Natural Law & Natural Revelation | A Conversation with J. Budziszewski & Douglas Wilson

For more books and audio from Douglas Wilson, visit us at canonpress.com

[@hannahcrabtree599]

50:05 "Human autonomy and pride made me, for a dozen years of my life, absolutely stupid." Appreciate this man's keen intellect, and most of all, his honest testimony as a former atheist who came to know Christ. Awesome! One suggestion for interviews, it would've been helpful to have an intro to who he is at the beginning...

[@CanonPress]

Thanks for the good words Hannah and Soli Deo Gloria!

[@Chirhopher]

You do see why they put it at the end tho, right! Lol Are you from IL.

[@dbzgtcrazy]

They got really close to the essential difference near the end. Van Tillians believe that natural revelation gets through and results in true, actual knowledge of God even apart from cognitive reflection and discursive reasoning about natural evidences, etc. (although such reflection also constitutes further revelation). Most natural law advocates or Thomists deny this or at least do not articulate it this way. Fascinating discussion, esp. when Dr. B. said he would be ok with grassroots theonomy

[@TimotheosCauvin]

The whole name thing at the end is an excellent way to make people start the vid all over again and watch it anew ;)

[@tommore8303]

Excellent. Where sanity is grounded.

[@Chirhopher]

Absolutely LOVED It!

[@Nathaniel_Scott]

The bit at the end was great

[@WARTV-dn5fk]

GREAT outtake!

[@rjparker268]

Wow, Budzieszewski sounds very muck like D.A. Carson in his speech patterns and timber of voice.

[@cameronwitmer]

Thank you!! I couldn’t figure out who he reminded me of.

[@chrisvanallsburg]

"timber of voice" - that's a wonderful turn of phrase. I love it.

[@AnHebrewChild]

@@chrisvanallsburg *timbre It is a nice turn of phrase. And yeah, I had to be that guy: correcting spelling. Sometimes you just gotta do it. Heh But yes, his speech patterns and timbre of voice is VERY similar to Don Carson's.

[@bladesxf]

Why does Dr, B refer God as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Moses and not A, I, and Jacob?

[@PacmanBonez]

recently read Dr. Robert Morey's book in which he attempts to refute Natural Law. i recommend it

[@cbwilson2398]

How do we get from the "laws of nature and of nature's God" to "inalienable rights" in the Declaration? Is it a bridge too far to assert that God has granted humans certain rights, among which, according to Jefferson are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? And that restriction of these rights by a government are grounds for rebellion? Are there any reading recommendations? I'm looking for a chain of logic that moves within Biblical revelation from the laws of nature's God to anything like these claimed inalienable rights.

[@liammccann8763]

Permit me to suggest Fr Chad Ripperger FSSP. He has an abundance of resources at Sensus Fidelium on KZbin. Nar alga Dia thu.

[@jonmeador8637]

The natural law theory in place at the time of the founding of this country was grounded in Isaac Newton and John Locke not Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas is to natural law what Ptolemy is to astronomy. Morality is embedded in nature the same way the laws of physics are. Perry Miller is an author who might help. Don’t read anything by a Catholic author.

[@liammccann8763]

@@jonmeador8637 That observation is incorrect. The natural law is eternal, unchanging and transcendent reflecting our Creator. Our species can illuminate understanding, to claim however it is 'grounded' in a person is folly. Ne timeas.

[@jonmeador8637]

@@liammccann8763 We’ve moved on from Aquinas and More.

[@liammccann8763]

@@jonmeador8637 We? The virtue of faith is Divine in origin, with it the heart has eyes.

[@rg31404]

52:29 haha priceless. good sport though ;)

[@chrisvanallsburg]

I say this as one who held to presuppositionalism for almost 15 years: it's daft. Forget it. Go with the classical method. It's go the goods!

[@liamcondon3171]

What is the classical method?

[@cynic252]

what is my consciounce? My conscience is that part of the mind which consideres my actions in the context of others and not just myself. To think of conscience as a voice within is a useful metaphor, but to think of it as the definitive authority is to lapse into error.That voice comes from within our very human selves: it has been constructed by our own deliberation and reasoning not a transcendent being.

[@UltraMegaFail]

@@billyjean9484 Just another person that refuses to accept the power within humanity out of their fear of responsibility.

[@Zanroff]

Personally, my conscience has never been wrong. To say that it is not a definitive authority is to suggest it can be wrong. I've always regretted going against my conscience. As mentioned in the video, regret, feelings of guilt or lack there of do not indicate the lack of conscience. When we do something wrong, we know it. To your point of the conscience being "constructed by our own deliberation and reasoning" I will say, then it follows that the conscience can be manipulated to be anything you want. Perhaps you could justify a murder. Perhaps you can justify stealing. Perhaps lying. Even if you could through your own deliberation and reasoning justify a wrong and get away with it, you still know it was wrong and if anyone were to find out you may be ashamed. Maybe you, as I have, done things or said things that keep you up at night. What is that? Why does the conscience press down so heavily? Many people turn to drugs and alcohol to numb the pain the conscience brings. We constantly seek to be entertained to prevent us from facing ourselves. The conscience is more than something we make in ourselves.

[@jonmeador8637]

Special revelation is always self-serving and always bigoted and always dangerous. No one’s in a privileged position of knowing god’s will. We need to look at god’s general revelation without any reference to any religion, which always pollutes our understanding. If nature is at odds with scripture, any scripture, then nature is true and scripture is not. Such was the understanding of our Founders.

[@liammccann8763]

As Catholics we believe in public Revelation, which ended with the death of the last Apostle, and private Revelation. Private Revelation in no way forms part of the Magisterial teaching Tradition. Returning to your remark, perhaps we ought to call to mind that Scripture was written over a period of 1,400 years with forty separate authors guided by the Holy Spirit. That 'unity of Faith' reflects the inner unity of the Holy Trinity. Therein, we find a hierarchy that points to our Creator and in no way 'pollutes our understanding'. One other aspect, of natural law, that we can draw on is the virtues. The virtues are eternal, unchanging and transcendent and therefore reflect our Creator. In our original state, the emotions where subverted to the will and the will subverted to the intellect. The stain of original sin resulted in our original state being inverted; without Grace we are then a slave to our lesser faculties, feelings and emotions. Ne timeas.

[@ShopRat295]

Jesus is special revelation.

[@jonmeador8637]

@@ShopRat295 How convenient.

[@liammccann8763]

@@ShopRat295 For us Catholics 'special' revelation is a misnomer.

[@mekennabanks]

all I can think of is his comparison of abortion and slavery.... like no ma'am try again fr