Isaiah 53:1-6
Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, [there is] no beauty that we should desire him.
He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
During this Christmas season, I must admit that I am humbled by the stark reality of this text. Isaiah, speaking prophetically of Christ, clearly relates that Christ was not some beautiful thing that people desired. In fact, he was born in a manger smelling of cow and sheep crap, learned a simple trade from his father, and was despised by the popular culture of today. Now I know it seems sort of drastic to say this, but I am not sure that anything has changed since the time of Christ's birth. Christmas has become a holiday celebrating mass consumerism, not a baby born in a feeding trough next to animals that was the incarnate son of God that would one day restore the broken relationship of humanity to God. During this Christmas season, I find myself more and more considering how the importance of Christmas is not consumerism, is not Santa, is not pretty decorations, its a nasty poo-filled stable where Christ would start a journey that would ultimately lead to salvation. Yet during this wonderful time of the year, we miss this. We still, being the good sheep we are (simply following the sheep-butt in front of us) just do like everyone else at Christmas. I think this is wrong, not just wrong, it is down right disappointing. Christ bore the ultimate torture for those whom he loved, and we would rather pray for snow that pray for salvation for others. This Christmas season, remember that the only real reason that we celebrate Christmas is because a little baby was born, grew up, and was torn up into a piece of raw meat that you and I might live eternally. Merry Christmas!
Friday, December 5, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
In Defense of Natural Theology
Issue
Natural theology, the concept that God has intentionally revealed Himself and humanity can gain knowledge about Him from His natural revelation without the use of the Scripture, has been a theme of discussion that ranges from the early church to the present day. Even Scripture itself testifies that “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.”[1] Yet while some scholars maintain that this is one of the most vibrant areas of Christian theology, still other evangelicals feel that natural theology is blasphemy and the height of human arrogance. Augustine, Aquinas, Barth, Brunner, and many other Christians throughout ecclesiastical history have considered this aspect of theology important, and therefore they made very scriptural arguments either for or against this particular branch of theology. Natural theology, properly understood and given certain modifications to the traditional version, does have an important place in the realm of theology within evangelical Christianity.
Positions
The oldest position of traditional natural theology finds many important allies among the theological greats of Christianity. Thomas Aquinas made strong arguments for the legitimacy of natural theology via what has come to be called the Five Ways. In five separate ways, Aquinas demonstrates that real knowledge about God is possible outside of Scripture. Alexander Hall summarizes the five ways quite well when he states
The Five Ways rely on five observations: things that are in motion, there exists an order of efficient causes where one entity moves another, contingent entities exist, among beings we find varying degrees of perfection, and unintelligent entities exhibit seemingly end-directed activity. Aquinas argues that these phenomena disclose the existence of a first mover, first efficient cause, etc., and identifies these entities with God.[2]
In other words, Aquinas understood that humans, with the help of reason, could construct arguments for the existence of God based on philosophical observations from nature itself. John Calvin himself, though some scholars disagree on the extent, supported the concept of natural theology. Calvin stated within the Institutes of the Christian Religion that
There are innumerable witnesses in heaven and on earth that declare the wonders of his wisdom. Not only those more arcane matters for the closer observation of which astronomy, medicine, and all of natural science (tota physica scientia) are intended, but also those which force themselves upon the sight of even the most unlearned and ignorant peoples, so that they cannot even open their eyes without being forced to see them.[3]
Here Calvin argues that even the most non-intellectual people possess the ability to see clearly the evidence of God. In this particular instance, Calvin states that humans ought to gain an appreciation for God’s wisdom when they behold the attributes of God found within creation. While Aquinas and Calvin understood natural theology as beneficial to Christianity, they are not the only perspective on the matter.
Several theologians have developed critiques and objections to the validity of natural theology. Karl Barth, in his famous debate with Emil Brunner over this issue, stands as the primary prosecutor of natural theology. Barth held the notion that knowledge about God apart from special revelation violated sola gratia. Millard Erickson describes the point of view of Barth when he states
Barth is very skeptical of the view that humans are able to know God apart from the revelation in Christ. This would mean that they can know the existence, the being of God, without knowing anything of his grace and mercy. This would injure the unity of God, since it would abstract his being from the fullness of his activity. A human who could achieve some knowledge of God outside of his revelation in Jesus Christ would have contributed at least in some small measure to his or her salvation or spiritual standing with God. The principle of grace alone would be compromised.[4]
Here Erickson explains that Barth understood the core of natural theology to argue for a works-based salvation. If knowledge of God can be achieved without knowing Christ in Scripture, then he or she would have a small role in their own salvation. Since one of the main tenets of natural theology is that true knowledge about God can be gleaned from nature apart from Scripture, Barth maintained that natural theology exemplified human arrogance because it appeared to violate the intrinsic need of humanity for the grace of God.
