by Danny Pelichowski
The IssuePosition #1: Natural Theology
In a lecture on apologetics J. P. Moreland defines natural theology as “the study of the nature and existence of God from creation and not from Holy Scripture.” He goes on to say that “part of natural theology involves knowing there is a god from the created world in some way or another.”[1] J. P. Moreland correctly defines natural theology and at the same time commits a categorical fallacy by lumping natural theology and general revelation together as if they were the same thing. This is one major presupposition of natural theology that will be examined later. In the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology J. Van Engen defines natural theology as “truths about God that can be learned from created things (nature, man, world) by reason alone.”[2] The focus of natural theology and more specifically the natural theologian is to attempt to prove God by looking within himself to his reason and observing the natural world. Natural theology is humanistic in that it views man as capable within his own reasoning capacities to get to the nature and existence of god apart from Scripture. Ultimately the Bible is no longer necessary to learn about the existence and nature of God because God can be found by reasoning in a dark room or through observing “nature.”Within natural theology there is a foundational reliance upon the Greek philosophic presupposition that there is a so called “natural law.” J. Van Engen points out that “the first great proponent of a natural theology distinguishable from revealed theology was Thomas Aquinas, the synthesizer of Greek philosophy and the gospel, who also laid the groundwork for notions of “natural law,” the ethical equivalent of natural theology.”[3] Thomas Aquinas is not interested in proving from Scripture that there is a “natural law” because it is an a priori given that he adopted from Aristotle. Aquinas was heavily reliant upon Aristotle frequently referring to him as “the philosopher” as if he were an infallible guild.[4] The bulk of Aquinas’ discussion about the doctrine of God focuses on rational argumentation and philosophic speculations. He does quote Biblical passages as proof texts but serious exegesis is absent. Thomas Aquinas begins his theological enquiry with the ontological argument for the existence of God and then moves to his five a posteriori proofs for the existence of God. He does not start with the Bible, rather he begins with his Reason stating that “…everyone understands that by this word “God” is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists in the intellect.”[5] Although Thomas Aquinas is better known for his a posteriori arguments for the existence of god it is important to note that he begins his theological study with the ontological argument and moves to his demonstration of God’s existence in nature, human reason, and experience apart from and independent of the Bible.
______________________________________
1. J.P. Moreland Arguments for the existence of God excerpts read by author. Disk 1, track 1
2. Van Engan, J. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology p. 815
3. Ibid 815
4. Thomas Aquinas The Summa Theologica Vol. 1. Great Books of the Western World Vol. 17 p. 21
5. Ibid 11
Posts
13 comments:
Hey Danny. I have responded to this blog here:
http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com/2009/02/is-natural-theology-biblical.html
Many Blessing to you!
Nathanael P. Taylor
Danny, as you may or may not know I have called my previous "convictions" about natural theology into question after leaving Faith Community Church. At this point I am reexamining the reasons for my former stance. I don't have time to write much but here are my preliminary thoughts on your (partial) paper:
1) You need to be careful to specify who/what you are attacking/examining. One of Morey's faults was that his critique of natural theology (an idea) would cross the boarder into a critique of the natural theologian (a person). You wrote,
"These professing Christians who have read and believed in the Bible have decided to put the Scriptures aside and prove God without special revelation."
and
"The focus of natural theology and more specifically the natural theologian is to attempt to prove God by looking within himself to his reason and observing the natural world."
Are you questioning the sincerity of these Christians' profession on the ground that they adopt a viewpoint you disagree with? If you are that's fine but don't pretend that their sincerity and their natural theology stand or fall together. You are clear that you are examining whether or not NT is biblical. Since that is your topic I would humbly advise rethinking these statements about fellow believers.
2) Regarding NT you wrote:
"Ultimately the Bible is no longer necessary to learn about the existence and nature of God because God can be found by reasoning in a dark room or through observing “nature.”"
