“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.”
Ps. 19:1-3
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men… Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”
Rom. 1:18-20
.
.
Subsections
A Proof for God
Divine Perfection
Reformed vs. Aquinas
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 14+
Books 26+
Anthology 1
Quotes 6+
History 25+
Innate & Acquired 5
3 Ways God is Known
Best Owen
Polanus
Necessity of Scripture for True Natural Theology
Immortality of the Soul 2
Latin & French 5
Muslim 1
.
Articles
Anthology of the Post-Reformation
Heppe, Heinrich – Reformed Dogmatics ed. Ernst Bizer, tr. G.T. Thomson (1861; Wipf & Stock, 2007)
ch. 1, ‘Natural & Revealed Theology’, pp. 1-12
ch. 4, ‘The Existence & Notion of God’, pp. 47-57
Heppe (1820–1879) was a German reformed theologian.
.
1500’s
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – 2. ‘Of the Natural Knowledge of God by his Creatures, and whereunto this knowledge tends; & whether there be any that know not God’ in The Common Places… (d. 1562; London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 1, pp. 10-17
Ursinus, Zachary – 1. Whether there be a God in The Sum of Christian Religion: Delivered… in his Lectures upon the Catechism… tr. Henrie Parrie (d. 1583; Oxford, 1587), 1st Part of the Creed, Of God the Father, Creator, Of God
Junius, Francis – ch. 10, ‘Natural Theology’ in A Treatise on True Theology trans. David Noe (1592?; RHB, 2014)
.
1600’s
Perkins, William – Ch. 2, Question 1, Whether there be a God? in The Whole Treatise of the Cases of Conscience… (Cambridge: Legat, 1606), bk. 2
Bucanus, William – 1. ‘Of God’ in Institutions of Christian Religion... (London: Snowdon, 1606), pp. 1-13
How do you prove that there is a God?
Show me the principal reasons to prove there is a God
Alsted, Johann Heinrich – ‘On Natural Theology’ in Methodus SS. Theologiae in VI Libros Tributa (Hanover, 1634), pp. 46-48
Leigh, Edward – ch. 1. That there is a God in A System or Body of Divinity… (London, A.M., 1654), bk. 2, pp. 121-32
Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1992), vol. 1
1st Topic
3, ‘Whether natural theology may be granted.’ 6
4, ‘Is natural theology sufficient for salvation; or is there a common religion by which all promiscuously may be saved? We deny against the Socinians and Remonstrants.’ 9-16
3rd Topic
1. ‘Can the Existence of God be irrefutably demonstrated against atheists? We affirm.’ 169-77
Turretin, Francis – 3rd Topic, ‘The One & Triune God’, 1st Question, ‘Can the Existence of God be irrefutably demonstrated against Atheists? We Affirm.’ in Institutes (1992), pp. 169-177. See an excerpt: ‘Nature Proves the Existence of God’.
.
1700’s
à Brakel, Wilhelmus – ch. 1, ‘The Knowledge of God from Nature’ in The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vols. 1 ed. Joel Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout Buy (1700; RHB, 1992/1999), pp. 3-23
a Brakel (1635-1711) was a contemporary of Voet and Witsius and was a major representative of the Dutch Further Reformation.
De Moor, Bernard – Continuous Commentary
ch. 1
11. Existence of Ectypal Theology
12. Natural Theology: Innate
13. Acquired
14. Universal Doubt?
15. Idea & Existence of God
16. Theology of Adam & as Fallen
17. Socinians Deny Natural Theology
18. Object of Natural Theology
19. Insufficiency of for Salvation
20. Objections of Pelagians & Socinians
21. Natural & Revealed Theology: Agreement & Difference
22. End of Natural Theology
ch. 4
10. Arguments for the Existence of God: Conscience
10. Arguments for the Existence of God: Nature, pt. 1, 2, 3, 4
10. Arguments for the Existence of God: Scripture
10. Spanheim’s Arguments for the Existence of God
10. Buddeus on the Insanity of Atheism
Venema, Herman – pp. 10-20 in Translation of Hermann Venema’s inedited Institutes of Theology tr. Alexander W. Brown (d. 1787; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1850), ch. 1, Of Reason
Venema (1697-1787) was a professor at Franeker. Venema “maintained the fundamental line of confessional orthodoxy without drawing heavily on any of the newer philosophies… and maintained a fairly centrist Reformed position. Venema… evidence[s] the inroads of a rationalistic model…” – Richard Muller
.
1800’s
Alexander, Archibald – 2. ‘Theology’ in God, Creation & Human Rebellion: Lecture Notes of Archibald Alexander from the Hand of Charles Hodge (1818; RBO, 2023), pp. 46-58 Most of this chapter is about natural theology.
Cunningham, William – chs. 8-10 of Theological Lectures: on Subjects Connected with Natural Theology, Evidences of Christianity, the Canon & Inspiration of Scripture Buy (1878), pp. 101-137
Cunningham was a professor in the Free Church of Scotland.
In regard to the whole volume of lectures, Cunningham “had bestowed much care and labor upon their composition and revision, and that he had attached a special value to them as the first-fruits of his professional labors.”
.
1900’s
Plantinga, Alvin – ‘Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments’ 19 pp. Unpublished lecture notes. Appended to this edition is bio material from Wikipedia and his ‘Spiritual Autobiography’.
Plantinga (b. 1932) is a Christian, American, analytical philosopher. These unpublished lecture notes have been widely influential. The theistic arguments are:
Metaphysical
1. From Intentionality (or Aboutness)
2. From Collections
3. From (Natural) Numbers
4. From Counterfactuals
5. From Physical Constants
6. Naive Teleological Argument
7. Tony Kenny’s Style of Teleological Argument
Epistemological
8. From Positive Epistemic Status
9. From the Confluence of Proper Function & Reliability
10. From Simplicity
11. From Induction
12. The Putnamian Argument (from the Rejection of Global Skepticism)
13. From Reference
14. The Kripke-Wittgenstein Argument From Plus & Quus
15. The General Arguement from Intuition
Moral Arguments
16. Moral Arguments (actually R1 to Rn)
17. From Evil
Other Arguments
18. From Colors & Flavors
19. From Love
20. The Mozart Argument
21. From Play & Enjoyment
22. From Providence & Miracles
23. C.S. Lewis’s Argument from Nostalgia
24. From the Meaning of Life
25. The Argument from (a) to (Y)
.
2000’s
Sudduth, Michael – ‘Revisiting the ‘Reformed Objection’ to Natural Theology’ European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 2 (2009), pp. 37–62
Sudduth argues against Alvin Plantinga’s objection to Natural Theology. Regretfully, Sudduth, since writing this article, has converted to polytheistic Hinduism and writes immoral novels as a professor of religion in the pluralistic university environment, though this does not affect the scholarship or helpfulness of this work.
Benzmüller, Christoph & Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo – ‘Experiments in Computational Metaphysics: Gödel’s Proof of God’s Existence’ Science & Spiritual Quest (2015) 16 pp.
“‘Computer scientists prove the existence of God’ — variants of this headline appeared in the international press in autumn 2013… This article outlines the main findings of the authors’ joint work in computational metaphysics. More precisely, the article focuses on their computer-supported analysis of variants and recent emendations of Kurt Gödel’s modern ontological argument for the existence of God. In the conducted experiments, automated theorem provers discovered some interesting and relevant facts.”