Some more modern theologians have attempted a sort of via media when discussing the viability of natural theology. Thomas Torrance, a Scottish theologian that agreed with the analysis of Barth on natural theology, redefines natural theology in such a way that it can stand against the objections of Barth. McGrath illustrates the new version of natural theology argued for by Torrance when he states
Torrance can therefore be thought of as moving natural theology into the domain of systematic theology, in much the same manner as Einstein moved geometry into the formal content of physics. The proper locus of natural theology is not debate about the possibility of hypothetical knowledge about God, but within the context of the positive and revealed knowledge of creator God.[5]
Torrance, as McGrath rightly illuminates, shifts the definition of natural theology away from independence from the revelation of God in Scripture to a type of systematic theology. To clarify, Torrance thought natural theology viable because the Word of God taught that general revelation displays some knowledge about God. Since this version of natural theology relies on other forms of revelation, Barth would not have disagreed with this definition.
Support
Natural theology does have a rightful place in theological study once the scope and limits of this aspect of theology are properly examined. Clearly some knowledge about God is revealed in nature as can be seen from the teachings of Scripture. Aside from Psalm 19, the Apostle Paul argues for revealed knowledge of God in nature. In Romans chapter one, Paul argues “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 without excuse.”[6] This passage is commonly cited in support of general revelation, the appropriate setting for natural theology. Wayne Grudem defines general revelation when he states “The knowledge of God’s existence, character, and moral law, which comes through creation to all humanity, is often called ‘general revelation’ (because it comes to all people generally).”[7] While natural theology constitutes a form of general revelation, notice that the definition that Grudem gives does not say that general revelation is absolute proof of God’s existence. General revelation is merely knowledge of God. This is due to the fact that general revelation comes to humanity from God, but has an intellectually sinful reception. Again, the Apostle Paul explains
For though they knew God, they did honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and birds of the air and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.[8]
Paul states that sinful humanity did actually gain knowledge about God, but sinfulness pushes them toward idolatry. Because the sin of humanity darkens this knowledge, Bruce Demarest explains that “Instead of proving salvific, general revelation serves only to condemn and to establish guilt-worthiness before God.”[9] Demarest means here that general revelation is not involved in the salvation process, but it does have other uses. Since natural revelation is a form of general revelation, it follows that natural theology also possesses no salvific truth.
Apart from establishing the guilt of humanity before God, natural theology does have other uses that have importance in Christian theology. It does not, as in the traditional view, necessarily prove the existence of God. As James Barr notes “We may question whether all natural theology seeks to ‘prove’: it may, on the contrary, merely indicate, merely register, what people think about God.”[10] McGrath notes the view of Alvin Plantinga who also does not believe that natural theology proves the existence of God when he states “In other words, natural theology is not intended to prove the existence of God, but presupposes that existence; it then asks ‘what should we expect the natural world to be like if it has indeed been created by such a God?’”[11] Linking the ideas of Barr and Plantinga to Scripture, since the knowledge from general revelation and natural theology is sinfully received, only after the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit after conversion does this information point to the existence of God. While this seems to restrict the usefulness of natural theology, Demarest illustrates several beneficial aspects of natural theology as contained in general revelation when he states
But general revelation serves several salutary ends. (1) It accounts for the presence of the truth wherever found in human experience and culture, including valid elements in the non-Christian traditions. (2) The universally implanted moral law provides the only authentic basis by which good and evil can be distinguished. The fact that good is enjoined and evil proscribed provides society with a viable moral framework. (3) Since all people possess rudimentary knowledge of God, Christian witnesses are assured when speaking to the unconverted that the notion of God is not meaningless.[12]
Here Demarest lists three important effects of doing natural theology in the correct manner. It allows Christians to explain how other religions do have at least some truth in them. Natural theology also explains how all of humanity has similar concepts of right and wrong. This particular point, known as the moral argument, is discussed in C.S. Lewis’ classic Mere Christianity. Lastly, it gives encouragement to believers because natural revelation acknowledges that unbelievers do have some knowledge about God, even if this knowledge has been twisted by sin.
Other observations that natural theology supports are the claims made within the special revelation of Scripture. When humanity can observe in nature and in themselves the phenomena listed within passages like Psalm 19, Job 36-37, and Romans 1, this lends weight to the authority of the Bible. Natural theology, under the umbrella of natural theology, works with the revelation of God in His Word. Rodney Stiling relates this cooperation between Scripture and natural theology when he states
Very little of the biblical text refers specifically to nature or natural phenomena, but in those few places where Scripture makes reference to nature, Christians committed to the time-honored notion that the one God is the author of both a general revelation in nature and a special revelation in Scripture would insist that these ‘two books’ in some real sense actually agree.[13]
Stiling argues here for what must be the proper relationship of natural theology and Scripture. Natural theology gives knowledge about God, but it works with Scripture to accomplish this.
