Sorry for a long delay in my follow up article on natural theology. This is because as I assessed my students during the reading assignment, discussion, and pre and post-tests discussion, I decided to slow down a little bit. What's the use of discussing theological ideas if the students cannot catch up. And that's why I thought of reviewing the first lecture on the concept of natural theology as proposed by the Westminster Standards.

After accomplishing that goal, I intend to continue the discussion by contrasting the first idea of natural theology to that of Greek origin. Under this category, Cornelius Van Til classified seven of them:

• The natural theology of Plato

• The natural theology of Aristotle

• The natural theology of Thomas Aquinas

• The natural theology of pre-modern philosophy

• The natural theology of pre-Kantian apologists

• The natural theology of Kant, and

• The natural theology of post-Kantian phenomenalism

Of course, with the goal to reach 500 words in this article, we cannot cover all these seven versions of natural theology under the Greek category. At most perhaps, in this article, we can only cover a general overview of natural theology of Greek origin and perhaps in the next article we can pick up that of Plato and Aristotle, and will continue from there until the post-Kantian phenomenalism.

General Overview

In contrast to the natural theology of Westminster Standards, the natural theology of Greek origin does not allow the idea of "analogical reasoning" as mentioned in this article, that is, viewing man as an analogue of God by virtue of creation. It also rejects the idea of a self-contained God as described in the Scripture. Instead, this kind of natural theology started "with the idea of the self-contained character of nature" (The Infallible Word, 1946, p. 283). And then from there, it argues for the existence of a finite god.

Moreover, the second kind of natural theology refuses the revelational character of nature, of the mannishness of man including his conscience. Instead, it assumes the non-revelational character of nature and yet it concludes making nature "revelational of the mind of would-be autonomous man" (ibid.).

That last phrase is tough. The idea of autonomous man is prevalent in Van Til's writings. By this idea of man, he tells us that such a man does not acknowledge himself as God's creature and the concept of a Creator is ignored from the outset.

Of course, by giving the above overview, Van Til does not discredit the intellectual contribution of these great Greek philosophers. To my mind, I think he intends to critically evaluate their ideas from the vantage point of the Westminster Standards.

Despite Van Til's recognition of the genius of Plato and Aristotle, still he does not exempt them from the biblical idea of inherited sin from the representative of mankind, who is Adam. As such, it is but natural to expect that these Greek philosophers would think the way they think, that is, rejecting the voice of God revealed both in nature and in Scripture. Recognizing such rejection is based on the biblical idea of sin. Anyone who rejects the doctrine of sin would see no problem in the natural theology of Greek philosophy. All men born outside of Eden including the best philosophers such as the Greeks would naturally assume the self-sufficiency of nature and of man.

In concluding this general overview, one final word is about the monistic assumption of all pre-Socratic philosophies. In such a monistic worldview, there is no distinction between two kinds of beings. All beings including a "god" and man are assumed of one kind. For Heraclitus, says Van Til, this monistic assumption is based on "flux" and something "constant" (something fixed, something permanent and static whatever that is) for Parmenides. The ultimate conclusion that can be derived from such a monistic assumption either in Heraclitusian or Parmenidean version is that "God is nature and nature is God" (ibid., p. 284). Such a conclusion will give you a very impersonal ultimate reality of the whole cosmos and will fail to account the existence of human personality. This critique of course is still premature at this point. I hope to return to this as we proceed in this series.

In closing, this monistic assumption provides the background of the natural theologies of Greek philosophy particularly that of Plato and Aristotle. I suspect that Van Til will say the same characteristic applies to the remaining five versions of natural theology.

I think I am done. After a brief review of previous lecture, I plan to include this brief article in our discussion later.