Bonnette, Dennis – “How God’s Nature Is Known: The Three-Fold Way” (2018)
Bonette is a Romanist and has been a long-time professor of philosophy.
“Classical metaphysics attains knowledge of God’s nature by means of an interpretation, mostly taken from the Christian Neo-Platonist Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (c. late fifth century) known as the via triplex or three-fold way. This entails (1) the way of causality (via causalitatis), (2) the way of remotion or negation (via remotionis), and (3) the way of eminence (via eminentiae).”
Haines, David
‘Natural Theology & Orthodox Protestant Theology’
Abstract: “In this paper I seek to lay out the criteria for determining that some doctrine is necessary for protestant orthodoxy. I then apply these criteria to Natural Theology in order to discover if Natural Theology should be considered necessary to orthodoxy, whether it should be rejected as unorthodox, or whether it is an unnecessary doctrine of little importance.”
‘Presuppositionalism & Natural Theology’
Abstract: “In this short treatise I will be considering the relationship between Van Til’s Presuppositionalism and Natural Theology, and will attempt to demonstrate that the philosophical foundations of this system force him into a Relativism of Interpretative Schemes, and, consequently, self-contradiction… It seems that if the Presuppositionalist system succumbs to these flaws, then its most difficult objections to the traditional understanding of Natural Theology do not hold. If this is the case, then we may be warranted in engaging in natural theology as traditionally understood.”
‘Natural Theology, Perspectivalism & the Assumption of the Divine’
Abstract: “Natural Theology has traditionally been defined as that part of philosophy which explores that which man can know about God (his existence, divine nature, etc.) from nature, via his divinely bestowed faculty of reason; and, this, unaided by any divinely inspired written revelation. Defining Natural Theology this way seems to give value to the study of philosophy and encourages the use of philosophy in theology.
Since the early 1900’s, however, many Christian theologians have begun describing Natural Theology as the attempt to prove the truth of the Christian Religion, or worse, as the attempt to replace revealed truths with human ideas. These theologians often go on to claim that the only way that Natural Theology could be valuable, is if we first assume the truth of Christianity. In other words, the universe does not point to the existence of God, unless we first assume a religious position in which some God exists.
Though this approach is, in Christian apologetics, often associated with Cornelius Van Til’s Presuppositionalism; it is also known, to philosophers, as Perspectivalism. Other well-known theologians who seem to have adopted this approach to Natural Theology, include Alister McGrath, Fergus Kerr, and Wolfhart Pannenberg. In their opinion, Natural Theology has no other use than to provide Christians, if it does even this, with some form of existential certitude concerning the truth of Christianity. Natural Theology most certainly does not prove Theism, let alone the truth of the Christian Religion.
In this paper, I will begin with a short exposition of the positions of the contemporary theologians mentioned above. I will then attempt to refute these claims through (1) an historical exposition of the traditional approach to Natural Theology, and (2) a philosophical argument demonstrating the self-defeating nature of these claims.”
Payne, Andrew – ‘Classical Theism & Natural Theology in Early Reformed Doctrines of God’ in ed. David Haines, Without Excuse: Scripture, Reason & Presuppositional Apologetics Buy (Davenant Institute, 2020)
Feser, Edward
Neo-Scholastic Essays (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press, 2015)
4. Natural Theology Must Be Grounded in the Philosophy of Nature, Not in Natural Science 61
“Fourth, when I say that we cannot get from the world to God except via premises derived from philosophy of nature, I have a quite specific conception of God in mind. I do not deny that conclusions of a sort that might in some sense of the term be called “theological” might be derived from natural science. But I do deny that arguments grounded in natural science alone can get you to classical theism—the conception of God defended by Athanasius and Augustine, Avicenna and Maimonides, Anselm and Aquinas…
If anything, they have a tendency to lead you away from the God of classical theism. You might get to a demiurge, to a being of superhuman intelligence and power, with arguments grounded in physics, chemistry, or biology. What you cannot get to is that which is ipsum esse subsistens [subsisting existence itself] rather than merely a being among other beings; to a sustaining cause on whom the very being of the world depends at every instant; or to that which is absolutely simple or in no way composed of parts, whether physical or metaphysical.
One implication of this is that “design arguments” of the sort associated with William Paley [early-1700’s] and contemporary “Intelligent Design” theory are at best irrelevant to natural theology (as that discipline is understood in the classical theist tradition), and at worst threaten seriously to distort our understanding of God and His relationship to the world (again, at least from the point of view of classical theism).” – p. 72
“Now, am I insinuating that to abandon the Aristotelian-Scholastic philosophy of nature, and in particular the theory of act and potency, would be to… threaten to open the door to pantheism, deism, or even atheism? That is exactly what I am insinuating. And here’s one reason to think that I am right: These dire consequences are exactly what followed when the Aristotelian-Scholastic tradition lost its hegemony in Western thought.” – p. 66
5. Existential Inertia & the Five Ways 84
“Existential Inertia” means that once a thing exists, it “will continue in existence on its own at least until something positively acts to destroy it. It thus has no need to be converved in being by God.” (p. 86) This is in contrast to the Doctrine of Divine Conservation (DDC), which Feser defends by way of showing that Aquinas’s Five Ways for proving God also prove DDC.
“The first [way] argues that the existence, even for an instant, of composites of act and potency presupposes the simultaneous existence of that which is pure act;
the second argues that the existence, even for an instant, of composites of essence and existence presupposes the simultaneous existence of that which is being or existence itself;
the third argues that the existence, even for an instant, of composites of form and matter presupposes the simultaneous existence of an absolutely necessary being;
the fourth argues that the existence, even for an instant, of things which are many and come in degrees of perfection presupposes the simultaneous existence of something one and absolutely perfect;
and the fifth argues that the existence, even for an instant, of finality or directedness toward an end presupposes the simultaneous existence of a supreme ordering intellect.” – pp. 87-88
6. The New Atheists & the Cosmological Argument 118
Cosmological arguments “purport to show that the world exists only because it is caused to exist by a First Uncaused Cause.” (p. 118) Feser surveys cosmological arguments and shows New Atheist objections to them don’t even understand the argument itself.
7. Between Aristotle & William Paley: Aquinas’s Fifth Way 147
William Paley (1743–1805) is famed for arguing from the universe being like a watch to there being a watch-maker, or God. He lived after, and argued assuming the mechanical notion of the universe, post Isaac Newton. Hence the world is likened to a watch, which is an artificial construct, the design of which is imposed upon it externally by a watch-maker.
Aquinas’s Fifth Way sounds superficially like such an intelligent design argument. However it is very different, insofar as it assumes Aristotelianism, which recognizes that design or teleology is inherent in the universe itself, and not simply imposed on it from an external source.
