Natural Theology

[Glenn Hendrickson]

Sam, You'll probably like this question...

After having left Faith Community Church because of Robert Morey's abuses I have been rethinking some of the things that Morey emphasized the most. One of those things is natural theology. (If you want more background go here)

I am curious what good arguments can be made for someone who considers themself reformed to acknowledge natural theology as a valid discipline. Any thoughts?

[James Cohen]

I assume it was an open question, so...

I think it can be valid in ad hominem arguments. If an unbeliever's worldview is susceptible somehow to any natural theological argument, go ahead and use it. In the logical sense, they're valid arguments in such cases.

The thing is that it doesn't objectively prove anything. There's a brilliant Pastafarian tract that uses the cosmological, ontological and teleological arguments to prove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Fantastically effective, as they're exactly as sound as when used to prove the existence of God.

I dunno much about your fall out with Dr. Bob, Glenn, but I hope you don't swing in the other direction just for opposition's sake. I'm not saying you are; I don't really even know you that well. But I can imagine that as a possibility. Or maybe you just weren't that "in" to the topic and so took his word for it and are now questioning the positions?

[Glenn Hendrickson]

Yeah man, totally open question!

As for my fallout with Morey that is not what I wanted to discuss in this forum. I can assure you that I am not doing anything to spite him just for the sake of it. If you read the blog link I posted it will hopefully explain that with more clarity.

James Cohen said:

I assume it was an open question, so...

I think it can be valid in ad hominem arguments. If an unbeliever's worldview is susceptible somehow to any natural theological argument, go ahead and use it. In the logical sense, they're valid arguments in such cases.

The thing is that it doesn't objectively prove anything. There's a brilliant Pastafarian tract that uses the cosmological, ontological and teleological arguments to prove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Fantastically effective, as they're exactly as sound as when used to prove the existence of God.

I dunno much about your fall out with Dr. Bob, Glenn, but I hope you don't swing in the other direction just for opposition's sake. I'm not saying you are; I don't really even know you that well. But I can imagine that as a possibility. Or maybe you just weren't that "in" to the topic and so took his word for it and are now questioning the positions?

[Jonathan Chan]

Not to get thrown into this whole ordeal, but what's the point of name dropping Faith Community Church and Robert Morey's name? What's the point of linking this forum to your blog about the history of some fight you had with him..

Get over it?

[Glenn Hendrickson]

Well, the point is so that i don't get replies that originate from Morey. Since he is on a crusade against NT and a number of people here follow him I wanted to avoid rehashing discussions that I've already had/heard at FCC.

And if you bothered to read the link I posted you would know that it is not about the history of some fight we had, it is about my recovering from the time I spent under an abusive pastor and his pet doctrines. You should probably read it before you stick your foot further in your mouth?

guys, seriously, I'm not trying to start a discussion about Morey here. lets stay on topic. If you all want to banter about him on franks site then start a new thread.

Jonathan Chan said:

Not to get thrown into this whole ordeal, but what's the point of name dropping Faith Community Church and Robert Morey's name? What's the point of linking this forum to your blog about the history of some fight you had with him..
Get over it?

[James Cohen]

I'm not down with Jon's reply, but you're not helping the situation, Glenn. You're complaining about how it's off topic to mention someone that you brought up in the first place--and in your introduction to the topic, no less. Neither of us would've brought him up if you hadn't.

I think what Jon was getting at is that your motivation for posing the topic is irrelevant to the topic itself and the question of validity. You said, "the point is so that i don't get replies that originate from Morey." It's highly unlikely that he would respond personally, so I'm guessing you mean that you don't want arguments that he's either originated or used. That's hardly productive in considering the topic, though, since the logical values of the premises and conclusions in this case shouldn't depend on who's employing them. "Rehashing" might occur with any topic.

[Glenn Hendrickson]

Let me clarify, I titled the threat "Natural Theology" because that is what I wanted to discuss. When I said that I was considering "Natural Theology" to be the topic.

I'm not saying that an argument is bad simply because Morey used it (i.e. the genetic fallacy). What I am saying is that I've noticed specific gaps and shortcomings in some of his arguments (the one's on my blog). I want to avoid people replying with arguments like: well, Natural Theologians cite Plato and not Jesus in their indexes.

As for my motivation, if Jon is concerned about it then I am truly touched. But regardless of my motivation I still would like to discuss the topic.

James Cohen said:

I'm not down with Jon's reply, but you're not helping the situation, Glenn. You're complaining about how it's off topic to mention someone that you brought up in the first place--and in your introduction to the topic, no less. Neither of us would've brought him up if you hadn't.

I think what Jon was getting at is that your motivation for posing the topic is irrelevant to the topic itself and the question of validity. You said, "the point is so that i don't get replies that originate from Morey." It's highly unlikely that he would respond personally, so I'm guessing you mean that you don't want arguments that he's either originated or used. That's hardly productive in considering the topic, though, since the logical values of the premises and conclusions in this case shouldn't depend on who's employing them. "Rehashing" might occur with any topic.