I am not sure that this conclusion necessarily follows from what you have said. You quoted J.P. Moreland, who defends NT. Has he come to this conclusion? How about William Lane Craig? Greg Koukl? (do i really need to list more names?)... Have they come to this conclusion? The answer is clear that they have not, yet they accept natural theology or natural law.
It is possible that they are all missing something that you have caught, and if that is the case then please share it! :) But also share with us your reasoning for it. Deal with their writings. cite them. I have a small but growing collection of their books and would love to put them to use if they are flawed with faulty reasoning.
3) How does Aquinas' (heavy) reliance on Aristotle lead you to conclude that he viewed him as an "infallible guild."? I have not read Aquinas but I suspect that he merely had respect for a great philosopher. I also suspect that he did not agree with Aristotle %100 of the time (i.e. he did not view him as "infallible.")
4) You wrote:
"He [Aquinas] does quote Biblical passages as proof texts but serious exegesis is absent."
You argument would be much stronger if you could show some examples of Aquinas' non-serious exegesis.
Well Danny, I'm pooped! I hope that I have contributed to your end that this be a place where good thinking and discussion happens, and that the triune God will be glorified.
Glenn,
How are you? Hope seminary is going well for you at Golden Gate. I am enjoying Southern, it’s definitely keeping me busy. I’m just going to get right to the point addressing your 4 concerns. And from what I can gather, you will have much more to say after I respond and of course after I post the rest of my paper. I do appreciate the interchange because it helps me process and sharpen my own thoughts. I truly hope this will be a helpful dialogue.
1.) As for Morey attacking natural theologians, how can a person critique and deal with a system of thought that is in their estimation unbiblical without also dealing with the arguments of the people who hold these views? Did Luther address specific people for example when critiquing the teaching of the buying and selling of indulgences?
In nowhere in my introduction have I called into question any individuals sincerity of belief. I have merely communicated what natural theologians are doing when they operate in the field of natural theology.
a.) The natural theologians in view in this paper are professing Christians. Is that not a plain statement? That means that they are affiliated in one degree or another with the Bible and have faith in its teachings. The mere fact that they are doing natural theology means that they have deemed it most appropriate to put the Scriptures aside and argue for God’s existence apart from the Bible. In the first quote of mine that is under discussion have I anywhere critiqued or called into question anyone’s sincerity?
b.) I hope that it is clear now after reading the second quote of mine again that your concern about my questioning of sincerity does not apply here either. Is it not true that The focus of natural theology and more specifically the natural theologian is to attempt to prove God by looking within himself to his reason and observing the natural world?
Now to be clear I am not saying that I am opposed to questioning a person’s profession of faith by objectively observing their doctrine and or morals. I think that is an appropriate response to heretical teaching and unbiblical thought. For example: would you not question my profession of faith if I denied the Trinity? All that I am stating here is that I have not questioned anyone’s sincerity or called anyone a heretic in what I have written. Therefore, I am not persuaded in the least by you first point of concern.
2.) Let me help clarify this for you, if natural theology is true as the natural theologians claim then "Ultimately the Bible is no longer necessary to learn about the existence and nature of God because God can be found by reasoning in a dark room or through observing “nature.” I have already noted above that the natural theologians in view in this paper are profession Christians. This means that they are in one degree or another affiliated, believing, teaching, and accepting the Bible (J.P. Moreland for example holds to inerrancy). This quote does not say that they don’t care about Scripture. This is exactly why I think their endeavor to “do” natural theology is so irrational. They have God’s written revelation to man whereby men might be saved and they put the Bible in the closet and go out evangelizing the heathen (in their apologetics) with their reasoning abilities and nature. What would Luther think? Moreover, what would Paul or Jesus think of this method (spare me the Acts 17 nonsense that we heard so much at Biola). In light of this above discussion I think it is clear that I am not persuaded by your concern here either.