“Paley’s argument presupposes that teleology is extrinsic; Aquinas follows Aristotle in holding that it is immanent to the natural order. Paley therefore focuses on complex phenomena, especially biological phenomena, as uniquely indicative of teleology; Aquinas takes all natural phenomena, however simple or complex and whether organic or inorganic, to manifest teleology. Paley is presenting a cumulative and probabilistic “argument to the best explanation”; Aquinas is putting forward a metaphysical demonstration… But Paley is at least seriously threatened by it [Darwinian evolution], while the Fifth Way is not threatened by it at all.” – p. 82
“…the Fifth Way, at least as developed by later Thomists, does indeed plausibly get us to a divine intelligence. By contrast, Paley’s argument is often acknowledged to get us at best to a designer who is extremely powerful and and intelligent, but who for all we know may yet be finite and, thus non-divine. But it is not just that Paley’ s designer may be something other than God as Aquinas understands Him. There is reason to think that Paley’s designer could not be God as Aquinas understands Him. For Aquinas, when we predicate attributes of God, we necessarily do so analogously rather than univocally. But Paley is evidently predicating attributes to his designer and to us in a univocal way, which (for the Thomist at least) entails a radically deficient conception of God.” – p. 83
“Aquinas’s argument is thus immune to the sorts of objections [David] Hume pressed upon design arguments, to the effect that the designer would have to work through corporeal organs the way human designers do, and would manifest complexity which itself requires explanation… They [Paley’s defenders] do not, and cannot deny that the designer at least could in principle be the sort Hume describes. But the Humean objections do not even get off the ground against Aquinas’s divine intelligence, who, being pure act, is necessarily absolutely simple and incorporeal.” – p. 185
8. Why McGinn is a Pre-Theist 193
“Colin McGinn tells us that he has so moved beyond theism that his position might be described as not only atheist, but ‘post-theist.'” (p. 193) Feser shows McGinn has not understood the arguments for classical theism, much less refuted them, and herein is better described as a pre-theist. (p. 199)
9. The Road from Atheism 200
Feser describes his journey from Atheism in his college years (and his various philosophical opinions) to the point at which he became convinced of God’s existence through Aquinas’s Five Ways.
“It will be said by such a believer that my change of view was too rationalistic, too cerebral, too bloodless, too focused on a theoretical knowledge of the God of the philosophers rather than a personal response to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
But the dichotomy is a false one, and the implied conception of the relationship between faith and reason not only foolish but heterodox. As to the heterodoxy and foolishness of fideism, and the correct understanding of the relationship of faith and reason, I have addressed that set of issues elsewhere. As to the ‘heart versus head’ stuff, it seems to me to rest on an erroneous bifurcation of human nature. Man is a unity, his rationality and animality, intellect and passions, theoretical and moral lives all ultimately oriented toward the same end…
…that does not mean that the will does not have a role to play. But that is true wherever reason leads us to a conclusion we might not like, not merely in matters of religion. And once you have allowed yourself to see the truth that reason leads you to, what reason apprehends is (given the convertibility of the transcendentals) as good and beautiful as it is real.
If you find yourself intellectually convinced that there is a divine Uncaused Cause who sustains the world and you in being at every instant, and don’t find this conclusion extremely strange and moving, something that leads you to a kind of reverence, then I dare say you haven’t understood it. Of course, there are those whose heads and hearts are so out of sync that they cannot follow both at the same time. But we shouldn’t mistake this pathology for an insight into human nature.” – pp. 213-14
‘Oppy On Thomistic Cosmological Arguments’ Religious Studies, 57 (2021), pp. 503-22
Abstract: “Graham Oppy has criticized several Thomistic versions of the cosmological argument in a series of publications over the years, most recently in a Religious Studies article responding to my book Five Proofs of the Existence of God [below]. Here I reply to his criticisms, arguing that while Oppy raises important issues, a besetting weakness of his approach is a failure adequately to grapple with the metaphysical underpinnings of the arguments.”
‘Doubting Thomas’ (2022) 17 paragraphs This is a review of the book by Jeff Johnson, The Failure of Natural Theology…
Feser is a Romanist, analytical-Thomist professor of philosophy. Johnson is a Calvinistic baptist. Feser does a good job showing the blunders of Johnson in attribtuing beliefs to Aquinas that he does not hold, and in indicating some of the main failures of the thesis of Johnson’s book.
Carini, Joel – ‘The Natural Man Does Not Accept the Things of the Spirit of God – But He Can Accept Natural Theology A Response to Brian Mattson & Richard Gaffin’ (2024)
“Mattson challenged us to answer Richard Gaffin’s exegetical defense of Van Til and presuppositionalism from 1 Corinthians 2:6-16: “The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God.”… In summary, Gaffin argues that “the things of the Spirit of God” which “the natural man does not accept” include all things, not only the content of special revelation but also knowledge of the whole creation which falls under the influence of the inaugurated and coming kingdom of God. Gaffin concludes: “1 Cor 2:6-16 (1:18-3:23) is the death blow to all natural theology” (123)…
Gaffin, in order to extract his desired exegetical conclusion, assumes a controversial philosophical doctrine: The British idealist doctrine of holism. Holism is the doctrine that all truths are connected such that a difference at one point affects all points. Only by assuming this doctrine can Gaffin, and Mattson, argue that the natural man’s inability to understand the things of the Spirit of God obviates the possibility of natural law and natural theology.
On the contrary, 1 Corinthians 2 was a favorite passage of Thomas Aquinas’s, which provided an exegetical basis for a distinction between the realm of nature and that of grace. Radically non-speculative exegesis of 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, I argue, leaves open all possible orthodox positions on this matter, from Van Til’s to Aquinas’s to my own…
Gaffin, noting that verse 22 speaks of “all things” as having been “committed to me by the Father,” argues that “these things” – apparently limited in scope – now include our knowledge of all things. Everything is hidden from the unbeliever; knowledge of anything requires revelation and belief…
Their method is the theological method I was taught at Westminster Seminary, what John Murray called, “radically non-speculative theology.” It is the idea that the content of systematic theology can be read directly off the pages of Scripture, redemptive-historically interpreted…
an idea like “there is nothing in the entire creation that is irrelevant to the kingdom” is not one of the positions on Christ and culture, a distinctively presuppositionalist one. That is all of the positions…
Gaffin infers that, if all things are impacted by the “hidden things,” then our knowledge of anything must begin from knowledge of the “hidden things.” But this inference only follows, given the truth of epistemological holism: The doctrine that the content of truths or facts are not separable but a unified, systematic whole.
The authors of Classical Apologetics put it this way: “To know the flower in the wall, you have to know the world and all.” Holism was a central doctrine of the British Idealist philosophers. Cornelius Van Til’s philosophy Ph.D. at Princeton University was on the Idealists (“God and the Absolute”)…
Van Til held that, if the Christian faith is true, then no truth is unaffected, truths of logic, mathematics, and scientific observation not excepted. Accordingly, no natural human knowledge, no science or philosophy, is fully true. (It might be “true so far as it goes.”) No natural theology or natural law can be built up from below, because all is affected by the content of special revelation.
The question of the legitimacy of this logical leap is a philosophical question, and it is one that divides presuppositionalists from classical apologists…
Epistemological holists, by contrast, hold that if thinkers have a difference at one point, then they effectively differ at all points. There are no individual truths, only holistic worldviews. Likewise, you cannot accurately perceive some of the world, some of the truth, but misunderstand other parts. The failure to understand the whole undermines apparent success in analyzing the parts…
And on philosophical grounds, I would argue that holism is false. While the world is a unity and one part affects another, our knowledge of the world is separable and incomplete. Some people are masters of international finance and failures at emotional intelligence. Some people know every jot and tittle of Reformed theology but are ignorant of philosophy, economics, and politics. It happens…
The incompleteness of this knowledge of morality and God is no knock against it. In fact, on biblical grounds, I would claim that it is such incomplete knowledge that renders people accountable to God (Rom 1:19-20). Often, it is such incomplete knowledge that leads people toward a more complete knowledge of God.”