[Samuel Garcia]

***I refuse to ever discuss, elaborate upon, reference, or even acknowledge any comment whatsoever made about Pastor Robert Morey on this site beyond this sentence.***

Glenn,

As you know, I have come to embrace Natural Theology a lot more. Technically, most Reformers had pre-Clark/Van Til.

I don't care to really argue about the particular details of certain arguments - that can go on forever - but I can quickly say what led me to considering natural theology more as a valid discipline.

1) I believe in the image of God. This includes rationality, moral intuition, perception of the external world, personal worth, etc.

2) I believe that the image of God remains wholly intact, albeit marred, after the sin of Adam and Eve.

3) Analogous to how I can still intuit some sort of morality and live by it however irrationally, I can also intuit true conceptions that arise out of paying attention to the external world.

4) I do not only limit this sort of intuition to myself but to every other human being. That they distort their intuitions, as I do as well, is beside the point here.

5) I cannot, and will not, ever give sin such power (theologically) that it can completely destroy the image of God. Because sin and Satan have limited power, and since the image of God remains vibrant in the soul of every human, men and women the world over can arrive at a partially true conception of morality, of God, of the external world, etc.

6) Therefore, I can dialogue with a specific person's grasp of both general and special revelation (assuming they've had an experience of the latter) meaningfully, and without chucking out the whole system of natural theology.

7) So natural theology is a valid discipline but needs revealed theology to lead us fully to the one, triune God. Without a sort of natural theology and its foundations of epistemology, we cannot make sense of how we can even understand God's special revelation.

8) Just like God made humans able to understand him in conforming to language despite sin, in the same way, we have been been made able to understand the world (partially) rightly.

9) Sin suppresses the image of God in varying degrees depending on the person. Regardless, there are things that people just "know" and we can work from there. I agree with Presuppositionalism only when it says that if the foundations of such reasoning are faulty and serve as a stumbling block, then we must attack that too.

10) Special revelation must always work in conjunction with general revelation since they are basically one and the same avenue to imparting knowledge of God and of bringing us to a personal relationship with him.

Kind out of order, but those are my thoughts since I've started to reconsider it.

[Fusion!]

Thanks?

[Glenn Hendrickson]

Sam, thank you for taking my question for what it was worth! I appreciate your reply.

In regard to number 7, I think I have had similar thoughts. Like when the Bible references objects in the natural world (grass, flowers, wind, the sun, stars, etc). In order to understand the scriptural references to these objects you must have already come into contact with them in the natural world yourself to establish a point of reference. At least I am assuming you are thinking along these lines on this point.



Samuel Garcia said:

***I refuse to ever discuss, elaborate upon, reference, or even acknowledge any comment whatsoever made about Pastor Robert Morey on this site beyond this sentence.***

Glenn,

As you know, I have come to embrace Natural Theology a lot more. Technically, most Reformers had pre-Clark/Van Til.

I don't care to really argue about the particular details of certain arguments - that can go on forever - but I can quickly say what led me to considering natural theology more as a valid discipline.

1) I believe in the image of God. This includes rationality, moral intuition, perception of the external world, personal worth, etc.

2) I believe that the image of God remains wholly intact, albeit marred, after the sin of Adam and Eve.

3) Analogous to how I can still intuit some sort of morality and live by it however irrationally, I can also intuit true conceptions that arise out of paying attention to the external world.

4) I do not only limit this sort of intuition to myself but to every other human being. That they distort their intuitions, as I do as well, is beside the point here.

5) I cannot, and will not, ever give sin such power (theologically) that it can completely destroy the image of God. Because sin and Satan have limited power, and since the image of God remains vibrant in the soul of every human, men and women the world over can arrive at a partially true conception of morality, of God, of the external world, etc.

6) Therefore, I can dialogue with a specific person's grasp of both general and special revelation (assuming they've had an experience of the latter) meaningfully, and without chucking out the whole system of natural theology.

7) So natural theology is a valid discipline but needs revealed theology to lead us fully to the one, triune God. Without a sort of natural theology and its foundations of epistemology, we cannot make sense of how we can even understand God's special revelation.

8) Just like God made humans able to understand him in conforming to language despite sin, in the same way, we have been been made able to understand the world (partially) rightly.

9) Sin suppresses the image of God in varying degrees depending on the person. Regardless, there are things that people just "know" and we can work from there. I agree with Presuppositionalism only when it says that if the foundations of such reasoning are faulty and serve as a stumbling block, then we must attack that too.

10) Special revelation must always work in conjunction with general revelation since they are basically one and the same avenue to imparting knowledge of God and of bringing us to a personal relationship with him.

Kind out of order, but those are my thoughts since I've started to reconsider it.