Objections
The primary theological objection to natural theology derives from the debate of Barth with Brunner. Describing one serious aspect of the objection concerning natural theology, McGrath, quoting Torrance, relates the critique of Barth when he states
Epistemologically, then, what Barth objects to in traditional natural theology is not any invalidity in its argumentation, nor even in its rational structure, as such, but its independent character – i.e. the autonomous rational structure that natural theology develops on the ground of “nature alone,” in abstraction from the active self-disclosure of the living and Triune God (…).[14]
While this critique of Barth is justified in terms of traditional natural theology, if it is reclassified as a part of traditional systematic theology that is dependent on the Word of God for understanding and is studied in Christian community, then this objection deserves dismissal. McGrath demonstrates the appropriate understanding of natural theology as described by Torrance when he states
So it is with natural theology: brought within the embrace of positive theology and developed as a complex of rational structures arising in our actual knowledge of God it becomes ‘natural’ in a new way, natural to its proper object, God in self-revealing interaction with us in space and time.[15]
Here McGrath and Torrance rightly assert that if natural theology is understood as part of a systematic theology that stands in a supportive role to the special revelation of Bible, then the independence that Barth noted in traditional natural theology has changed into an utter dependence on God. Scripture clearly teaches that God has revealed Himself in nature and the humans He created, but this knowledge cannot save without a dependence upon the saving work of Jesus Christ that proceeds out of the accounts of Scripture and not nature. Therefore, natural theology exists as an aspect of general revelation.
Alvin Plantinga, an evangelical philosopher in the Reformed tradition, gives a philosophical objection to natural theology. Though his objection is complex to understand, his problem with natural theology is rooted in the definition of traditional theology. McGrath correctly interprets the view of Plantinga when he states
Natural theology supposes that belief in God must rest upon an evidential basis. Belief in God is thus not, strictly speaking, a basic belief – that is, something which is self-evident, incorrigible or evident to the senses. It is therefore a belief which requires to be itself grounded in some more basic belief. However, to ground a belief in God upon some other belief is, in effect, to depict that latter belief as endowed with a greater epistemic status than belief in God. For Plantinga, a properly Christian approach is to affirm that belief in God is itself basic, and does not require justification with reference to other beliefs.[16]
According to the understanding of Plantinga, the goal of traditional natural theology is to prove the existence of God via observations in creation. These observations, however, if they are understood to prove the existence of God, are given a higher epistemological value than belief in God Himself. To answer this objection, traditional natural theology seems to affirm that argument that Plantinga makes. However, if the definition of natural theology changes to mean that it exists only as a part of the revealed theology about God that is dependent on His Word, then the idea of James Barr that natural theology does not attempt to “prove” the existence of God maintains the assertion of Plantinga that belief in God is basic. This basic belief, in turn, is not grounded in natural theology but supported by it.
The concept of natural theology has maintained an important role throughout the broad extent of ecclesiastical history. Though its traditional form does have both theological and philosophical problems with serious ramifications, the usefulness of natural theology can preserve with a change of its definition and purpose.
[1] Psalm 19:1 NASB.
[2] Alexander W. Hall, Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus: Natural Theology in the Middle Ages (New York, NY: Continuum Publishing, 2007), 53.
[3] Alister E. McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2001), 98.
[4] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 188-189.
[5] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2001), 217.
[6] Romans 1:20 NASB.
[7] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 122-123.
[8] Romans 1:21-23 NASB.
[9] Bruce A. Demarest, “General Revelation,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 1021.
[10] James Barr, Biblical Faith and Natural Theology (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993), 2.
[11] McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 218.
[12] Demarest, “General Revelation,” 1021.
[13] Rodney L. Stiling, “Scriptural Geology in America,” in Evangelicals and Science in Historical Perspective, eds. D.G. Hart, David N. Livingstone, Mark A. Noll (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999), 177.
[14] McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 216.
[15] Ibid., 217.
[16] Ibid., 218.
Natural theology, the concept that God has intentionally revealed Himself and humanity can gain knowledge about Him from His natural revelation without the use of the Scripture, has been a theme of discussion that ranges from the early church to the present day. Even Scripture itself testifies that “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.”[1] Yet while some scholars maintain that this is one of the most vibrant areas of Christian theology, still other evangelicals feel that natural theology is blasphemy and the height of human arrogance. Augustine, Aquinas, Barth, Brunner, and many other Christians throughout ecclesiastical history have considered this aspect of theology important, and therefore they made very scriptural arguments either for or against this particular branch of theology. Natural theology, properly understood and given certain modifications to the traditional version, does have an important place in the realm of theology within evangelical Christianity.
