Why I believe in Natural Theology: Craig Carter joins Matthew Barrett for a Credo Colloquy

[@normanmilquetoast1]

Amazing content. In my opinion, the principles of this discussion are at the very heart of what is wrong with contemporary Western culture. Recapturing a pre-Enlightenment metaphysic under Christ is the remedy being able to unify the disintegrating world in which we live.

[@AnciAlatir]

Agreed! Christian theologians and philisophers need to talk about these things more and educate the church.

[@normanmilquetoast1]

@@AnciAlatir Actually, they need to free themselves from the shackles of Medieval aberration (Nominalism/Voluntarism) and Enlightenment philosophy (Van Tillian Idealism) first. Then they will have the wherewithal to teach others.

[@howardhilliard9286]

@@normanmilquetoast1 Van Till was a critic of German Idealism in his doctoral dissertation. In fact he is often criticized as a fideist.

[@normanmilquetoast1]

@@howardhilliard9286 Van Til wrote a book critiquing Idealism called Christianity and Idealism. So most certainly would not have labeled himself an Idealist. However, he capitulated to Kant's idea that we cannot know the noumena and therefore fell dead at Kant's feet at a fundamental level. It's the very foundation of presuppositionalism and the reason I label him an Idealist.

[@windowsoflife]

This is a wonderful discussion. Thanks!

[@TruthandLoveTogether]

I like the clear definition of natural theology. The wonderful doctor defines it as being based on general revelation. The only challenge is that it suggests that general revelation was meant to be separated from special revelation. I have trouble with that mindset, especially from Christian theologians who are aware that our reason has also been affected by the noetic effect of sin. If Adam needed God’s word, in order to make sense of the tree in the middle of the garden, we, after the fall, need it even more. In fact, because Adam thought he’d do natural theology apart from special revelation, humanity fell into sin. I’d suggest that if we’re to truly recover natural theology, we need it done based on general revelation in relation to special revelation, or else, that’s not natural theology (and that’s Van Til’s point). Wonderful Dr.: Van Til didn't reject natural theology; he said natural theology should be done as we seek to relate general revelation to special revelation. Please, read his article “Nature and Scripture.”

[@servusbellator8554]

It has been shown by several scholars that there is this oversimplified view of Van Til regarding his position on Natural Theology. While it is clear to anyone who has studied Van Til that he has his own way of articulating his thought that is out of the norm among Reformed thinkers, and that he does have his own divergence within that, it has been demonstrated inaccurate to state that Van Til rejected Natural theology. This can be seen in his "Introduction to Systematic Theology" and his paper on "Nature and Scripture," I would agree his articulation brings some questions about his positions consistency with, or lack there of, the WCF, but individuals fail to demonstrate Van Tils position as HE Explains his position. Van Til's position is that one cannot RIGHTLY interpret natural revelation without the lens of special revelation, and that individuals have taken an inconsistent approach to natural theology.. One can see this in Augustine and Calvin, that knowledge of God epistemologically comes prior. Van Til's very method presupposes the necessity of natural theology, the difference is where he places natural theology systematically and epistemologically within his thought. It doesn't help that various followers of Van Til have taken different trajectories all claiming to be inline with Van Til. Bahnsen et al., specifically has taken Van Til arguably on a different trajectory than Van Til while claiming to be the most faithful to his thought. Van Til is known for his own and often confusing ways of articulating his thought, but it is to misunderstand his own historical corpus to charge him with outright denying natural theology. I absolutely agree that there has been an unfortunate, and dangerous by some, divergence form classical theism which is why I appreciate Credo's work.

[@bernardjones1615]

This was a great discussion!

[@marilynmelzian7370]

Thank you!

[@travismaples4388]

I’m trying to chew my way through Carl Henry’s GRA, how would he engage with natural theology and reasons ability to interpret it?

[@pastorpitman]

Excellent!

[@Eric_Lichtenberg]

If you are going to hold the idea of Participation, how do you not end up with the Roman doctrine of the Mass? The Exitus and Reditus system requires a means of actualization, right? Isn't such actualization found in the Eucharist according to Aquinas?

[@GlocalReformission]

Is there is release date for when this will be uploaded on the podcast?

[@callawaycass5148]

Every example given of truth that supposedly requires metaphysics to arrive at can be clearly deduced from Scripture. I think the true metaphysic does not start with Plato or any correction of him, but with Scripture. We must get our system of thinking from the Bible itself. And I recognize we all have presuppositions which we must let God's Word correct. (Yes, call me a biblicist. Dr. Barrett already straw manned and misrepresented us in the previous conversation. It doesn't bother me.)

[@philsdronelyshots]

How about that intro music... next level epic.

[@dbodde]

Evolution by natural selection isn’t a modern metaphysic but an inductive, historical science of life on earth. Granted it has been unnecessarily loaded with metaphysics (neo-Darwinism) and its content distorted to over-emphasize competition and under-emphasize costly cooperation (sacrifice!). It well describes Plato’s assumption that life is unstable (in flux)-his impetus for the stable, perfected forms.

[@spartakos3178]

There is not a whole lot of "science" in Evolution. It is not testable, has never been observed, and is not reproducible.

[@marilynmelzian7370]

It presumes philosophical naturalism, as does modernity as a whole. That is a metaphysical position.

[@dbodde]

@@marilynmelzian7370 Not by necessity of its content.

[@OsvaldoPadilla-c4o]

Is that really what the Logos is? Perhaps according to Justin Martyr! There is so much scholarship out there that would go against such interpretation. If you read the latest commentaries on John (e.g., M.M. Thompson, Udo Schnelle, Seitz, etc.), your interpretation would be questioned. I have no problem with these types of views (well, I do!) But If you would presented them with a bit more humility, I would be more inclined to listen. But the tone tends to be arrogant and amateurish, as if this were the first time that such views on natural theology were aired or discovered. Please, a little more modesty! You can't act as if Barth did not exist and made a strong case against Natural Theology

[@rockpaperscissors82]

Is it really too much for men to dress like men and not teenagers? Drop the sneakers.

[@Particularly1677]

American men? Native American men? Which culture?

[@henrybarr7307]

Seriously. Grow up.

[@HearGodsWord]

Since when can only teenagers wear 'sneakers'? I guess some people easily fall into legalism.

[@rockpaperscissors82]

@@HearGodsWord It's not legalism. It's being self-aware and having standards. Sneakers are great for the tennis court, jogging at the park, doing a grocery run, etc. It screams immaturity in a more professional context, like this video.

[@HearGodsWord]

@rockpaperscissors82 no, it doesn't scream that at all.

[@johnstewart7025]

Good luck with replacing theory of evolution, which is the basis of modern chemistry, biology, virology and pharmaceutical science.

[@HearGodsWord]

Somewhat overstating the case for the theory, which is what it is, so has its own flaws, issues and required revisions.