.
Books
1600’s
Charleton, Walter – The Darkness of Atheism Dispelled by the Light of Nature (London, 1652) 355 pp. ToC
Charleton (1620-1707) was an Anglican, natural philosopher.
“…the systematic attempt to use detailed natural phenomena to establish God’s existence, wisdom, benevolence, and so forth, becomes a significant philosophical movement in the seventeenth century, especially in Britain… Among the first [works] to appear were The Darkness of Atheism… (1652), by Walter Charleton…” – John Henry in Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, pp. 613-4
More, Henry – An Antidote Against Atheism; or, An Appeal to the Natural Faculties of the Mind of Man, whether there be not a God… with an Appendix 2nd ed. (1653; London, 1655) ToC
More (1614-1687) was an Anglican, Arminian, Latitudinarian and a philosopher of the Cambridge Platonist school.
“…the systematic attempt to use detailed natural phenomena to establish God’s existence, wisdom, benevolence, and so forth, becomes a significant philosophical movement in the seventeenth century, especially in Britain… Among the first to appear were… An Antidote against Atheism (1653) by the Cambridge Platonist, Henry More (1614-87).” – John Henry in Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, pp. 613-4
Cappel, Louis – The Hinge of Faith & Religion: or a Proof of the Deity against Atheists & Profane Persons by Reason & the Testimony of Holy Scripture: the Divinity of which is Demonstrated (d. 1658; London: Dring, 1660) 184 pp. ToC
Wilkins, John – Of the Principles & Duties of Natural Religion… (London: Maxwell, 1675) 410 pp. ToC
Wilkins (1614–1672) was an English Anglican clergyman, natural philosopher, and author, and was one of the founders of the Royal Society. He was Bishop of Chester from 1668 until his death.
Owen, John – bk. 1, ‘Natural Theology’ in Biblical Theology: the History of Theology from Adam to Christ (1661; SDG, 1994), pp. 1-144
Bentley, Richard – Eight Sermons, preached at the Honorable Robert Boyle’s Lecture, in the Year 1692, to which are Added Three Sermons on Different Occasions (d. 1742; Clarendon Press, 1809) ToC This includes, A Confutation of Atheism from the Origin & Frame of the World, a Sermon (London, 1692).
Bentley (1662-1742) was an English classical scholar, critic and theologian. He was Master of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Bentley was the first lecturer for the Boyle Lectures, which began in 1692, founded upon the dying will of Robert Boyle (1627-1691), a Christian, natural philosopher. The main design of the lectureship was to counter atheism through examining the relationship between Christianity and the new natural philosophy then emerging in European society.
Bentley based his natural theology on the physics of Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica (1687), which was translated into English as The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1729).
.
1700’s
Clarke, Samuel – A Discourse Concerning the Being & Attributes of God, the Obligations of Natural Religion & the Truth & Certainty of the Christian Revelation, in Answer to Mr. Hobbs, Spinoza… & other Deniers of Natural & Revealed Religion, being Sixteen Sermons… in the Years 1704 & 1705, at the Lecture founded by the Honorable Robert Boyle, Esq. 10th ed. (1705; London, 1767)
Clarke (1675–1729) was an English philosopher and Anglican clergyman. He is considered the major British figure in philosophy between John Locke and George Berkeley. Clarke was an Arian who wrote at length on and debated the Trinity, especially with Daniel Waterland, who defended orthodoxy.
Clarke held to Newtonian physics. His Discourse Concerning the Being & Attributes of God set the stage for further British debate which lasted till the middle of the century.
Ray, John – The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation, in Two Parts… with Answers to Some Objections (1714; London, 1735) Sermons
Ray (1627-1707) was a Cambridge professor, Anglican minister and an English naturalist, widely regarded as one of the earliest of the English parson-naturalists. He published important works on botany, zoology, and natural theology. His classification of plants in his Historia Plantarum, which classified plants according to similarities and differences that emerged from observation was an important step towards modern taxonomy. He was among the first to attempt a biological definition for the concept of species.
Derham, William
Astro-Theology, or a Demonstration of the Being & Attributes of God, from a Survey of the Heavens 6th ed. (1715; London, 1731) ToC
Derham (1657-1735) was an Anglican clergyman, natural theologian, natural philosopher and scientist. He produced the earliest, reasonably accurate measurement of the speed of sound.
Physico-Theology, or a Demonstration of the Being & Attributes of God, from his Works of Creation, vol. 1, 2 (London, 1798) ToC
This work “proved to be especially influential” (John Henry, Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, p. 614).
Turretin, Jean-Alphonse – Dissertations on Natural Theology tr. William Crawford Ref (Belfast: Magee, 1777)
Translator’s Preface
1. Natural Theology in General 1
2. Existence of God 29
3. Attributes of God according to Nature’s Light 95
. Corollaries 137
4. Providence of God according to Nature’s Light 140
5. Vindication of Divine Providence according to Nature’s Light 167
6. Manner of Divine Providence according to the Nature’s Light 212
7. Human Liberty, in opposition to Spinoza et al. 229
8. Laws of Nature: they are Demonstrated 268
9. Laws of Nature: Defense of 295
10. Laws of Nature: Duties which we owe God 331
11. Laws of Nature: Duties we owe Neighbors & Ourselves 351
12. Immortality of the Soul & a Future State according to Nature’s Light 368-411
.
1800’s
Paley, William – Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence & Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature (1802; New York, 1879) ToC
Paley (1743-1805) was an Anglican clergyman, Christian apologist, philosopher and utilitarian. He is best known for his teleological argument for the existence of God, which made use of the watchmaker analogy.
Fisher, George Park – Manual of Natural Theology (1893) 125 pp.
Fisher (1827-1909)
Vos, Geerhardus – Natural Theology ed. J.V. Fesko, trans. Albert Gootjes Buy (RHB, 2021)
See David Haines, “Geerhardus Vos on Natural Theology: A Review” at Ad Fontes.
.
1900’s
Joyce, George Hayward – Principles of Natural Theology (1923) 648 pp.
Smith, Gerard – Natural Theology: Metaphysics II (NY: The Macmillan Company, 1951) 315 pp. ToC
“Another textbook style introduction to Natural Theology.” – David Haines
Holloway, Maurice R. – An Introduction to Natural Theology (New York: Appleton Century Crofts, 1959) 515 pp. ToC
“A textbook style introduction to Natural Theology.” – David Haines
Anderson, James F. – Natural Theology: The Metaphysics of God (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1962)
“One of the best of the textbook style introductions to Natural Theology.” – David Haines
Van Steenberghen, Fernand – Hidden God: How do we Know that God Exists Buy (B. Herder Book Co., 1966) 316 pp. ToC
“This author is often seen (and accepts this portrayal, though somewhat bitterly) as a black sheep amongst Thomists. His work on the subject is, however, excellent.” – David Haines
Bahnsen, Greg – A Conditional Resolution of the Apparent Paradox of Self-Deception PhD Diss. (University of Southern California, 1978) 330 pp.
Barr, James – Biblical Faith & Natural Theology… (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994) ToC
“This is Barr’s Gifford lectures. It is one of the most important analyses of Natural Theology in the Scriptures. Written by a theologian who was trained in the Barthian tradition, and was a Barthian, this work is in constant interaction with the Barthian rejection of Natural Theology.” – David Haines
.