Positions
The oldest position of traditional natural theology finds many important allies among the theological greats of Christianity. Thomas Aquinas made strong arguments for the legitimacy of natural theology via what has come to be called the Five Ways. In five separate ways, Aquinas demonstrates that real knowledge about God is possible outside of Scripture. Alexander Hall summarizes the five ways quite well when he states
The Five Ways rely on five observations: things that are in motion, there exists an order of efficient causes where one entity moves another, contingent entities exist, among beings we find varying degrees of perfection, and unintelligent entities exhibit seemingly end-directed activity. Aquinas argues that these phenomena disclose the existence of a first mover, first efficient cause, etc., and identifies these entities with God.[2]
In other words, Aquinas understood that humans, with the help of reason, could construct arguments for the existence of God based on philosophical observations from nature itself. John Calvin himself, though some scholars disagree on the extent, supported the concept of natural theology. Calvin stated within the Institutes of the Christian Religion that
There are innumerable witnesses in heaven and on earth that declare the wonders of his wisdom. Not only those more arcane matters for the closer observation of which astronomy, medicine, and all of natural science (tota physica scientia) are intended, but also those which force themselves upon the sight of even the most unlearned and ignorant peoples, so that they cannot even open their eyes without being forced to see them.[3]
Here Calvin argues that even the most non-intellectual people possess the ability to see clearly the evidence of God. In this particular instance, Calvin states that humans ought to gain an appreciation for God’s wisdom when they behold the attributes of God found within creation. While Aquinas and Calvin understood natural theology as beneficial to Christianity, they are not the only perspective on the matter.
Several theologians have developed critiques and objections to the validity of natural theology. Karl Barth, in his famous debate with Emil Brunner over this issue, stands as the primary prosecutor of natural theology. Barth held the notion that knowledge about God apart from special revelation violated sola gratia. Millard Erickson describes the point of view of Barth when he states
Barth is very skeptical of the view that humans are able to know God apart from the revelation in Christ. This would mean that they can know the existence, the being of God, without knowing anything of his grace and mercy. This would injure the unity of God, since it would abstract his being from the fullness of his activity. A human who could achieve some knowledge of God outside of his revelation in Jesus Christ would have contributed at least in some small measure to his or her salvation or spiritual standing with God. The principle of grace alone would be compromised.[4]
Here Erickson explains that Barth understood the core of natural theology to argue for a works-based salvation. If knowledge of God can be achieved without knowing Christ in Scripture, then he or she would have a small role in their own salvation. Since one of the main tenets of natural theology is that true knowledge about God can be gleaned from nature apart from Scripture, Barth maintained that natural theology exemplified human arrogance because it appeared to violate the intrinsic need of humanity for the grace of God.
Some more modern theologians have attempted a sort of via media when discussing the viability of natural theology. Thomas Torrance, a Scottish theologian that agreed with the analysis of Barth on natural theology, redefines natural theology in such a way that it can stand against the objections of Barth. McGrath illustrates the new version of natural theology argued for by Torrance when he states
Torrance can therefore be thought of as moving natural theology into the domain of systematic theology, in much the same manner as Einstein moved geometry into the formal content of physics. The proper locus of natural theology is not debate about the possibility of hypothetical knowledge about God, but within the context of the positive and revealed knowledge of creator God.[5]
Torrance, as McGrath rightly illuminates, shifts the definition of natural theology away from independence from the revelation of God in Scripture to a type of systematic theology. To clarify, Torrance thought natural theology viable because the Word of God taught that general revelation displays some knowledge about God. Since this version of natural theology relies on other forms of revelation, Barth would not have disagreed with this definition.
Support
Natural theology does have a rightful place in theological study once the scope and limits of this aspect of theology are properly examined. Clearly some knowledge about God is revealed in nature as can be seen from the teachings of Scripture. Aside from Psalm 19, the Apostle Paul argues for revealed knowledge of God in nature. In Romans chapter one, Paul argues “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 without excuse.”[6] This passage is commonly cited in support of general revelation, the appropriate setting for natural theology. Wayne Grudem defines general revelation when he states “The knowledge of God’s existence, character, and moral law, which comes through creation to all humanity, is often called ‘general revelation’ (because it comes to all people generally).”[7] While natural theology constitutes a form of general revelation, notice that the definition that Grudem gives does not say that general revelation is absolute proof of God’s existence. General revelation is merely knowledge of God. This is due to the fact that general revelation comes to humanity from God, but has an intellectually sinful reception. Again, the Apostle Paul explains
For though they knew God, they did honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and birds of the air and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.[8]
Paul states that sinful humanity did actually gain knowledge about God, but sinfulness pushes them toward idolatry. Because the sin of humanity darkens this knowledge, Bruce Demarest explains that “Instead of proving salvific, general revelation serves only to condemn and to establish guilt-worthiness before God.”[9] Demarest means here that general revelation is not involved in the salvation process, but it does have other uses. Since natural revelation is a form of general revelation, it follows that natural theology also possesses no salvific truth.
