David Haines I've appreciated listening to this but when the content is dense & your quoting in archaic English at times I feel you really need to slow down! Even at 0.75 speed it sometimes feels a little too quick
5:12 Here’s a comment I left previously on a Credo UA-cam video tackling this same subject. The glossing of Van Til’s theology on this point is unhelpful and untrue. “Regarding Van Til ua-cam.com/video/KVr0MDpDaro/v-deo.htmlsi=WsjN8gPPt-0hShqy These statements don’t seem to align with what Van til scholars teach or believe Van Til thought. They oppose a specific form of natural theology or natural knowledge of God that misreads scripture (ie Romans 1). I appreciate much of Matthew Barrett’s project, but this portion does not engage honestly with Van Til. Also see Luther on Theologians of Glory: “That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things that have happened. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross. A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theologian of the cross calls the things what it is. That wisdom that sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened. The law brings the wrath of God, kills, reviles, accuses, judges, and condemns everything that is not in Christ. Yet that wisdom is not of itself evil, nor is the law to be evaded; but without the theology of the cross man misuses the best in the worst manner.” Not that Matthew or Craig fall into this camp, but they don’t address this aspect of their understanding of natural theology. Van Til, in my humble opinion, would simply push them to push the antithesis and see it cutting across some of what has been said in the name of natural theology.” This comment also applies to this gentleman as well.
“Although all pagan religions are positive [concrete], what is needed on the human side is a mind that has been sanctified and eyes that have been opened in order to be able to see God, the true and living God, in his creatures. And even this is not enough. Even Christian believers would not be able to understand God’s revelation in nature and reproduce it accurately had not God himself described in his Word how he revealed himself and what he revealed of himself in the universe as a whole. The natural knowledge of God is incorporated and set forth at length in Scripture itself. Accordingly, Christians follow a completely mistaken method when, in treating natural theology, they, as it were, divest themselves of God’s special revelation in Scripture and the illumination of the Holy Spirit, discuss it apart from any Christian presuppositions, and then move on to special revelation.” Herman Bavinck, John Bolt, and John Vriend, Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation (vol. 2) (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 74.
Turretin (Reformed scholastic) also is helpful on this point: "Many abuses can also be reckoned up: (1) when those things which philosophy reports truly concerning things subject to it and of an inferior order are transferred to the mysteries of theology. For example, that from nothing nothing comes; from privation to a habit there is no return; a virgin cannot be a mother, etc. Here is a change to a different genus (metabasis eis allo genos), and what philosophy teaches must be understood of its own kingdom and of natural causes, not of the kingdom of grace and in a supernatural order. Therefore, they are at fault who use such arguments against the creation of the world, the incarnation and the resurrection of the dead because Scripture teaches us that these things were the results not of natural causes, but of the omnipotence of God. (2) When under the pretext of philosophy, false dogmas of philosophers are assumed, and from them errors are introduced into theology or defended, such as the opinion of Aristotle about the eternity of the world, of Plato about purgatorial fire, of the Stoics about fatal necessity, etc. But the errors of philosophers are not the dictates of philosophy, any more than the mistakes of artificers are to be imputed to the art itself. “Philosophy,” says Clement of Alexandria, “is not to be called Stoic, nor Platonic, nor Epicurean, nor Aristotelian, but whatever has been properly spoken by these sects-this, gathered into one whole, is to be called philosophy” (Stromata 1.7 [ANF 2:308; PG 8.731]). (3) When philosophy assumes to itself the office of a master in articles of faith, not content with that of a servant (as was done by the Scholastics who placed Aristotle upon the throne; and by the Socinians who would not admit the doctrines of the Trinity, of the incarnation, etc. because they did not seem to be in accordance with the principles of philosophy). (4) When more new distinctions and phrases than necessary are introduced from philosophy into theology under which (oftentimes) new and dangerous errors lie concealed." ANF Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969-73. PG Jacques Paul Migne. Patrologiae … series Graeca. Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1857-87. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger, vol. 1 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992-1997), 45-46.
Last one (though much more content has been produced on Van Til’s view on natural theology from those who have read and understood Van Til): ua-cam.com/video/kzyV9XuqY2s/v-deo.htmlsi=8jqG9wwlhkH1du5Z Once and for all, let it be known that Van Til does not deny natural theology, he simply lets the rest of Romans 1 interpret its limitations and expounds on that point to confound those who would use it as the “point of contact” with the unbelieving world. I will add, I stopped listening briefly and commented as soon as I heard Van Til’s name dragged on this point but each of my above quotes carried even more weight as the video went on. The larger project of theological recovery on the nature of natural theology is good and right, but I fear some of the ways some less settled Christian’s will be lead astray by not reading primary sources on the topic.