2000’s
Brunner, Emil & Karl Barth – Natural Theology, comprising ‘Nature & Grace’ by Professor Dr. Emil Brunner & the Reply ‘No!’ by Dr. Karl Barth trans. Peter Fraenkel (London, 1946) 125 pp. no ToC
“This book contains the 2 article debate that essentially ended the friendship between Emil Brunner and Karl Barth. Karl Barth reacted violently (as violently as an academic author can react in an article) to Emil Brunner’s claim that natural knowledge of God was possible on a certain level. This is essential reading for those who wish to understand Barth’s position on Natural Theology.” – David Haines
McGrath, Alister – The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2008)
“This, along with McGrath’s more recent book ‘Re-Imagining Nature’, presents McGrath’s attempt to provide a ‘Christian Natural Theology’. McGrath has essentially accepted a Christian form of perspectivism, in which Nature or the natural cosmos are ambivalent to goodness, beauty, or truth. Nature tells us nothing about God unless we first adopt the Christian perspective. Ultimately this would be not only a rejection of the traditional Christian understanding of Natural Theology, but it would make discourse between proponents of different perspectives virtually impossible.” – David Haines
eds. John Hedley Brooke, et al. – The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology Pre (Oxford University Press, 2013) 610 pp. ToC
Gamble, Richard – Reclaiming Reason: Believer’s Think – Thinkers Believe (Lockerbie, Scotland: OPAL, 2013) 90 pp. ToC
Sudduth, Michael – The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology Pre Buy (Routledge, 2016) 250 pp.
“Michael Sudduth examines three prominent objections to natural theology that have emerged in the Reformed streams of the Protestant theological tradition: objections from the immediacy of our knowledge of God, the noetic effects of sin, and the logic of theistic arguments. Distinguishing between the project of natural theology and particular models of natural theology, Sudduth argues that none of the main Reformed objections is successful as an objection to the project of natural theology itself.”
Regretfully, Sudduth, since writing this dissertation, has converted to polytheistic Hinduism and writes immoral novels as a professor of religion in the pluralistic university environment, though this does not affect the scholarship or helpfulness of this work.
Feser, Edward – Five Proofs Of The Existence Of God (Ignatius Press, 2017) 330 pp. ToC
Feser is a Romanist, professor of philosophy in the tradition of Analytical Thomism. Graham Oppy critiqued the cosmological argument in this book; Feser responded to him in an article above.
This book is not about Aquinas’s five proofs for God; rather it elaborates on Feser’s own five proof’s for God, each of which is grounded in historic thinkers, though the presentation of them is distinctly his. They are:
1. The Aristotelian Proof: From change to a purely actualized actualizer, or an unmoved mover, without which change cannot be.
2. The Neo-Platonic Proof: From compositeness to something absolutely simple or non-composite as its ultimate cause.
3. The Augustinian Proof: From universals to a divine intellect, or the mind of God, as their only possible ground.
4. The Thomistic Proof: Contingent things, all having a real distinction of essence (what something is) versus existence (that it exists), can only be caused to exist by something in which there is no such distinction, whose very essence is existence, and can therefore impart existence without receiving it: an uncaused cause of the existence of things.
5.The Rationalist Proof (based on Leibniz): By the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) everything is intelligible or has an explanation for why it exists and has the attributes it has. Contingent things cannot have an explanation of their existence unless there is a necessary being, its existence being explained by its own nature.
eds. Walls, Jerry & Trent Dougherty – Two Dozen (or so) Arguments for God: The Plantinga Project Buy (Oxford Univ. Press, 2018) 504 pp. ToC
This book develops and expands the two dozen or so arguments for God that Alvin Plantinga gave in an unpublished lecture (above), Here is a helpful review of the book.
Haines, David – Natural Theology: A Biblical & Historical Introduction & Defense (Davenant Press, 2021)
Anderson, Owen
The Clarity of God’s Existence: The Ethics of Belief After the Enlightenment (Wipf & Stock, 2008)
“examines the need for theistic proofs within historic Christianity, and the challenges to these since the Enlightenment. Historically (and scripturally), Christianity has maintained that unbelief is inexcusable” – Blurb
The Journal of General Revelation: Showing What Is Clear About God’s Eternal Power From General Revelation, ed. Anderson (General Revelation Press, 2022)
Anderson upholds the historic creeds of the faith and quotes from Westminster.
The Twelve Arguments: Showing what is Clear about God’s Eternal Power from General Revelation (General Revelation Press, 2022)
Anderson has been a professor of philosophy and religious studies for over 20 years at Arizona State University.
Credo Magazine – Natural Theology vol. 14, issue 2 (2023)
A collection of popular online articles on the subject by reformed teachers.
.
Anthology
Book
2000’s
Levering, Matthew – Proofs of God: Classical Arguments from Tertullian to Barth Pre (Baker Academic, 2016) 240 pp. ToC
Levering is a Romanist, which tradition tends to have a more optimistic view of proving God from nature.
.
Quotes
Order of
Beza & Faius
Bucanus
London Presbyterians
Rutherford
Hoornbeeck
J. Turretin
Feser
Anderson
.
1500’s
Theodore Beza & Anthony Faius
Propositions & Principles of Divinity Propounded & Disputed in the University of Geneva… (Edinburgh, 1591), disputation 1, ‘Concerning God’, pp. 1-2
“3. And although human reason, be able to afford us some proofs whereby we may be taught that there is a God, and but only one: and whereby also his attributes may be in some sort made known unto us, yet notwithstanding, those proofs are more sure and strong, yea and altogeather the most undoubted which for this purpose are fetched and drawn out of God’s Word: that is, out of the sacred writings of the holy prophets and apostles, contained in the Old and New Testament.
4. For howbeit that the knowledge of God, which is derived from the consideration of his works and power, has many notable uses: yet is it nothing comparable with that light which is gotten from the holy Scriptures; both because this knowledge revealed by the Word, does wholly flow and proceede from God Himself: and also, inasmuch as God in this his written Word has manifested how, and after what manner He will be known and worshipped of men.”
.
1600’s
William Bucanus
Institutions of Christian Religion... (London: Snowdon, 1606), 1. ‘Of God’, How do you prove that there is a God?, p. 1
“Whereupon Tertullian said:
‘First God sent Nature to be our school-dame, purposing afterward to send the Word; that so having learned in the school of Nature, we might the more easily believe the Word of God.’
So then as when I see an house, I say there has been a carpenter, though I see him not: so when I look upon the frame of this world, I must say, it had a builder, though I behold him not.”
.
London Presbyterian Ministers
The Divine Right of Church Government… new ed. (1645?; NY: Martin, 1844), pt. 1, Ch. 3, ‘Of the Nature of a Divine Right in Particular. How many ways a thing may be of Divine Right. And First, of a Divine Right by the True Light of Nature’
“1. For the first: What is meant by the true light of nature, or natural reason? Thus conceive. The light of nature may be considered two ways:
…
2. As it is now in man after the Fall. The light of nature and image of God in man is not totally abolished and utterly razed by the Fall; there remain still some relics and fragments thereof, some glimmerings, dawnings and common principles of light, both touching piety to God, equity to man and sobriety to a man’s self, etc., as is evident by comparing these places, Ps. 19:1-2, etc., Acts 14:17 and 17:27-28; Rom. 1:18-21 and 2:12, 14-15; 2 Cor. 5:1, in which places it is plain:
1. That the book of the creature is able (without the Scriptures or divine revelations) to make known to man much of God, his invisible Godhead and attributes, Ps. 19:1-2, etc.; Acts 14:17 and 17:27-28; yea, so far as to leave them without excuse, Rom. 1:18-21.
