Reformed Objection to Natural Theology.
Paul Manata has an interesting review of, The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology by Michael Sudduth, you theology nerds can check it out here.
bryanlopez.com | something to chew on.
musings on theology, philosophy, adoption, music, and technology.
SPONSORS
Bryan’s Twitter!
- Southwest Orphan advocates, interested in being part of the @t4aCon #ABQ regional conference, this fall? Let me know, we'd love to have you! 3 days ago
I could see an objection to natural theology, even not knowing how it is defined academically, owing to the oft-quoted maxim that we are all naturally Pelagian. Natural law, however? Isn’t that an acknowledgement of general revelation — or more precisely, God’s revelation of Himself through His creation, including its order? While radically depraved, people still sense a need for and thus generally pursue order in our relations with one another. Government – limited though it ought to be
– is instituted by God among men. In families, home-owners associations, professional regulating bodies, school districts, States, etc. Or am I just seeing this wrongly?
oops… sorry, left out churches and presbyteries in the list of governments; feel it should be explicit rather than included in et cetera.
M.S.
I think you are correct when stating that God uses the means of order as an avenue for revelation, but most reformers would state that (please note that I do not take it this far) this violates the Sola Scriptura principle.
One thing to note is that there is a dualistic dynamic to natural theology. First, being, the logic that states God can be understood by philosophic reason. The dilemma with this is it does not take in account illumination or scripture, and the traditional definition’s logical conclusion is that neither of the two are required. The second dynamic is that God reveals his divine character in nature. I would state that nature is “a” means for divine revelation not “the” ultimate source… that’s where I differ from the “old” reformed perspective….
With that dualistic understanding I end up taking a portion of it and modifying it… make sense?