Is Natural Theology Compatible with Biblical Revelation? (part 5 conclusion)

by Danny Pelichowski

Objections to Revealed Theology

The popular defense for natural theology is that it is a helpful tool in apologetics to get people who do not accept the Bible to believe in god or adopt certain ethical principles. It is also claimed that they can reach this goal by ridding themselves of biblical revelation and arguing from nature and human reason alone. It has already been established that natural theology is unbiblical because it denies or at least ignores certain doctrines such as the total depravity of man. We have shown that natural theology is an empty pursuit because people are suppressing the truth that can only be unsuppressed for lack of better words through the preaching and reading of the Scriptures. It would be further proof of the futility of natural theology if it could be demonstrated that it is impossible for the professing Christian to conduct a completely natural theology that is not dependent on or influenced by the Bible for its content.

If you observe the arguments for the existence of God given by Christian natural theologians they would look very different from the heathen tribes in Africa who are not influenced by the Judeo Christian worldview. Heathens generally are not using the ontological, cosmological, teleological, or moral arguments for the existence of God. They do not think in these categories because they have not been enlightened by the Scriptures in order to observe God in human reason, creation, natural law, or morals. These are all categories that Christians have either retained from the Bible or have adopted from Greek Philosophy and are non existent in cultures outside of the western world that have been influenced by Judeo Christianity and western culture. The terminology used by Thomas Aquinas is sadly influenced to a greater degree by Aristotle than the Bible; however the Bible nonetheless has framed much of his thinking. The following quote from John Frame is very revealing; “…Aquinas is recommending autonomous reasoning, which is self-consciously removed from the authority of God’s Word, enabling us to argue from the same premises as Plato or Aristotle. I don’t believe that Aquinas succeeds in removing biblical assumptions from his argument. Aquinas is, after all, a Christian. But that is exactly what he tries to do. And that is a project that we must repudiate, as those who seek to think as covenant servants of God."[23] Arguing from the same premises as Greek philosophers all the while retaining the Christian name is foolish. It would be better for the church if natural theologians would abandon their Christian name and follow in the footsteps of Plato and Aristotle under the authority of human reason and experience. The truth is that the biblical witness is so pervasive and foundational for the Christian that it is impossible to separate the life changing principles and presuppositions of Christianity if a person is truly in the faith. Likewise, it is equally impossible to bring together and mix Greek Philosophy or any other worldview with the Scriptures without completely violating and perverting the Biblical witness. Consider the conclusion that Dr. Morey arrives at after years of researching heathen religions: “The only ones who can truly start from their own reason apart from the Bible are the heathen who never heard the Bible or any of the religions which refer to it. Such a person must be in total isolation from Judaism and Christianity, and any religions that borrowed material from those religions. When we look in history to see what isolated heathens have deduced from nature using their reason, we find nothing but gross idolatry and immorality. Thus natural theology is a complete bust. It has never worked in the past and it will never work in the future.”[24] Aristotle’s natural theology peddled by many modern evangelicals is as John Frame wrote and Robert Morey alludes to “a project that we must repudiate.”

Natural theology is incompatible with Biblical revelation and is not a helpful apologetic method as many evangelicals assume. Natural theology is humanistic and leads to the demise of the authority of Scripture in the believer’s life. If a Christian thinks that he can determine the nature and existence of God as well as the nature of man and morality apart from the Bible then ultimately the Scriptures lose its sole authority in determining doctrine and morals. Not only can the Christian be deceived by natural theology but so can the unbeliever. Millard Erickson wisely observes that if the natural theologians “proofs are inadequate, then in rejecting the proofs, the unbeliever may also reject the Christian message, assuming that they are the best grounds that can be offered for its acceptance. In rejecting one form of advocacy of the Christian message, a form that is not a matter of biblical revelation, the unbeliever may reject the message itself.”[25] There are many adequate rebuttals against the natural proofs for the existence of God given by both unbelievers and believers alike. Therefore the Christian must pick his authority. Should he pursue natural theology that is fallible and ever changing or the infallible and inerrant Word of God? The answer is clear to those who are in the truth. God’s Word as opposed to human reason and experience should be our ultimate authority in apologetics, preaching, doctrine, and living.
______________________________
23. John M. Frame Th Doctrine of God, 225
24. Robert A. Morey "Is Natural Theology Fideistic?" in Journal of Biblical Apologetics. Vol. 1 Num. 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: Christian Scholars Press, 2000. 5-6
25. Millard Erickson Christian Theology, 185