2. That there remained so much natural light in the minds even of the heathens, as to render them capable of instruction by the creature in the invisible things of God; yea, and that they actually in some measure did know God, and because they walked not up to this knowledge, were plagued, Rom. 1:18-21, 24, etc.
…
Now so far as this light of nature after the Fall is a true relic of the light of nature before the Fall, that which is according to this light may be counted of divine right in matters of religion, which is the next thing to be proved.
For the second, how it may be proved that what things in religion are evident by or consonant to this true light of nature are of divine right. Thus briefly:
1. Because that knowledge which by the light of nature Gentiles have of the invisible things of God, is a beam of divine light, as the apostle, speaking of the gentiles’ light of nature says, ‘That which may be known of God is manifest in them—for God hath showed it to them. For the invisible things, etc.,’ Rom. 1:19-20. God Himself is the Fountain and Author of the true light of nature; hence some not unfitly call it the divine light of nature, not only because it has God for its object, but also God for its principle; now that which is according to God’s manifestation, must needs be of divine right.”
.
Samuel Rutherford
The Divine Right of Church Government… (London, 1646), p. 66
“…a reasonable soul, which to me is a rare and curious book, on which essentially is written by the immediate finger of God that natural Theology that we had in our first creation.”
.
Johannes Hoornbeeck
Theologia Practica, vol. 1, p. 85, quoted from Giovanni Pico della Mirandola
“The God that philosophy seeks, theology finds, and religion possesses.”
.
1700’s
Jean-Alphonse Turretin
Dissertations on Natural Theology tr. William Crawford (d. 1737; Belfast: Magee, 1777), Theses concerning Natural Theology in General, p. 9
“…this very ignorance of God being connected in such people with the most extreme barbarity, is a pretty strong evidence that the knowledge of Him is natural to the mind. Some have been met with among these savage nations who could not reckon farther than the number ten; could any one hence deny that arithmetical ideas are not natural to mankind?”
.
2000’s
Edward Feser
Neo-Scholastic Essays (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press, 2015), ch. 16, ‘In Defense of the Perverted Faculty Argument’, p. 387
“Hence the ‘old’ natural law theory [legitimately] does not… have to appeal to natural theology in order to make obligation intelligible (even if a complete account of obligation—as with a complete account of causality, or of anything else for that matter—will make reference to natural theology). See Feser [Aquinas] 2009, pp. 188–92 for further discussion.”
.
Owen Anderson
‘Natural Theology & the Clarity of General Revelation’ (2022)
“Warfield, following the Scottish Reformation, made the case that all humans can use reason to know God. This isn’t a statement about the noetic effects of the fall but a statement about reason. Reason makes God known.
Reason is that by which we understand anything at all. It is not simply a first principle because we use reason even to form first principles. Reason is transcendental, meaning it cannot be questioned because it makes questioning possible. We use reason to form beliefs about nature, and we use reason to form beliefs about scripture. Humans are fallen having a darkened mind meaning they have rejected reason and for that they are without excuse. Reason and argument are still there to reveal their condition in unbelief and its consequences.
Warfield is speaking of reason as the laws of thought (right reason), Kuyper of man’s reasoning process. Warfield’s definition is more basic. It is the failure to correctly define reason that allowed the challenges of Hume and Kant to the knowledge of God.”
.
The History of the Doctrine of Natural Theology
.
Ancient to mid-1700’s
Gillett, Ezra Hall – God in Human Thought: or, Natural Theology Traced in Literature, Ancient & Modern, to the Time of Bishop Butler, with… an English Bibliography, from Spenser [1590] to Butler [1736], vol. 1, 2 (NY: 1874) ToC
“…is notable for its scope and, granting its time, for its objectivity. It still serves as a useful finding-list of materials, particularly with reference to the natural theology of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Gillett must be criticized, however, for not establishiing a clear criterion for the inclusion or exclusion of works on natural theology and, in his discussion of the seventeenth century, for simply following out the lines of Deist and rationalist philosophy rather than attempting to examine the broader subject [of] rational theism.” – Richard Muller, PRRD (2003), 3.24
.
.
The Pre-Socratics
Article
Haines, David – ‘Natural Revelation, the God of the Philosophers, and Christian Theism’
“This paper was presented during the Models of God session at Evangelical Theological Society 2019, in San Diego… Our purpose, in this paper, is to show that some unregenerate philosophers have indeed arrived, by reasoning alone and without the aid of special revelation, at some knowledge of the one true God. In pursuing this line of reasoning, we will only consider the views of some major pre-Christian philosophers, thus avoiding the possibility of any Christian influence on the philosophical conception of God… We will conclude by responding to some possible critiques.” – Haines
.
.
On the Early Church
Article
Haines, David – ‘Natural Theology in Augustine’
This was a conference presentation.
.
Book
Pelikan, Jaroslav – Christianity & Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism (Yale Univ. Press, 1993)
“An analysis of the the approach to Natural Theology which is found in the Greek Cappadocian Fathers.” – David Haines
.
.
On the Middle Ages
Mann, William E. – ch. 17, ‘Proofs for God’s Existence’ in eds. Cross, Richard & J.T. Paasch, The Routledge Companion to Medieval Philosophy (Routledge, 2021), pt. 3, ‘Cosmology & Physics,’ pp. 202-12
.
.
On Aquinas
Articles
Feser, Edward – ch. 3, ‘Natural Theology’ in Aquinas: a Beginner’s Guide (Oneworld, 2009), pp. 59-113
Haines, David – “Thomas Aquinas on Natural Theology: an Introduction” in Credo Magazine, vol. 12, issue 2 (June, 2022)
.
Books
Kretzmann, Norman – The Metaphysics of Theism: Aquinas’s Natural Theology in Summa Contra Gentiles II Buy (1997; repr., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004) 485 pp. ToC
“Though notably influenced by analytical philosophy, this is one of the best commentaries on Aquinas’s Summa Contra Gentiles currently available.” – David Haines
White, Thomas Joseph – Wisdom in the Face of Modernity: A Study in Thomistic Natural Theology (Ave Maria, FL: Sapienta Press, 2009) 340 pp. ToC
White was a Dominican. Feser commended this work.
“Probably one of the best works I have ever read on Natural Theology. Not perfect, but extremely helpful.” – David Haines
.
French Book
Beauchamp, Maurice – Méthode Thomiste de la Théologie Naturelle (Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest, LLC, 1941) Available for free on PDF.
.
.
On the Renaissance
Book
Woolford, Thomas – Natural Theology & Natural Philosophy in the Late Renaissance PhD diss. (Univ. of Cambridge, 2011)
After surveying the theology of Romanism and Protestantism, this dissertation analyzes works by Raymond Sebond, Philip de Mornay and Lambert Daneau.
.
.