Apart from establishing the guilt of humanity before God, natural theology does have other uses that have importance in Christian theology. It does not, as in the traditional view, necessarily prove the existence of God. As James Barr notes “We may question whether all natural theology seeks to ‘prove’: it may, on the contrary, merely indicate, merely register, what people think about God.”[10] McGrath notes the view of Alvin Plantinga who also does not believe that natural theology proves the existence of God when he states “In other words, natural theology is not intended to prove the existence of God, but presupposes that existence; it then asks ‘what should we expect the natural world to be like if it has indeed been created by such a God?’”[11] Linking the ideas of Barr and Plantinga to Scripture, since the knowledge from general revelation and natural theology is sinfully received, only after the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit after conversion does this information point to the existence of God. While this seems to restrict the usefulness of natural theology, Demarest illustrates several beneficial aspects of natural theology as contained in general revelation when he states
But general revelation serves several salutary ends. (1) It accounts for the presence of the truth wherever found in human experience and culture, including valid elements in the non-Christian traditions. (2) The universally implanted moral law provides the only authentic basis by which good and evil can be distinguished. The fact that good is enjoined and evil proscribed provides society with a viable moral framework. (3) Since all people possess rudimentary knowledge of God, Christian witnesses are assured when speaking to the unconverted that the notion of God is not meaningless.[12]
Here Demarest lists three important effects of doing natural theology in the correct manner. It allows Christians to explain how other religions do have at least some truth in them. Natural theology also explains how all of humanity has similar concepts of right and wrong. This particular point, known as the moral argument, is discussed in C.S. Lewis’ classic Mere Christianity. Lastly, it gives encouragement to believers because natural revelation acknowledges that unbelievers do have some knowledge about God, even if this knowledge has been twisted by sin.
Other observations that natural theology supports are the claims made within the special revelation of Scripture. When humanity can observe in nature and in themselves the phenomena listed within passages like Psalm 19, Job 36-37, and Romans 1, this lends weight to the authority of the Bible. Natural theology, under the umbrella of natural theology, works with the revelation of God in His Word. Rodney Stiling relates this cooperation between Scripture and natural theology when he states
Very little of the biblical text refers specifically to nature or natural phenomena, but in those few places where Scripture makes reference to nature, Christians committed to the time-honored notion that the one God is the author of both a general revelation in nature and a special revelation in Scripture would insist that these ‘two books’ in some real sense actually agree.[13]
Stiling argues here for what must be the proper relationship of natural theology and Scripture. Natural theology gives knowledge about God, but it works with Scripture to accomplish this.
Objections
The primary theological objection to natural theology derives from the debate of Barth with Brunner. Describing one serious aspect of the objection concerning natural theology, McGrath, quoting Torrance, relates the critique of Barth when he states
Epistemologically, then, what Barth objects to in traditional natural theology is not any invalidity in its argumentation, nor even in its rational structure, as such, but its independent character – i.e. the autonomous rational structure that natural theology develops on the ground of “nature alone,” in abstraction from the active self-disclosure of the living and Triune God (…).[14]
While this critique of Barth is justified in terms of traditional natural theology, if it is reclassified as a part of traditional systematic theology that is dependent on the Word of God for understanding and is studied in Christian community, then this objection deserves dismissal. McGrath demonstrates the appropriate understanding of natural theology as described by Torrance when he states
So it is with natural theology: brought within the embrace of positive theology and developed as a complex of rational structures arising in our actual knowledge of God it becomes ‘natural’ in a new way, natural to its proper object, God in self-revealing interaction with us in space and time.[15]
Here McGrath and Torrance rightly assert that if natural theology is understood as part of a systematic theology that stands in a supportive role to the special revelation of Bible, then the independence that Barth noted in traditional natural theology has changed into an utter dependence on God. Scripture clearly teaches that God has revealed Himself in nature and the humans He created, but this knowledge cannot save without a dependence upon the saving work of Jesus Christ that proceeds out of the accounts of Scripture and not nature. Therefore, natural theology exists as an aspect of general revelation.
Alvin Plantinga, an evangelical philosopher in the Reformed tradition, gives a philosophical objection to natural theology. Though his objection is complex to understand, his problem with natural theology is rooted in the definition of traditional theology. McGrath correctly interprets the view of Plantinga when he states
Natural theology supposes that belief in God must rest upon an evidential basis. Belief in God is thus not, strictly speaking, a basic belief – that is, something which is self-evident, incorrigible or evident to the senses. It is therefore a belief which requires to be itself grounded in some more basic belief. However, to ground a belief in God upon some other belief is, in effect, to depict that latter belief as endowed with a greater epistemic status than belief in God. For Plantinga, a properly Christian approach is to affirm that belief in God is itself basic, and does not require justification with reference to other beliefs.[16]
According to the understanding of Plantinga, the goal of traditional natural theology is to prove the existence of God via observations in creation. These observations, however, if they are understood to prove the existence of God, are given a higher epistemological value than belief in God Himself. To answer this objection, traditional natural theology seems to affirm that argument that Plantinga makes. However, if the definition of natural theology changes to mean that it exists only as a part of the revealed theology about God that is dependent on His Word, then the idea of James Barr that natural theology does not attempt to “prove” the existence of God maintains the assertion of Plantinga that belief in God is basic. This basic belief, in turn, is not grounded in natural theology but supported by it.