David Haines I've appreciated listening to this but when the content is dense & your quoting in archaic English at times I feel you really need to slow down! Even at 0.75 speed it sometimes feels a little too quick
5:12
Here’s a comment I left previously on a Credo UA-cam video tackling this same subject. The glossing of Van Til’s theology on this point is unhelpful and untrue.
“Regarding Van Til
ua-cam.com/video/KVr0MDpDaro/v-deo.htmlsi=WsjN8gPPt-0hShqy
These statements don’t seem to align with what Van til scholars teach or believe Van Til thought. They oppose a specific form of natural theology or natural knowledge of God that misreads scripture (ie Romans 1).
I appreciate much of Matthew Barrett’s project, but this portion does not engage honestly with Van Til.
Also see Luther on Theologians of Glory:
“That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things that have happened.
He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.
A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theologian of the cross calls the things what it is.
That wisdom that sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.
The law brings the wrath of God, kills, reviles, accuses, judges, and condemns everything that is not in Christ.
Yet that wisdom is not of itself evil, nor is the law to be evaded; but without the theology of the cross man misuses the best in the worst manner.”
Not that Matthew or Craig fall into this camp, but they don’t address this aspect of their understanding of natural theology. Van Til, in my humble opinion, would simply push them to push the antithesis and see it cutting across some of what has been said in the name of natural theology.”
This comment also applies to this gentleman as well.
“Although all pagan religions are positive [concrete], what is needed on the human side is a mind that has been sanctified and eyes that have been opened in order to be able to see God, the true and living God, in his creatures. And even this is not enough. Even Christian believers would not be able to understand God’s revelation in nature and reproduce it accurately had not God himself described in his Word how he revealed himself and what he revealed of himself in the universe as a whole. The natural knowledge of God is incorporated and set forth at length in Scripture itself. Accordingly, Christians follow a completely mistaken method when, in treating natural theology, they, as it were, divest themselves of God’s special revelation in Scripture and the illumination of the Holy Spirit, discuss it apart from any Christian presuppositions, and then move on to special revelation.”
Herman Bavinck, John Bolt, and John Vriend, Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation (vol. 2) (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 74.
Turretin (Reformed scholastic) also is helpful on this point:
"Many abuses can also be reckoned up: (1) when those things which philosophy reports truly concerning things subject to it and of an inferior order are transferred to the mysteries of theology. For example, that from nothing nothing comes; from privation to a habit there is no return; a virgin cannot be a mother, etc. Here is a change to a different genus (metabasis eis allo genos), and what philosophy teaches must be understood of its own kingdom and of natural causes, not of the kingdom of grace and in a supernatural order. Therefore, they are at fault who use such arguments against the creation of the world, the incarnation and the resurrection of the dead because Scripture teaches us that these things were the results not of natural causes, but of the omnipotence of God. (2) When under the pretext of philosophy, false dogmas of philosophers are assumed, and from them errors are introduced into theology or defended, such as the opinion of Aristotle about the eternity of the world, of Plato about purgatorial fire, of the Stoics about fatal necessity, etc. But the errors of philosophers are not the dictates of philosophy, any more than the mistakes of artificers are to be imputed to the art itself. “Philosophy,” says Clement of Alexandria, “is not to be called Stoic, nor Platonic, nor Epicurean, nor Aristotelian, but whatever has been properly spoken by these sects-this, gathered into one whole, is to be called philosophy” (Stromata 1.7 [ANF 2:308; PG 8.731]). (3) When philosophy assumes to itself the office of a master in articles of faith, not content with that of a servant (as was done by the Scholastics who placed Aristotle upon the throne; and by the Socinians who would not admit the doctrines of the Trinity, of the incarnation, etc. because they did not seem to be in accordance with the principles of philosophy). (4) When more new distinctions and phrases than necessary are introduced from philosophy into theology under which (oftentimes) new and dangerous errors lie concealed."
ANF Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969-73.
PG Jacques Paul Migne. Patrologiae … series Graeca. Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1857-87.
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger, vol. 1 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992-1997), 45-46.
Last one (though much more content has been produced on Van Til’s view on natural theology from those who have read and understood Van Til):
ua-cam.com/video/kzyV9XuqY2s/v-deo.htmlsi=8jqG9wwlhkH1du5Z
Once and for all, let it be known that Van Til does not deny natural theology, he simply lets the rest of Romans 1 interpret its limitations and expounds on that point to confound those who would use it as the “point of contact” with the unbelieving world.
I will add, I stopped listening briefly and commented as soon as I heard Van Til’s name dragged on this point but each of my above quotes carried even more weight as the video went on. The larger project of theological recovery on the nature of natural theology is good and right, but I fear some of the ways some less settled Christian’s will be lead astray by not reading primary sources on the topic.