3.) To point three and four I am going to have to concede... kind of. I am clearly not an expert on Aquinas and have only read a scattering of 50 pages of Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica when researching for this paper. I wrote this paper to fulfill the requirements for Bruce Ware’s Systematic Theology 1 class at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. It was a position paper as opposed to a research paper and the requirement was only 8-10 pages and I wrote about 11 (thankfully he was gracious and didn’t dock me for that). I was also taking Church History 1 with Dr. Tom Nettles and had one of my primary resource reading assignments of 50 pages fulfilled during the research for my Theology paper (killed 2 birds with 1 stone). With that being said we can move forward with the knowledge that I am not an Aquinas scholar, in fact I am no scholar at all. I am just a fellow Christian in his first year of formal ministry preparation at seminary writing a position paper and taking a position.
First off, I am not using the word infallible to communicate that Aquinas agreed with Aristotle 100% of the time because he didn’t. In fact, I think it would be quite impossible for one person to agree with another person 100% of the time unless we are discussing the persons of the Godhead. Maybe I used the wrong word but whenever a person quotes a certain author, speaks highly of them, sounds a lot like them, and even attributes a lofty exalted term like “the philosopher” to them it means that they have obviously aligned themselves with their thought to a very high degree. Again, maybe not 100% but you get the picture.
4.) I agree that it would make this paper much stronger if I spent 100 pages of it analyzing Aquinas’ works and showing where he simply cited proof texts without accurately exegeting Scripture but since I have only read 50 pages of one of his writings that would be impossible and would obviously go beyond the scope of my paper. All I can say is that in my short reading of Aquinas’ Summa Theologica this was the case. If you opened it up and began reading it would not be difficult to find.
I hope this was clear. I’m exhausted as well and look forward to many more exchanges with you and anyone else reading this. Like I said, I appreciate discussing these things because I think they are of utmost importance. Lord willing we will continue this later.
-Danny Pelichowski
Danny,
Golden Gate is going well. Today I had a 6 hour long class (fortunately at that rate we only meet twice a month!) If I may respond in order I hope you will consider my points:
1) The flaw which Morey makes is not "dealing with the arguments of the people who hold these views," rather it is attacking the people themselves. For example, he calls J.P. Moreland, J.P. Boreland (as though he were boring). He calls Koukl's radio Show Stand to Treason (instead of Stand to Reason), Norman Geisler is often called Roman Geisler, etc. Making fun of your opponents names does not bode well for your argument as a whole.
To my shame I participated in this bad reasoning and God has graciously helped me see the flawed reasoning. I just want to strongly caution you to not follow Morey in his ad hominim attacks. Deal with the issues and don't call the theologian's sincerity (using the adjective "professing" with the noun "Christian," for example, rather than just saying "Christian"). Once you have established that natural theology is unbiblical (which you have yet to do) then you would have ground to assert that these Christians are merely "professing" and not the real deal.
With regard to your second quote in my first point, I believe you should still clarify whether you are attacking the system of thought or a generic individual who accepts NT as valid. I could see how you might read it either way, but out of caution to avoid Morey's failings (and it is no secret you admire him) you should try to avoid his error of tearing down the person rather than the idea.
2) I want to address your last point here first. Acts 17 is Scripture and it is impious for you to call it "nonsense." To be honest I probably wouldn't have even brought it up. But since you did (and you clearly anticipated that i would) perhaps you should deal with it at some point in your paper.
As far as your quote relates to Moreland, I grant that it does not say he does not care about Scripture. But it does imply that he believes it is not necessary to learn about God's nature. Does Moreland base his theology (proper) entirely on NT (I have not read much of his work so I may be wrong in assuming he does not)? Has he (or any other natural theologian) said that they do not need the bible to know what God is like? (These are not loaded questions either, I would truly want to know if they say this)
Personally, when I read Romans 1 it says that God's "eternal power" has been clearly perceived" (v. 20). His "wrath... is revealed from heaven..." (v. 18). I may be mistaken, but it seems to be saying that certain things about God can be known from sources other than Scripture. Rom. 1:18 specifically says his wrath can be known from "heaven."
Or Psalm 19, for instance, says that "Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork" (v. 1). Once again "heavens" and "sky" are declaring something about God.