Is Natural Theology Compatible with Biblical Revelation? (part 4)

by Danny Pelichowski

Support for Revealed Theology Continued

We now move to the second chapter of Romans to clarify some confusion about the text. Paul states that the gentiles have “…the work of the law written on their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternatively accusing or else defending them…”[17] Many theologians interpret the work of the law as the Ten Commandments written on the hearts of every person past, present, and future. However, the text says that the work of the law has been written on every person’s heart describing the conscience and its function as opposed to the Ten Commandments. The work of the written law as we see in Romans is to bring the knowledge of sin.[18] The natural man through his conscience is convicted of sin while not having the written law which is special revelation. This does not mean that man has an infallible conscience that always reveals and convicts him when he is sinning and excuses him when he is behaving rightly. The conscience is affected by sin and therefore one man can think it completely reasonable to act in a way that another man would repulse. The point of this passage is to declare that the natural man has a conscience and not that he has the infallible word of God written in stone on his heart. Theologians must take a huge leap in this passage to get to the Ten Commandments. However it seems to be accepted quite easily a priori without any serious explanation. God revealed his law to his people by written communication and God’s law is infallible. We must be careful for if a person is willing to accept that special revelation is written on every lost sinner’s heart independent from the Bible it would be very easy to accept that people can be saved apart from the preaching or reading of the Bible. In other words if a person takes the huge leap to accept that the heathen have special revelation written on their hearts apart from the Bible, it would only take a small jump to get to salvation apart from the Bible. I am aware that there are many theologians holding this interpretation who would reject this connection. However, after examining the text I have found that the interpretation equating the “work of the law written on their hearts” to the Ten Commandments to be an erroneous reading going beyond what Paul intended.

Now that we have defined general revelation and the flawed biblical assumptions of natural theology, consider this statement from the prominent evangelical natural theologian J.P. Moreland in order to demonstrate the futility of natural theology, “the church may preach to unbelievers what Scripture says about some topic, but when believers argue for their views in the public square or defend them against those who do not accept the Scriptures they should use general principles of moral argument and reasoning.”[19] Moreland also states “that believers need not appeal to Scripture in arguing for certain ethical positions, say, in the abortion debate.”[20] First of all, moral argumentation is meaningless apart from a Biblical worldview. What good is reasoning and moral argumentation going to do when discussing certain issues like abortion with a moral relativist? And on what basis if not the Bible can a Christian argue for the life of the unborn? As a Christian, when exposing sin, is it right to appeal to common sense, intuition, the greater good, and the fact that abortion is unthinkable? I would submit it foolish to argue from these premises when we have God’s direct revelation to man written down in the sixty six books of the Bible. The reality is that arguing from these subjective premises does an injustice to our great God because these general ethical arguments function as a substitute to the infallible special revelation by failing to proclaim God’s law. Once again we see the humanistic tendencies of natural theology in the above argument made by Dr. Moreland who begins with man’s reasoning and experience and not God’s revelation. In Moreland’s view ethics and morality is not exclusively founded on the basis of God’s authority and law. On the contrary, his apologetic practice of arguing for morals and ethics apart from special revelation leaves open the false anti-Christian belief that morality is in the eye of the beholder. By beginning with subjective human reasoning and setting aside the Bible the natural theologian plays into the human centered worldview of the unbeliever and has lost the battle already. Obviously not everyone thinks that abortion is unthinkable because of the vast number of people who support it and practice the murder of unwanted babies. The reality is that people are sinful, wicked, depraved, and blinded to the truth. They need to be confronted with the reality that although abortion may be appealing to them it is an abomination to God who has revealed himself in the Scriptures and will judge them for their wickedness. Let the unbelievers mock. Isn’t that what we should expect? At least we are telling them the truth and most importantly honoring God. This is just one example of the ineffectiveness and unbiblical nature of the humanistic use of natural theology and natural apologetics.