On the Reformation & Puritan Era
Articles
Muller, Richard
Ch. 6, ‘Natural & Supernatural Theology’ in PRRD (2003), vol. 1, pt. 2, ‘The Reformed Orthodox Theological Prolegomena’
‘Was it Really Viral? Natural Theology in the Early Modern Reformed Tradition’ in ed. Pitassi & Camillocci, Crossing Traditions: Essays on the Reformation and Intellectual History: in Honour of Irena Backus Pre (Brill, 2018), pp. 507-531
Henry, John – 3. ‘Natural Theology’ in ch. 40, ‘Early Modern Theology & Science’ in eds. Lehner, Muller & Roeber, The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600-1800 (Oxford, 2016), pp. 613-5
Haines, David
‘Natural Theology in Reformed Orthodoxy’ in ed. Joseph Minich, Philosophy & the Christian: the Quest for Wisdom in the Light of Christ (Davenant Press, 2018)
Haines has been a professor of philosophy at Veritas Evangelical Seminary.
Abstract: “Our purpose in this article is to provide a clear outline of how some of the most important early reformed theologians, and confessions, articulated their understanding of Natural Theology… we will limit our analysis primarily to John Calvin (1509-1564), Theodore Beza (1519-1605), Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562), Girolamo Zanchi (1516-1590), Franciscus Junius (1545-1602), John Davenant (1572-1641), and Francis Turretin. We will also take note, in passing, of some of the more authoritative Reformed documents and councils, such as the French Confession of faith (1559), the Canons of the Synod of Dort (1618-1619), and the Westminster Confession (1646)…”
‘Heinrich Bullinger on Natural Reason, Theology & Law’
“Bullinger (1504-1575), a Swiss reformer, was the successor of Heidrich Zwingli. He was one of the most influential of the earlier reformers… He was educated in the via antiqua [old way], learning from such greats as Aquinas and Scotus. In what follows, I provide quotes from Bullinger on the following subjects: Faith, Nature, Natural Reason, Natural Theology, and Natural Law. The quotes are accompanied only by short comments to help situate them or better understand them.” – Haines
‘John Calvin’s View of Natural Theology’
Abstract: “I will, therefore, consider Calvin’s claims about man’s natural knowledge of God under five headings: (1) What Calvin means by “knowledge of God”, (2) The possibility of knowledge of God, (3) The sources of man’s knowledge of God, (4) The content of this knowledge, and (5) the what man does with this knowledge (or, the effect of this knowledge on man).”
“Richard Hooker & Reformed Natural Theology” (Oct. 2022)
‘Francis Turretin and Natural Theology’
“I here consider Francis Turretin’s approach to Natural Theology through an analysis of his response to Five important questions. First of all, what, according to Turretin, Natural Theology is and isn’t (as well as the contents of Natural Theology). Secondly, whether humans (fallen or regenerated) are able to engage in Natural Theology, and how. Thirdly, the relationship between Natural theology and the articles of faith. Fourthly, the uses and limitations of natural theology. Fifthly, the effect of Natural Theology.”
Sudduth, Michael L. – ‘The Prospects for ‘Mediate’ Natural Theology in John Calvin’ Religious Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Mar., 1995), pp. 53-68
Goudriaan, Aza – 5. ‘Natural Theology & Proofs for God’s Existence’ in ch. 1, ‘Holy Scripture, Human Reason & Natural Theology’ in Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy, 1625-1750 : Gisbertus Voetius, Petrus Van Mastricht, and Anthonius Driessen Pre (Boston: Brill, 2006), pp. 74-84
.
Book
Platt, John – Reformed Thought & Scholasticism. The Arguments for the Existence of God in Dutch Theology, 1575–1650 (Brill, 1982) 255 pp. ToC
Wallace Marshall – Puritans & Natural Theology Buy (2012; Wipf & Stock, 216) 205 pp. being his PhD dissertation for Boston College
This excellent work surveys the natural theology of the puritans, which was their undergirding for apologetics.
.
.
On the 1800’s
Haines, David
‘One Reformed View of Natural Theology’
Abstract: “In this article I will be considering, primarily, what Charles Hodge has to say about Natural Theology in his 3 volume, Systematic Theology and and what A. H. Strong has to say about Natural Theology in his Systematic Theology… The title refers to one reformed view, because, though we are considering two different theologians, from two different protestant denominations, working at different schools and at different times, these two reformed theologians hold essentially the same view on Natural Theology. We will consider what they have to say about Theology, the relationship between Natural and Revealed Theology, and the relationship between Reason, man’s knowledge of God, and the doctrine of Total Depravity, among other issues.”
‘Another Calvinist on Natural Theology: the Case of Herman Bavinck’
This is a summary of research into Bavinck’s approach to Natural Theology.
Muller, Richard – ‘Kuyper & Bavinck on Natural Theology’ Bavinck Review 10 (2019): 5–35
.
.
On the 1900’s
Haines, David – ‘Benjamin B. Warfield on Natural Theology’
This is a summary of research into B. B. Warfield’s approach to Natural Theology.
.
.
On the 2000’s
Haines, David – ‘Alister McGrath & Natural Theology’
“In the book The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology, Alister McGrath sets out to lay the foundations for an entirely new natural theology… ‘…if nature is to disclose the transcendent, it must be ‘seen’ or ‘read’ in certain specific ways – ways that are not themselves necessarily mandated by nature itself.’ He does not wish to embark on a neutral natural theology, but to advance a Christian natural theology – one which, rather than proving the doctrinal claims of Christianity, begins by accepting the doctrinal claims of Christianity, and then goes on to show how the Christian worldview gives the best interpretation of our perceptions of this universe.
The claim that he will seek to validate in his book is summarized briefly as follows: ‘…A Christian understanding of nature is the intellectual prerequisite for a natural theology which discloses the Christian God.’
In order to understand his revised natural theology we must first understand the need for this revision. What does McGrath perceive as the old natural theology, and what is so wrong with it that we need a new vision? Once we have understood these contentions we will be able to better understand McGrath’s revised version, which will allow us to give it a critical analysis.”
.
On the Innate Knowledge of God in distinction from the Acquired Knowledge of God
Order of Contents
Innate & Acquired
Innate
.
On Innate & Acquired
Quotes
Order of
On Aquinas
Essenius
Voet
.
On the 1200’s
On Aquinas
Gisbert Voet, ‘Disputation On the Ways of Knowing God’, pt. 2 tr. Michael Lynch (1665; 2024) at Translationes Lyncei
“However, Aquinas only explicitly discusses acquired knowledge there [in Summa, pt. 1]; he does not deny innate knowledge but passes over it or implicitly assumes it. He does mention innate knowledge in his commentary on Romans 1, where he calls it an ‘internal light’ and distinguishes it from the ‘book of creatures.’ (Aquinas, On Romans, ch. 1, bk. 6 [sect. 114 & 116])”
.
1600’s
Andreas Essenius
‘Theological Disputation on the Image of God in Man’ Download tr. Jonathan Tomes (Utrecht: Johannes Waesberg, 1653) Latin
“V… These habits perfected and adorned these faculties [of Adam in the Garden] excellently, such as the clarity and rectitude of the mind, not only regarding that innate (ὑπάρχον) aspect of the divine (τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ), whether it is innate through common notions (κοιναὶ ἐννοίαι) and the subjective light of the mind, or acquired through the objective light of being, as Socinus vainly objects (Romans 1; Isaiah 40; Psalm 19; Acts 14; Romans 2).”
.