These passages are the "go-to" passages for establishing General Revelation. When God reveals Himself in Scripture it is biblical revelation and our study and organization of that data is biblical theology. Would it not follow that natural theology is our reception and organization of the data we take in from God's revelation of Himself in nature? (I want to be crystal clear that I am not confusing GR with NT).
3) haha, I totally understand! I recently wrote a paper defending Judge's place in the canon...at least that's how it turned out... it began as a paper on interpretative difficulties and I ended up cutting out a lot of interesting stuff that just didn't fit the topic!
As far as Aquinas goes, one example would be sufficient. When people (not just you) dismiss an idea because it is not based on "serious" exegesis or "serious" thought I am immediately skeptical of their ability to assess what is and is not "serious." It may be true! But without a footnote or example I am left only with your word on it (which I may or may not take at face value). Please don't take this as an attack, I sincerely wish writers would not make this judgment for me, let Aquinas speak for himself and, if necessary, show me why he is not serious.
4) Point taken. 100 pages is not necessary, just one example or a footnote and you could confidently lay that line or argumentation to rest.
Danny, thanks for inviting me to read and reply to this. I am enjoying this interaction and hope to participate further as time allows.
Glen,
I think we both have made our points clear where we disagree with each other. First and foremost, I am not interested in discussing where you take issue with Dr. Morey here on my blog. I have written a paper on the topic of natural theology and I hope we can discuss what I have written. If I came to your blog and started talking about off topic issues bringing my personal agenda to your blog I would expect for you to call me out on that as well and I would respect your wishes. That means that linking your blog to promote your opinions about an unrelated issue that you have is not going to help us have a productive discussion about what is written here.
Second, to be clear, I have nowhere used ad hominem attacks and therefore your concerns about me using them are not relevant. The fact that you dislike me using the term professing Christian to refer to hypothetical natural theologians is your personal preference and you are more than welcome to refrain from that expression when you write. However in no way do I think that what I wrote was calling into question anyone’s sincerity or using ad hominem character attacks. Therefore, your first point is irrelevant.
a.) The natural theologians in view in this paper are professing Christians. Is that not a plain statement? That means that they are affiliated in one degree or another with the Bible and have faith in its teachings. The mere fact that they are doing natural theology means that they have deemed it most appropriate to put the Scriptures aside and argue for God’s existence apart from the Bible. In the first quote of mine that is under discussion have I anywhere critiqued or called into question anyone’s sincerity (or did I use ad hominem attacks)?
To answer my own question: I did not so let’s move from this point. There is plenty more to discuss about the paper that I have written if you so choose and I am not going to go around in circle’s discussing the same thing. Your point is taken, I think it was off topic, but I get the point and I hope you get mine as well.
2.) For you to even suggest that I was saying that Acts 17 is not important or that it is nonsense is absurd. I hope you really misunderstood me and thought that was what I was saying because if not I am beginning to think that you are here simply to pick a fight. You must know that what I was saying about Acts 17 is not that it is nonsense, God forbid me ever say that any passage of the inerrant Scriptures are nonsense. I was simply making a reference to an interpretation of a passage that we have heard from professors like J.P. Moreland dealing with Acts 17 to justify reasoning apart from special revelation in apologetics and the use of natural theology (really when I was writing I anticipated that response but not particularly from you. It’s just the obvious response so I am sorry if you took offense as if I were implying that you hold to a certain view of Acts 17. Regardless, I thought it was clear that I was in no way saying that the passage was nonsense but that the interpretation given by some Natural Theologians was nonsense). The question that I asked in the last post was what Luther, Paul, and Jesus would think about the endeavor to evangelize unbelievers by putting the Bible aside, using Reason, and observing nature to prove God to the lost.