The concept of natural theology has maintained an important role throughout the broad extent of ecclesiastical history. Though its traditional form does have both theological and philosophical problems with serious ramifications, the usefulness of natural theology can preserve with a change of its definition and purpose.
[1] Psalm 19:1 NASB.
[2] Alexander W. Hall, Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus: Natural Theology in the Middle Ages (New York, NY: Continuum Publishing, 2007), 53.
[3] Alister E. McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2001), 98.
[4] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 188-189.
[5] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2001), 217.
[6] Romans 1:20 NASB.
[7] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 122-123.
[8] Romans 1:21-23 NASB.
[9] Bruce A. Demarest, “General Revelation,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 1021.
[10] James Barr, Biblical Faith and Natural Theology (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993), 2.
[11] McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 218.
[12] Demarest, “General Revelation,” 1021.
[13] Rodney L. Stiling, “Scriptural Geology in America,” in Evangelicals and Science in Historical Perspective, eds. D.G. Hart, David N. Livingstone, Mark A. Noll (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999), 177.
[14] McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 216.
[15] Ibid., 217.
[16] Ibid., 218.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Life and Death
Psalm 51:12-17 - "Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me. Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will turn back to you. Save me from bloodguilt, O God, the God who saves me, and my tongue will sing of your righteousness. O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise. You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise."
As Christians, most of us sooner or later become fed up with the theology, with not hearing from God, or just this machine called Christianity. Some of us, like Donald Miller, think it has become too showy...too much like someone is trying to sell us something that is incredibly broken. Others of us just slip into a a state of not caring about stuff that we know deep down we care about. My own struggle came when I was going through what some have deemed "the dark night of the soul." Have you ever been there? This was a time in my own life when God seemed so distant, so silent, that the loneliness and suffering was almost unbearable. To be honest, I hated God for so long. He had allowed things to take place that, in my opinion, made him not real. I am glad to say that I am not here any longer.
Through the work of his spirit and the the caring of friends, God granted me forgiveness in a way that I could not imagine and gave me back the joy that only he can give. I have a passion for my relationship with God and feel his presence guiding my footsteps. Because I am an analytical being, I have often wondered why God puts his children through their own personal "hells." The only answer I have come up with is that he wants to drive us to the very end of ourselves so that we realize our utter dependence on him. To be honest, he has to kill us before he came make us new. C.S. Lewis speaking from Christ's perspective puts it this way "Whatever suffering it may cost you in your earthy life , whatever inconceivable purification it may cost you after death, whatever it costs me, I will never rest, nor let you rest, until you are literally perfect - until my father can say without reservation that he is well pleased with you, as he said he is well pleased with me. This I can do and will do. But I will not do anything less." (Mere Christianity)
True worship and devotion to God is allowing him to do his work that is so painful in our lives, and then, just when we think he can't prune anything else out of our lives, praising and trusting him as we give the last little piece of our identity over to him. Usually, well...at least in my case this took a brokenness in my life from sin and from my life falling a part, but praise God that he carried me through this. He has given me so much freedom and so much responsibility, and has granted me such mercy.
I would love to tell you that this process was over. I would love to tell you that I am in heaven and God no longer is at war with me over my soul, but this is not the case. One of the starkest realizations that I have had is that the process of God breaking me and rethrowing me back onto his potter's wheel will never be over until I meet him face to face...and you know what? That is okay. My soul is ready, my heart is willing, though I need God's grace because my flesh is weak. This is a never ending process, restoration of joy and brokenness. Love and sacrifice. Dying to find true life. May we never forget to praise God for his love and sovereign will as he guides us through this journey called life.
As Christians, most of us sooner or later become fed up with the theology, with not hearing from God, or just this machine called Christianity. Some of us, like Donald Miller, think it has become too showy...too much like someone is trying to sell us something that is incredibly broken. Others of us just slip into a a state of not caring about stuff that we know deep down we care about. My own struggle came when I was going through what some have deemed "the dark night of the soul." Have you ever been there? This was a time in my own life when God seemed so distant, so silent, that the loneliness and suffering was almost unbearable. To be honest, I hated God for so long. He had allowed things to take place that, in my opinion, made him not real. I am glad to say that I am not here any longer.
