Talk:Natural theology

From Theopedia

Calvin on natural theology

Do most Calvinists really reject natural theology? Did CALVIN even reject it? -Aaronshaf 03:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Calvin says that knowledge of the divine is implanted in the hearts of every human, but that it is not sufficient to salvation. He seems to also say that as hard as we may try to understand God apart from his Word (and he would say "apart from true piety"), we end up with "an unknown God" or our own idea of a god. Granted, this is from my first readings from the Institutes, so if someone has more info, please chime in. JordanBarrett (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Also found these,

"Because of his mercy and grace, God grants to fallen humanity some apprehensions of right and wrong, justice and injustice. Appealing to Romans 2:14-15 Calvin notes that God imprints upon human hearts some understanding of his moral law, and God sustains the conscience as the faculty that judges between good and evil, justice and injustice. This knowledge and judgment is always defective and imperfect." (Cambridge Companion to John Calvin, p. 94)

"The Protestant Reformers... assumed that all people had some implicit knowledge of God's existence (Calvin's 'sense of divinity'), but they declared it useless apart from the revelation of God's will and grace in Jesus Christ. Several early confessional documents (e.g., the Westminster and Belgic) do speak of God revealing himself in nature (citing still Rom. 1:20-21), but this is revelation not fully comprehensible apart from Scripture." ("Natural Theology" in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 816)

Referring to Heb 11:3, Calvin writes, "He means by this that the invisible divinity is made manifest in such spectacles, but that we have not the eyes to see this unless they be illumined by the inner revelation of GOd through faith. And where Paul teaches that what is to be known of God is made plain from the creation of the universe (Rom. 1:19), he does not signify such a manifestation as men's discernment can comprehend; but, rather, shows it not to go farther than to render them inexcusable." (Institutes, p. 68) JordanBarrett (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Rejecting natural theology sounds a lot different than rejecting the idea that without it special revelation can be a salvific means. It seems very obvious to me that might use it in a larger package of special revelation to convert people, and that Christians should passionate seek to understand how nature points to the glory of God. -Aaronshaf 06:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought Paul's argument in Romans 1 was that natural theology gives a man enough rope to hang himself, but is insufficient to save. I recently read a good quote somewhere to that effect, but I can't for the life of me remember where. Wooster (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Found it. Doug Wilson, on his blog: "Natural revelation provides enough rope for unconverted men to hang themselves. But in order for them to come to salvation, God must intervene." (commentary on WCF I.1). Here. Wooster (talk)

I agree with Wooster. In addition, I think this idea deserves a section in the current article. Natural theology (e.g. God's revelation of himself in nature, ala Psa. 19:1-6) can be supportive of and complementary to special revelation, but not determinative apart from special revelation and not salvific. Jim, . . . Gomarus 16:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this getting really off-topic. The original question was not "what does Rom 1 teach?", but was "what did Calvin believe" and "what is the Reformed position" on natural theology. No one is answering the question. I added some quotes above that will hopefully be helpful. JordanBarrett (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting reading on this topic at http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3643. Follow the phrase "natural theology" using the "Find on this page" CTRL+F feature. Jim, . . . Gomarus 00:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Here's a couple of quotes from Calvin's commentary on Romans 1:20.

"It hence clearly appears what the consequence is of having this evidence -- that men cannot allege any thing before God's tribunal for the purpose of showing that they are not justly condemned. Yet let this difference be remembered, that the manifestation of God, by which he makes his glory known in his creation, is, with regard to the light itself, sufficiently clear; but that on account of our blindness, it is not found to be sufficient."

"But this knowledge of God, which avails only to take away excuse, differs greatly from that which brings salvation, which Christ mentions in John xvii.3" It's a dreadful cop-out, I know, but Calvin believed what Rom. 1:20 said, which is simply that nature contians sufficient revelation to condemn and yet insufficient to save: you can't derive the Gospel from nature. Wooster (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidentialists vs presuppositionalists and "natural theology"

I was reading through Robert Reymonds treatment of "natural theology" (in his Systematic Theology) last night. He doesn't delve much into the historiacl background, but does associate "natural theology" with evidential apologetics and men such as R. C. Sproul, John Warwick Montgomery, and even B. B. Warfield. He likewise demurs the use of natural theology as sufficient for proving God (in any real sense) from a presuppositional perspective. This relevant association/distinction (if I am reading him right) is missing from this current write-up. Our article on apologetics rightly links evidentialists with classic apologetics and therfore to the use of natural theology. Jim, . . . Gomarus 12:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)