moving on, I have already finished the paper therefore the comments about what you think I should deal with in my paper and how I should re-word things are not very helpful. This was a position paper and I am unable to go into great detail in every aspect of natural theology. I wish I could, but this paper was not intended to do that (it wasn’t a doctoral thesis or a book). I hope we can move forward with realistic expectations. We can discuss Acts 17 all day long; however I did not discuss that in my paper just for you to know ahead of time. Nor do I think that just because it is relevant that it should have been included. There are a lot of things relevant to this topic that I simply could not have included. Remember this was not an exhaustive discussion therefore as the author I had to make some judgment calls on where I wanted to go with the paper. Lord willing I will post the rest of my paper and if you desire you can discuss what I have written not getting ahead of yourself, and staying ON topic. I think that this discussion can be helpful for the both of us as well as anyone reading. Lastly, my discussion of general revelation is coming in later posts of my paper. Let’s put that on hold and once again not get ahead of ourselves. I appreciate that you have interpretations of these passages and are going to want to voice those here. But don’t list passages telling me what I need to include and calling me out on my interpretations and views about a topic that is yet to be defined and discussed. Let’s try to be patient here.
3 & 4.) Your point is taken and I understand that an example of his lack of exegesis and proof texting would make the paper stronger. I did not include it in this paper and I think I even make the claim (that you will not like) later that Aquinas was more Aristotelian than he was Christian. I do not give an exact reference to all the pages that he quotes Aristotle however, like I pointed out in the paper, Aquinas gives Aristotle the exalted title of “The Philosopher” to argue for many of his positions.
To be honest, I could be simply giving an immature reading of Aquinas because I have not read all or even close to the majority of his works. I will stand corrected if I am wrong but as for now I am confident in what I have written and the statements will stand as they are. Notice J. Van Engen’s comment that Aquinas was the great synthesizer of Greek Philosophy and the gospel in part one of my paper. He does not give examples but makes a statement. If you are going to expect me to give hearty footnotes about every claim that I make in a short position paper I wonder what you think of this claim in a published dictionary of theology, or more importantly how you would judge your own writing. You must have very strict criteria for even your blog and I hope that you are keeping your end of the deal and doing what you are expecting here from me in this position paper.
Hey Danny.
I'm pretty sure you're committing the genetic fallacy with your references to Aquinas and Aristotle. Which is something Morey does all the time. Basically the genetic fallacy is saying that something is wrong because it came from a disreputable place.
Just because something is not taught in scripture does not mean it is not orthodox Christianity. The Nicene Creed is not scripture yet that remains the best "litmus" test for a mere Christian orthodoxy. Sola Scriptura means that scripture is the final authority, not the only authority. So while Natural Theology may not be "biblical" I don't think you have shown any way in which it is in fact unbiblical, in other words contrary to scripture.
But Moreland and others would contest that Natural theology is discussed in the scripture, with an emphasis on reasoning in the scriptures. I'm not as interested in that as I am your miss use of Sola Scriptura and the genetic fallacy. I hope you don't end up like Gordon Clark. You have all kinds of beliefs that aren't based in scripture. I mean the Holy Spirit isn't in fact scripture and yet as a Calvinist you believe He actually produces the force and content of your faith, no?
Oh and I just put Gone Baby Gone at the top of my netflix que. So be looking for my review and analysis just for you.
Aaron,
What’s up man, good to have you here in this discussion.
1. it’s not a fallacy if indeed Aquinas is Aristotelian. Meaning, if he is so pervasively influenced by Greek philosophy so as to overshadow his writing about theology then I think it is warrant to be concerned with him and question whether the Bible is the final foundation for his beliefs. I’m convinced that Aquinas’ blending the gospel with Christianity is a bad thing. If that is a fallacy then I can accept that Aaron.
2. This point is for both you and Glenn. I have not even begun discussing why I think that natural theology is unbiblical because I have only posted a short introduction to the paper and my definition of natural theology. I asked that Glenn not get ahead of himself and I will ask the same of you.
3. Moreland doesn’t define natural theology as reasoning from the Scriptures. That is a false statement. In nowhere have I ever heard any natural theologian define NT as reasoning from the scriptures. Read the quote above where Moreland defines it as reasoning apart from and independent of the Bible! That is the point. I take no issue with people reasoning from the Bible so long as their reasoning is Biblical.
