There seems to be a kind of resurgence of interest in “natural theology” in Reformed circles today that, seemingly, wants to turn back the clock to scholastic days and ignore, minimize, or deny the insights of later Reformed scholars like Vos, Berkhof, and Van Til, who were much less optimistic of the enterprise.

Thankfully, Swain cautions against the danger of “mak[ing] natural theology the norm and judge of revealed theology.” But, in my opinion, history shows a tendency among the practitioners of so-called “natural theology” to make their conclusions from this endeavor the hermeneutical norms that norm the data of special revelation.

Hence, some of the champions of “natural theology” seem to insist that our revealed theology of a Triune God accord with the “natural theology” of an Unmoved Mover or of an Absolutely Simple One. Instead of the “Analogy of Scripture” as our hermeneutical norm and guide, we end up with something more akin to the “Analogy of Aristotle” or the “Analogy of Plotinus.”

It seems to me, however, that sola Scriptura requires us to bring every reflection or conclusion we may draw from creation, providence, and conscience (“natural theology”) under the clearer light of covenantal revelation in order to attain a true knowledge of God, ourselves, and the world. In doing so, we resist the temptation to suppress the equally ultimate and essential personal distinctions in the Godhead (Father, Son, and Spirit) in order to accommodate an abstract, ineffable One. Following the more complete light of special revelation, we give equal ultimacy to Unity and Diversity in the Godhead. Moreover, we don’t stumble over such apparent tensions as a God who transcends time, yet acts in time; a God who’s essentially immutable, yet relates to this state of affairs differently than to that state of affairs; a God who is “without passions” (passive principles), yet full of feeling.

Once again, thanks for your helpful article on this topic.

Hi Bruce,

Not sure what you mean by ‘legitimate’, but no, I wouldn’t suggest that you assume anything. My suggestion would be that you read both, assess each statement, discern for yourself what if any differences there may be, and proceed from there: read additional material, perhaps the stuff I mention or the sources Swain referred to, or Van Til, who though only mentioned in passing is very much a part of this conversation. We can hope the conversation will continue, but certainly the relevant questions will endure with or without me and Swain.

Thanks

So, in my attempt to discern the differences between two legitimate points of view on Natural Theology, should I assume that Scott agrees that you accurately presented his side and the points you raised highlight the differences now open for discussion?

Bruce,

Dr. Swain read this a week or so before it was posted, and he sent me a substantive response. We all look forward to continuing the conversation.

Thanks

I read Scott Swain’s little 1500 word piece (a nice round number that editing redactors like) and your 4000+ word critique that he was ‘not thorough’ (“ambiguous”, “no counter arguments”, etc).

Since this website is Reformed FORUM, perhaps you could encourage Scott to provide the missing 2500 words … apologetic … rebuttal.