It has been established that natural theology is humanistic in its very core because of its attempt to prove the nature and existence of God apart form the Bible. It has also been demonstrated that J.P. Moreland as well as many other natural theologians have committed a categorical fallacy by equating natural theology and natural law with general revelation. General revelation is simply that God has revealed that He exists in his creation and through human conscience but that every human being who is not a believer is suppressing the truth that God has made known in this revelation. It is also important to understand that while general revelation declares that there is a god it does not reveal who He is or how we are to relate to Him. Therefore we cannot know about the existence of the true God from creation and conscience so long as we are unregenerate and suppressing the truth. Once a person is born again and has accepted the truth about God found in Scripture he can then observe and appreciate the fact that “the heavens declare his righteousness, and all the peoples have seen his glory.”[21] In the Journal of Biblical Apologetics Robert Morey states that “having suppressed any knowledge that could have led to a natural theology, man’s depraved reasoning abilities led him into the darkness of vain, philosophic, speculations (Rom 1:21-22).”[22] Due to the presence of sin man cannot know the nature, existence, laws, and salvation of God in Christ Jesus for they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. It takes an act of God through the Holy Spirit regenerating a person so that he can believe in the Gospel. Therefore, we conclude that natural theology is incompatible with the Biblical worldview and should be rejected and replaced with revealed theology.
______________________________
17. Romans 2:15b
18. Romans 3:20 "because by the works of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight; for through the law comes the knowledge of sin."
19. J. P. Moreland Love Your God with all Your Mind. Colorado Springs: Navpress publications, 1997. 55-56.
20. Ibid 55
21. Psalm 97:6
22. Robert A. Morey "Is 'Natural Theology' a Form of Deism?" In Journal of Biblical Apologetics. 26

Is Natural Theology Compatible with Biblical Revelation? (part 3)

by Danny Pelichowski

Support for Revealed Theology

God has revealed Himself to humanity through the written Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The Holy Scriptures are the only infallible and inerrant guild revealing what God would have his people believe and how He demands that they should live. God’s special revelation found in Scripture is particular and limited because not everyone has access to the Bible. God has also made Himself known universally yet not specifically through His creation of the world and the human conscience. God’s natural or general revelation through creation is known and seen by all of humanity twenty four hours a day seven days a week.[9] There are many different interpretations of general revelation that exceeds what is found in the Bible and therefore must be rejected. Certain theologians claim that general revelation is every truth outside of the Bible that has been observed by psychologists, biologists, sociologists, and even going so far as including different religions and cults such as Islam or Mormonism.[10] The saying “all truth is god’s truth” is common amongst these theologians who define general revelation in this fashion. The problem with the above definition of general revelation is that it is nowhere found in the Bible. We must now turn to Scripture to define what we mean by general revelation.

According to the apostle Paul “…The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”[11] Paul reveals in this passage that the noetic effects of the fall have left man so completely distorted that he suppresses the natural revelation of God to man found in creation and conscience. Paul goes on to affirm “that which is known about God is evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are with out excuse.”[12] This revelation that men everywhere are suppressing is only sufficient to bring condemnation upon man as opposed to salvation. Every human being knows that there is a powerful divine creator god because as Millard Erickson points out “general revelation is God’s communication of himself to all persons at all times and in all places.”[13] Although they all know that there is a god in their heart of hearts they are suppressing that knowledge of the divine creator because of sin. Robert Morey sharply points out that “after sin entered the world, St. Paul argues in Romans that whatever knowledge man could have obtained from Creation is made void and null by his depravity.”[14]

The natural theologian must deal with the glaring effects of sin upon mankind. If the natural theologian is an evangelical and believes that man is suppressing the truth in nature because of their ungodliness and still proceeds to attempt to prove God from nature and conscience they are ultimately assuming that their natural apologetics apart from the Bible can reverse the noetic effects of the fall and lead people to salvation. Most evangelicals would firmly deny that man can be saved apart from Scripture but the use of natural theology in apologetics (which is a form of evangelism) leads me to believe that either the natural theologian is being deceptive by not claiming what he truly believes or that he is in fact deceived himself and ignorant of the truth in the Bible. Dr. Robert Morey rightly proclaims that the Biblical truth that must be established to all Christians whether they are pastors, evangelists, apologists or laymen is that “a fallen man in a fallen world can never by reason alone find the one true God in nature.”[15] The question must be asked “how then shall man be saved?” The revealed theologian would proclaim Sola Scriptura and preach from the Bible for it is the only means that God has determined to bring dead sinners who are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to life so that they may see the triune God of Scripture and be saved.[16]
__________________________________
9. Robert A. Morey Natural Theology: is it Biblical? Excerpts read by author. Disk 4 track 3.
10. In my undergraduate studies at Biola University I primarily heard these definitions of general revelation from my psychology professors and the philosophy department (though they did not include false religions and cults). The Bible and theology professors generally had a much more limited definition from Scripture.
11. Romans 1:18. All Scripture references are form the New American Standard Bible.
12. Romans 1:19-20.
13. Millard J. Erickson Christian Theology. Second edition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2007). 178
14. Robert A. Morey "Is 'Natural Theology' a form of deism?" In Journal of Biblical Apologetics. Vol. 1 No. 1.
15. Ibid 26
16. See Romans chapter 10