4. Lastly, I believe that the Bible is the final, ultimate, measuring rule, best, and most authoritative source for our knowledge about what we are to believe about God, man, sin, salvation etc. and how we are to live. Our doctrine and our morals should come from meditating on Scripture alone. I am not opposed to confessions of faith insofar as they are in accord with what the Bible says. And I reject the idea that the Holy Spirit produces the content of my faith and I don’t know any Calvinist who believes that either for that matter. Yes, Holy Spirit regenerated me in order to believe the gospel as found in Scripture and to repent of my sins. However, I do not affirm that the Holy Spirit works independently from the Bible in some mystical fashion to give content outside of the Bible. If you have understood me correctly and still have a problem with what I believe about sola scriptura then I guess we are simply not of like mind.
My short answer to the question (Is Natural Theology Compatible With Biblical Revelation?) is no, it is not compatible. The Scriptures expressly state that any and all of man's intellectual projects not built upon the foundation of Christ should be rejected lest one become taken captive by them. Furthermore, Scripture consistently warns against the very real possibility of being deceived.
But some may say, "We are doing Christian philosophy." To them we should reply, "What makes Christian Philosophy Christian is not whether Christians are doing it but whether it is according to Christ." To this they may object and say, "God has created nature and everything in it including humans that bear His image. As His image bearers we have the ability to reason and process logical thoughts. Therefore we can, shall, and will continue the project of establishing a theology from our unaided observation of God's creation." To this we should politely smile and ask, "But can you establish those premises from an unaided observation of God's creation or must you appeal to special revelation fir its justification?" They may momentarily appear puzzled and intellectually disoriented, but since it is clear that they are faced with extreme difficulty, we must exhort the natural theologian in love and offer something similar to the following:
"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." (Col. 2:8)
We are concerned with the consequences of pursuing such projects as natural theology. God has revealed that it is very possible for a professing believer to be deceived. If it were not for God's own Word affirming the truth I speak to you, I myself would have no way of knowing with certainty whether my words are true or byproducts of my own deceit.
The Greek word for deception used by Paul in Col. 2:8 is "apate." It is modified by the adjective "kenos," which means "empty" or "vain." Paul is writing a stern warning (Blepete!) to look out for snares along the way in the Christian life that are, by design, harmful and potentially eternally destructive to the professing believer. In the passage above, Paul identifies those potential snares according to their common recognizable characteristics of "not according to Christ but according to human tradition and the elemental spirits of the world." The very real danger that lies at hand is not revealed in nature, and nature has no way of informing humans of this danger. Likewise, humans have no way of discovering the danger in nature.
Since natural theology is according to human tradition and the elemental spirits of this world (Thales, Anaximenes, Anaximander, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, et al.), and not according to Christ, it is deemed incompatible and therefore should be rejected as a reliable means to discover truth about God, man, the world, and all the interrelationships involved. For the truth about these ultimate aspects of reality, Christians should look to Scripture, accept its propositions and the logical deductions thereof, be prepared to submit to its doctrine, and obey what it commands!
The radical nature of God's special revelation is seen in the necessity of regeneration in order to comprehend it profoundly. And a radical Christian is produced when God enables a profound comprehension of His special revelation. Radical statements are made by the radical Christian that has been given supernatural illumination of the radical nature of God's special revelation, such as:
"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor. 2:14)
Immediately prior to this radical statement, this radical Christian wrote, "Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual."
According to this radical Christian's claim, only by the Spirit who is from God can one understand the things freely given us by God. The epistemological implications of this statement further validate the Bible's own claims that render natural theology incompatible with not only "Biblical Revelation," but "Authentic Biblical Christianity" as well.
Hi Aaron,
Long time no see (couple years, or so?).
You wrote: "Basically the genetic fallacy is saying that something is wrong because it came from a disreputable place."
I want to point out an essential missing component of your definition: the absence of "solely on the basis of..." This addition completes the definition which in turn renders your critique sort of, well, invalid.
The fallacy is committed when a conclusion is based "solely on the basis of it's origin," not just when someone says "something is wrong because it came from a disreputable place."