Through the work of his spirit and the the caring of friends, God granted me forgiveness in a way that I could not imagine and gave me back the joy that only he can give. I have a passion for my relationship with God and feel his presence guiding my footsteps. Because I am an analytical being, I have often wondered why God puts his children through their own personal "hells." The only answer I have come up with is that he wants to drive us to the very end of ourselves so that we realize our utter dependence on him. To be honest, he has to kill us before he came make us new. C.S. Lewis speaking from Christ's perspective puts it this way "Whatever suffering it may cost you in your earthy life , whatever inconceivable purification it may cost you after death, whatever it costs me, I will never rest, nor let you rest, until you are literally perfect - until my father can say without reservation that he is well pleased with you, as he said he is well pleased with me. This I can do and will do. But I will not do anything less." (Mere Christianity)
True worship and devotion to God is allowing him to do his work that is so painful in our lives, and then, just when we think he can't prune anything else out of our lives, praising and trusting him as we give the last little piece of our identity over to him. Usually, well...at least in my case this took a brokenness in my life from sin and from my life falling a part, but praise God that he carried me through this. He has given me so much freedom and so much responsibility, and has granted me such mercy.
I would love to tell you that this process was over. I would love to tell you that I am in heaven and God no longer is at war with me over my soul, but this is not the case. One of the starkest realizations that I have had is that the process of God breaking me and rethrowing me back onto his potter's wheel will never be over until I meet him face to face...and you know what? That is okay. My soul is ready, my heart is willing, though I need God's grace because my flesh is weak. This is a never ending process, restoration of joy and brokenness. Love and sacrifice. Dying to find true life. May we never forget to praise God for his love and sovereign will as he guides us through this journey called life.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Hot Coals and Chapped Lips in America
"'Woe to me! I cried. "I am ruined. For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty." - Isaiah 6:5
This text was penned by Isaiah in a great time of political upheaval. It strikes me that in a time of uncertainty, God granted to Isaiah this vision which speaks volumes to us today. After staring into the face of the Almighty, Isaiah became all to aware of the darkness in his life and the darkness of the people with whom he dwelled. As I look around the current situations in America, whether it be the great financial crisis, the dissolution of the nuclear family, or the jockeying of politicians in Washington, I am forced to confront the fact that we are a people of unclean lips. I...am a person of unclean lips. Knowing this to be inherently wrong, like Isaiah sometimes the overwhelming sinfulness of this world can be quite exasperating. What should we do? How do we change? In Isaiah's own story a Seraph touches a hot coal to his mouth and says "See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and you sin atoned for." This little hot lump of coal seared the sin out of Isaiah's life. The lump of coal that seared the sin out of our lives was also straight from the altar, and his name was Jesus. If we are redeemed, then what we must do is like Isaiah. We must proclaim that we are ready to go and say what needs to be said, even when it is unpopular. Our message though it can be expressed in a few simple terms is the most revolutionary political platform to have ever been conceived. Love, forgiveness, justice, patience, dying to self, doing to the least of these, Christ are all aspects that make up the gospel. This is what our people need to hear, even if it offends them. I am no longer willing to tolerate simply blaming government for all of our problems. Our problems have come from the fact that all of us, from the crack house to the Senate House, to the House of Representatives, to the White House, and to my house are all unclean. We need to touch the coal of God's Word to our mouths again and speak truth to God's people again, but it takes more than speaking. We must carry the fire from the altar into every place where people dwell. Yes, this means we may have to deal with the poor, the discarded, the people in society that politicans talk so much about and yet so often rarely ever meet, but that is our mission. God never said to Isaiah, ohhh this will be so easy and you will always hang around with people just like you. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Christ went so far as to say that first we must die, then we must serve those least in the eyes of the people with the most. Maybe if we are doing what we are supposed to be doing, some of the desperation and utter dependence on God that those without will rub off on us. Maybe we can get a little desperate. Maybe, with God's help, we can turn a generation of spoiled and comfortable Christians with unclean lips into a people whose hearts burn with a zeal to become the people of God that He wants us to be. However, the long and the short of it is this: it all begins with YOU!!! What are you going to do or say today for your God? Are you willing to take the coal of the gospel to those around you? Are you willing to put your life on the altar?
This text was penned by Isaiah in a great time of political upheaval. It strikes me that in a time of uncertainty, God granted to Isaiah this vision which speaks volumes to us today. After staring into the face of the Almighty, Isaiah became all to aware of the darkness in his life and the darkness of the people with whom he dwelled. As I look around the current situations in America, whether it be the great financial crisis, the dissolution of the nuclear family, or the jockeying of politicians in Washington, I am forced to confront the fact that we are a people of unclean lips. I...am a person of unclean lips. Knowing this to be inherently wrong, like Isaiah sometimes the overwhelming sinfulness of this world can be quite exasperating. What should we do? How do we change? In Isaiah's own story a Seraph touches a hot coal to his mouth and says "See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and you sin atoned for." This little hot lump of coal seared the sin out of Isaiah's life. The lump of coal that seared the sin out of our lives was also straight from the altar, and his name was Jesus. If we are redeemed, then what we must do is like Isaiah. We must proclaim that we are ready to go and say what needs to be said, even when it is unpopular. Our message though it can be expressed in a few simple terms is the most revolutionary political platform to have ever been conceived. Love, forgiveness, justice, patience, dying to self, doing to the least of these, Christ are all aspects that make up the gospel. This is what our people need to hear, even if it offends them. I am no longer willing to tolerate simply blaming government for all of our problems. Our problems have come from the fact that all of us, from the crack house to the Senate House, to the House of Representatives, to the White House, and to my house are all unclean. We need to touch the coal of God's Word to our mouths again and speak truth to God's people again, but it takes more than speaking. We must carry the fire from the altar into every place where people dwell. Yes, this means we may have to deal with the poor, the discarded, the people in society that politicans talk so much about and yet so often rarely ever meet, but that is our mission. God never said to Isaiah, ohhh this will be so easy and you will always hang around with people just like you. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Christ went so far as to say that first we must die, then we must serve those least in the eyes of the people with the most. Maybe if we are doing what we are supposed to be doing, some of the desperation and utter dependence on God that those without will rub off on us. Maybe we can get a little desperate. Maybe, with God's help, we can turn a generation of spoiled and comfortable Christians with unclean lips into a people whose hearts burn with a zeal to become the people of God that He wants us to be. However, the long and the short of it is this: it all begins with YOU!!! What are you going to do or say today for your God? Are you willing to take the coal of the gospel to those around you? Are you willing to put your life on the altar?
