Sorry, I'm just not interested in that thread of the discussion.:

Tim--
That's okay. (And I'm not Catholic.)

No, it is not my own understanding that "Scripture [commands us not to lean on our own understanding.]"

So when you say (again quoting your exact words) that "Scripture commands us not to lean on our own understanding", you are not expressing your understanding of what Scripture commands?

Rodak,

Whoops! I'd gotten the impression that you were. My apologies.

Rodak, I think C.S. Lewis deals very well, imaginatively, with the whole issue of the knowledge of evil prior to the Fall, in _Perelandra_. His Eve figure knows that it is wrong for her to disobey God, because she hears God speaking to her directly and can tell by her created nature that he is good and has a right to give commands. But then God withdraws this direct speaking voice and permits a tempter (a demon-possessed physics professor, as it happens) to come to her planet and start trying to talk her into disobeying the command in question. God also arranges for a defender to be imported--another professor, but a good guy. (Perhaps you already know this whole story.) Anyway, she resists and resists, on the grounds that God has commanded her not to do this, and in the end the good guy is told that it's time for him to have a fight with the tempter and get him out of there. So they do. The tempter guy is killed, and in the end (this is the punchline), God _does_ reveal good and evil to the Adam and Eve figure, but not by way of doing it, but by way of understanding it from the "good" side, as God and the unfallen angels do.

Actually, I think you are in any event over-reading the fact that the tree was "of the knowledge of good and evil." Like the character in Perelandra, Adam and Eve could know that they _ought_ to obey God. They had a direct friendship with him that none of us enjoys (as far as I know). The knowledge of good and evil that the tree gave was the understanding of the contrast between these two *by having done evil*. That doesn't imply that they were incapable of adjudging a contemplated act to be wrong or right prior to eating.

In any event, I think I really just disagree with you about the idea that rational understanding is itself dangerous and that the imago dei is all of the heart. I strongly suspect that Adam was a darned smart guy and that, if he had not fallen, God would have given him all sorts of joys of the intellect. The imago dei has many manifestations, and some of them are surely both intellectual and innocent, even beautiful.

If A&E were punished for disobedience, for what was the Serpent accursed, since he seems to have been speaking truth? For threatening God's dominion over man.

If the Serpent was evil, how did he get into the Garden, and from whence? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_(symbolism)

If the Serpent was not created evil, how did he become evil (assuming that since he was accursed, he was evil)? By giving Eve self-awareness.

Lydia--
It is hard to see, however, how the intellect would develop in an environment where there were no problems to be solved. And I am still bothered by the fact that the Serpent does not seem to have lied to Eve...?

God handed them an intellect on a silver platter. You have to assume that to some extent anyway. E.g. How did they know how to talk to each other, when they'd had no mom and dad to teach them language? God must have just handed it to them.

The "serpent" (obviously, Satan speaking through some creature) used half-truths, as Satan always does, to tempt Eve. He made it sound like the changes that would take place in her as a result of eating the fruit would be wonderful. They weren't. "Knowing good and evil" in the way that in fact she came to know it wasn't all it was cracked up to be! It was a lousy deal. And so far from being extra-powerful, "like gods" (whatever vaguely positive images that conveyed to her mind), she became a woman with all sorts of problems she'd never had before, like pain in childbirth, etc.

He said "you shall not surely die." That was a lie, because she died, though not immediately, as a result of sin. I don't know where you get the idea that Adam and Eve would have died without sin. The apostle Paul says explicitly that death entered because of sin.

"I don't know where you get the idea that Adam and Eve would have died without sin."

Lydia--

I got that idea from this:

3:22 Yahweh God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand, and also take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever...”

But, I now see that this is said after the sin. So God is expelling them from the Garden so that they don't gain access to an available antidote for the mortality that their sin has just earned them. (One should never contradict St. Paul!)

So, according to C.S. Lewis (and I did read those books, but many moons ago) the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" was really, in effect, the "Tree of the Knowledge of Evil"--knowledge of the Good already having been hardwired into A&E, and knowledge of evil to be acquired through sin. Is that it?
The whole thing, then, actually started to spiral out of control with the rebellion of the angels.
I still don't understand, however, why, since the creation was all good, and the angels were not of the earth, God allowed Satan, or a demon, to enter the Garden, possess the Serpent, and destroy A&E? I catch a strong whiff of dualism there.

A & E didn't have to be destroyed. They had free will. They chose. I don't know for sure why God allowed the attempt to be made, but I presume that if they had resisted they would have gained, by that means of being tested and standing firm, some greater degree of wisdom and bliss than they had had before. Call it a kind of spiritual growth for which they were being offered the opportunity.

Hmmm. There is still something here that doesn't seem quite right. Free will? In order to have free will, in any meaningful sense, would not the moral agent need to be able to clearly see that any given act was either good, or evil? Now, if we posit that A&E knew the good, for being "friends" of God's, and that they knew evil *after* having disobeyed God, then we can't really say that they *chose* evil by listening to the Serpent. But, if we say that they knew *prior* to eating the fruit, that God was good and to disobey Him would be evil, then their cognition was not changed in fundamental way; it is only that they were punished for disobedience.
But it seems that their cognition *was* changed, after the act. They knew that they were naked, for one thing. If they hadn't known that previously, their intellect was pretty undeveloped, it would seem. If they didn't know that they were naked prior to the Fall, does this mean that they had no concept of sexuality? Is sexuality part of the punishment, then?

"Whoops! I'd gotten the impression that you were. My apologies."

No need for apologies, Tim. Natural mistake. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas, what? (Arf! Arf!)