"Just because something is not taught in scripture does not mean it is not orthodox Christianity. The Nicene Creed is not scripture yet that remains the best "litmus" test for a mere Christian orthodoxy."
Aaron, you're failing to account for the propositional content included in the creed that is either explicit in Scripture or validly deduced from Scripture. You've also confused the propositional content taught in Scripture with the Scriptures themselves (Quote: Just because something is not "taught in Scripture"...Nicene Creed "is not Scripture...").
"Sola Scriptura means that scripture is the final authority, not the only authority."
This is a very often repeated Morelandism. Are you arguing for a hierarchy of authorities? Do you consider authority to have one ultimate point with multiple subordinate forms? And do you believe that multiple authorities can conflict? If yes to any, exactly what legitimate authority would a subordinate form have once found to be overruled by the ultimate? And would not a hierarchy of authority be forced to comply or be in accord with the ultimate? It seems that if Scripture is the final authority, but not the only authority, that the other supposed subordinate authorities are treated as final authorities in matters/areas considered outside the realm of Scripture's authority. Is this what you're saying? And if so, what are they?
"I hope you don't end up like Gordon Clark.
Why would you wish someone not to "end up" like one of the greatest Christian philosophers ever to be given to Christ's church? How much (or what) do you know about Gordon Clark that would lead you to say this?
"You have all kinds of beliefs that aren't based in scripture. I mean the Holy Spirit isn't in fact scripture and yet as a Calvinist you believe He actually produces the force and content of your faith, no?"
As a Calvinist, I can assure you that if Danny in fact believes this (which he'd better or I'm flying to KY and layin' some smackdown [Calvinistic love for one another... :) ]), that it is based on the propositional content revealed in Scripture and or valid deductions thereof. But I'd like you to expand on this thought. What do you mean by it? And are you saying that it is natural theology?
Good to hear from you!
You said:
"it’s not a fallacy if indeed Aquinas is Aristotelian. Meaning, if he is so pervasively influenced by Greek philosophy so as to overshadow his writing about theology then I think it is warrant to be concerned with him and question whether the Bible is the final foundation for his beliefs. I’m convinced that Aquinas’ blending the gospel with Christianity is a bad thing. If that is a fallacy then I can accept that Aaron."
Yeah that is basically the definition of the genetic fallacy. If you're okay with making fallacies than I am very worried about you. The genetic fallacy is that you are attacking the cause or source of the thing in question without actually attacking the truth of the thing in question. So since it's actually aristotle and not Bible it's wrong. But that doesn't make any sense. Because many things that you do and think everyday have their founding in Aristotle. Science owes a great debt to Aristotle, and as you have shown with Aquinas so does the church. Unless you can show that Aristotle's ideas are in themselves false you have done nothing, except asserted a naive sola scriptura over Aquinas.
In regards to 3 I was unclear about what I meant concerning Moreland. Moreland and the talbot crew think that the Bible talks many times about reasoning and natural theology. They are not what Morey addresses in his natural theology lectures, because Moreland et al are evangelicals who use reason to argue for God, sometimes from the scriptures and sometimes not (Natural theology is when you do not as you know). William Lane Craig believes that the Holy Spirit causes his belief in God. They are not the modernist natural theologians that Morey derides in his lectures, which is actually another case of the genetic fallacy in play. If I remember right he even says something about how the entire Talbot Faculty is Roman and they just haven't informed the rest of Biola.