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Role of Women In Church
As many of you know, John McCain's choice in Sarah Palin has sparked quite the debate in Evangelical Christian circles (as well as just random circles in general) over the ability of women to lead in our government or in church. If you look at Newsweek's website, "On Faith" is a panel that has currently asked the question about women's role in the church. To be honest my friends, I continue to struggle with this very issue to this day. However, we must all agree that if we wish to debate this issue, then Holy Scripture must be our standard. So, here is my problem at hand. I understand most interpret 1 Timothy 3 as restricting the pastorate to men alone because it says "husbands of one wife." Yet, I sometimes feel it is simply assumed from this statement that women are automatically disqualified because it only mentions them as wives. However, this particular Scripture does make for strong evidence against women in the pastorate. Next, we have passages like Romans 16:1 that specifically mentions a "deaconess." Now traiditionally, two theories dominate this occurence. One, their were women that functioned in a servant leadership role in the early church and were given the title of deaconess. Two, this term merely refers to the wife of a deacon. This particular piece of Scripture, more than any other to my knowledge, seems to allow that women could perhaps lead in some capacity. This is notably not necessarily a teaching position of authority like a pastor or elder, but one of service. Therefore, I do not see a theologically issue with female deacons within the local church. In regards to 1 Timothy 2:9-15, I am not precisely certain of what these restricitions refer to. Is Paul talking about something specific to the church where Timothy is? Is he talking about the marriage relationship? Is he talking about a universal rule for churches? These questions become very interesting because the very same Apostle Paul also says that there is neither male or female, but we are all one in Christ. Therefore, I must conclude that I do not yet fully know what I think about women in the pastorate. I have seen some do wonderful work for the kingdom of God. So, to all my biblical scholars out there, what do you think?
Friday, August 29, 2008
Dad and Memories
I was casually searching the internet today and found my dad's funeral picture slideshow from the funeral home. As I looked through pictures that span the years of my father's life, I am again reminded of how much I miss him...how much he is still a large part of who I am. Two of the pictures really stood out to me. One is the last hike we did together in the Smokies in Elkmont where our family was from. On that trip, dad annointed me with the dirt and water from that place, read from his 1970's era FCA Bible, and consecrated me to God for his ministry. It snowed on us the whole way over and as long as I live, I will never forget that hike. The second photo is of us smoking our pipes together. We both loved this as it usually stemmed great conversation. I believe it is just simply talking to him that I will miss the most. But he has gone to a place where I cannot follow...for now. He is now having the "great conversation" with a God that always has and always will continue to speak to his creation. Thank God for fathers, both heavenly and earthly, and thank God that they love to talk to and spend time with their children. Take time today and tell your dad that you love him.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Central High School Shooting and Uncertainty
Well...not even a month outside of a church shooting, some kid made the decision to settle a score that ended in the death of a 15 year old boy. When a commmunity is rocked by violence, I am at a loss as to any explanation or words that provide consolation to all. I am again reminded of the brevity and uncertainty of all life, and how...time holds the unprecedented and unpredictable. Sometimes...I am beginning to think that when God looks down on his creation and sees his children acting in such ways, he must be terribly disappointed with what we have done to ourselves in this thing called life. At the same time, the only place that I do find comfort is in his Word. Psalm 119 speaks of how God is literally every place that humans can go and can't go. He is even in the midst of terrible things like church shootings and school shootings...constantly moving...constantly drawing people to himself in spite of any circumstance. I take comfort in knowing that God is a God of purpose, of love, of mercy, and of justice. This wonderful God that has the ability to take the ugliest events in society, cover them up with the paint of his blood, and start repainting the picture of his kingdom all over again. He never gives up on what he knows is important, and neither should we. Thoughts???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)