In regards to 4 I do agree with you that in terms of Christian theology the scriptures are where God had it written down when he spoke to Israel and the church, so of course this is the guiding informing tool we must use. But he did and does speak outside of the scriptures all the time. He speaks through our pastors and through each other to each other in many many ways. You have all sorts of beliefs that the scriptures do not directly address. Theological beliefs. How could you ever test The Nicene Creed agaisnt the scriptures? The Nicene Creed went beyond the New Testament in its formulation of the Trinity. It is a more robust view of the trinity that you would be hard pressed to find in the New Testament. But it does not contradict the scriptures. It is informed by the scriptures and in the spirit of what the New Testament says concerning the relation between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but God guided those men, through tradition, reason and the scriptures to defend the Nicene view. I am a Calvinist and I do think that The Holy Spirit is the force and the content of my faith. He does use the scriptures but He also speaks to me apart from them as well, never contradictory and not with great clarity. But my faith finds itself in God primarily. That faith is educated and nurtured by God's written word. My father is also a Calvinist and I think he believes something like this. I also think Edwards believed something like this. He actually claimed that he had visions of God and the hosts of heaven while riding in the woods. I'm reading Religious Affections right now, so I think I'll know soon whether or not this is true. I don't why you think the Spirit never works apart from the scriptures in some "mystical" way. Here again is the genetic fallacy. If it's mystical its false. The scriptures are very important, the most important tool we have to become aware of the knowledge of God, but we also have the church, church history/tradition, ourselves, reason, and of course The Holy Spirit. When these things contradict Holy Scripture they are of course false, but that does not mean that we cannot not and do not learn about God outside of the Bible. Preaching is outside of the Bible and quite often goes beyond the Bible. An interpretation goes beyond the Bible. We go beyond the Bible all the time whilst forming our beliefs about God. As long as we are submitting to God and his scriptures as well as his church then we are still acting within Sola Scriptura.
Hey Danny,
I'm sorry if you took my comments about Morey's reasoning poorly. I will refrain from mentioning them in the future. In my defense I tried not to discuss where I take issue with Morey on your blog and my intent was not to "promote" my blog on yours. No, rather than discussing where I take issue with Morey (a person) I was discussing where I took issue with Morey's poor reasoning (a set of ideas). I assumed that it would be alright because you have (admittedly) been influenced by him (especially on the topic of Natural Theology). Believe me bro, I'm all about staying on topic! :)
nuff said about that...
As far as your comment about Acts 17. I am glad you did not mean what you said in your previous comment. You did not mention anything about an interpretation which was nonsense, rather "nonsense" modified "Acts 17," and I merely took it at face value.
Also, I am not aware of what you have not posted yet and am not able to prevent myself from bringing up an issue related to NT that you discuss in an unposted blog. Once again you remind me to stay "ON topic." Friend, you brought up Acts 17, not me. If I reply to a topic you brought up on your blog I don't see why I need to be told to stay on topic.
You wrote:
"don’t list passages telling me what I need to include and calling me out on my interpretations and views about a topic that is yet to be defined and discussed."
Danny you must forgive me, I was under the impression that you were still working on your paper and were interested in possible ways to improve it before handing it in. It was in that spirit that I offered the suggestions that I did. And once again, I do not know what you have not yet posted. Maybe you could post an outline of topics from the rest of your paper and we won't discuss those topics until you post on them...
Regarding Aquinas, I'm more or less indifferent on whether or not he was mostly Christian or Aristotelian. And once again I want to apologize for trying to offer advise for possible ways to improve your paper. I was under the impression you were interested in ways to make it better and was only trying to help you out, even if it was only in a small way. When I offered my ideas about citations, in my mind I was suggestion a way to improve an academic paper, not your blog. If you ever have any suggestions about ways to improve my blog or any paper I have posted there I would gladly take them to heart :)
Glenn,
I thought that the ad hominem discussion was off topic, not that you brought up the Acts 17 side note that I made. I'm glad you actually thought that I was saying that the passage was non-sense (i would expect you to be concerned because so would I) and because like I said in my response, I do not think that at all. That's why I connected the comment with the interpretation that we heard at Biola (i know i didn't say interpretation, but I did bring up Biola and I thought you would know what I meant. Also it was late). I guess I should have been more clear but I hope I was clear in my response.
I am always interested in being sharpened and like I said, I do think that what you said about backing up claims with examples is definitely valid. I was just getting a little annoyed with you telling me what I should edit, add, and discuss in the paper I had written. The paper is not perfect like I said, neither is it exhaustive. I hope the least it could do is generate discussion which is happening now, so I guess I am pleased.
Post a Comment