Gisbert Voet
Disputation on the Ways of Knowing God, pt. 1 tr. Michael Lynch (1665)
“§1. Christian theologians… further divide natural theology into innate or congenital and acquired…
These same theologians [Johannes Junius, Heinrich Alting, Johannes Hoornbeeck] explain distinctly, precisely, and in opposition to the heterodoxy of their adversaries, the common view of our people: that natural knowledge is partly innate, partly acquired: that innate knowledge is also called subjective, while the acquired is called objective.
Heinrich Alting [d. 1644] teaches that innate knowledge is distinct from acquired knowledge. And Johannes Hoornbeeck warns that [Faustus] Socinus neglects that distinction, and that, therefore, he stumbles at the very threshold of this controversy. That is why Alting poses separate questions about each type of knowledge, proves the affirmative for each with distinct arguments, and responds individually to objections raised against each.
Concerning the former, or innate [knowledge], he determines, in the same place, that, “The affirmative thesis of the Orthodox is that there is some natural theology or knowledge of God; or that there is some sense of divinity naturally implanted in man.” (Theologia Elenctica Nova, p. 2) The same author in the same place and in his Heidelberg Problems describes this knowledge “as a faculty or potency (not an act) implanted in humans by nature, or at birth, and spontaneously manifesting itself in all adults of sound mind.” (Theologia Elenctica Nova, p. 2; Alting, Problemata Theologica, vol. 2, Amsterdam: Johannes Janssonius, 1646, pp. 1–10) And on page 4: “It is naturally inscribed, imprinted, and made evident to human hearts.” (Theologia Elenctica Nova, p. 4)
On page 6, to the objection that “[all] knowledge is either habitual or actual, but knowledge of God is natural in neither of these ways,” he responds: “This is not a complete enumeration of the species or modes [of such knowledge]: for what is missing is a natural potency or faculty spontaneously manifesting itself in its own time according to the innate light of nature, even without demonstration or external instruction—however much it may afterwards be aroused, increased, and confirmed.” (Theologia Elenctica Nova, p. 6) On page 2 of the same work, he qualifies this natural knowledge, [stating] that “in this darkness, which is greatly obscured and imperfect due to sin, it varies according to the condition and quality of the subjects or individuals, whether of single human beings or even of nations and peoples.” (Theologia Elenctica Nova, p. 2)
On page 8, he affirms the acquired knowledge of God in accordance with the common view of the orthodox, which he describes as being acquired from God’s works. And he assigns two principles of it, sense and reason, etc. (Theologia Elenctica Nova, pp. 8–9) In the same place, from the saying of Dionysius the Areopagite customarily set forth in the schools, he proves and explains the threefold mode of ascending and attaining to the knowledge of God from his works [i.e., via eminentiae, via negationis, and via causationis, the way of eminence, negation and causation]. (Theologia Elenctica Nova, p. 9) Concerning this same acquired knowledge, in the same place he declares that it is “not perfect, but imperfect; neither clear nor distinct, but confused.” (Theologia Elenctica Nova, p. 8)
In his Heidelberg Problems he explains it this way. It is called natural [theology]:
…
2. “Nor because it exists in actuality, as if an actual knowledge of God were innate to man, … or by habit, as if some intellectual habit were engendered in him, … but natural both in its source and objectively. In its source, insofar as the power and faculty is innate in all men… But objectively, because such evident and clear traces of deity are impressed upon the whole world and all its parts….” (Problemata Theologica, in Scriptorum Theologicorum Heidelbergensium, vol. 2, p. 1)
…
…my ideas, which I formed under the guidance of my teachers’ living voice and writings, and which I have imparted to others to the best of my ability for so many years, both in writings and speech—both publicly and privately—agree with Alting’s explanation.
§3. Meanwhile, anyone who reads these theologians or takes the time to look into and compare them on this occasion will see that Alting has accurately represented the common understanding and consensus of the orthodox in the view he explains there. I will point out some [theologians] for the benefit of the younger ones below.
As for myself, profess that I imbibed that distinction and explanation of natural theology in my academic studies from the lectures of my preceptor Fr[ancis] Gomarus on Romans 1:18–19, his lectures on common places, and his 1609 disputation on Theology put forward with Petrus Lansbergius as the respondent: which can be found re-published among his works. (cf. Gomarus, Opera Theologica Omnia, 2 vols., Amsterdam: Johannes Janssonius, 1644, I: Part 2, p. 7; III: Part 3, pp. 1–4) With these writings [of Gomarus] I had joined the reading of Franciscus Junius’ Treatise On Theology, book 1 chapter 5, and book 2 chapter 2. (Junius, Loci nonnulli Theologici, [Heidelberg]: In Bibliopolio Commeliniano, 1612, pp. 15–16, 64–65) There was also the disputation of Johannes Cuchlinus, regent of the Dutch College, of which part 1 was on the knowledge of God, part 2 on the modes of knowing God, proposed in the year 1605 with Caspar Barlaeus as the respondent.
The works of metaphysics, which were then well-used by diligent students—those of Cornelius Martini, [James?] Cheyne, Jacob Martini, [Chrysostomus] Javellus, [Pedro da] Fonseca, especially [that] of Francisco Suárez (from which our teacher Gilbert Jacchaeus dictated and explained to us an abridged compendium)—these also contributed something to this. (Cf. Martini, Metaphysica commentatio compendiose, Strassburg: Johannes Carolus, 1612; Cheyne, Analysis & Scholia in Aristotelis XIV. Libros De Prima, seu divina Philosophia, 2nd ed. (Hanover: Guilielmus Antonius, 1607); Martini, Disputationes Metaphysicae viginti octo, Wittenberg: Zacharius Churerus, 1611; Javellus, Quaestiones, In Metaphysicam Aristotelis, Wittenberg: Henckelius Selfischius, 1609; Pedro da Fonseca, Commentarii … In Libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis Stagiritae, 4 vols., Cologne: Zetner, 1615; Suárez, Metaphysicae Disputationes, 2 vols., Cologne: Franciscus Heluidius, 1614; Jacchaeus, Primae Philosophiae sive Institutionum Metaphysicarum, Leiden: House of Elzevir, 1640)
…
§4. In my disputation On Atheism, 1639, part 2, we discussed the knowledge of God as follows. In response to objections against the congenital natural knowledge of God, we provided these sources of solutions (Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum, vol. 1, Utrecht: Johannes a Waesberge, 1648, pp. 141–42):
1. There is a certain congenital or innate knowledge of God, which they denote as natural theology, preconceptions (προσλήψεις), impressed notions, common conceptions (κοινάς ἐννοίας), natural light, the dictate of nature, and synecdochically the law of nature or conscience (synteresis), or metonymically natural reason.
2. This doesn’t mean that newborn infants have some actual knowledge of God or that it can be drawn out of them, or that intelligible species are implanted in them along with the intellect and memory such that what adults learn are only reminiscences (as Tertullian translates it: “discentiae sint reminiscentiae”), as Plato believed. For with respect to actual knowledge, Aristotle rightly says: “the human mind is like a blank slate.”
3. Nor are those notions precisely the same as the natural power of reasoning or the intellectual capacity itself.
4. Rather, they are something distinct from it, having the character of a disposition, or a habit of principles, indeed a general part of the habit of principles. If someone thinks the concept of a “habit” does not quite fit here, they can call it a “natural faculty”—the way scholastic thinkers and our own philosophers commonly discuss the idea of “conscience.”
5. Moreover, this faculty, or power, or aptitude of the rational faculties, or natural light, consists in this: that the intellect is able to comprehend the truth of principles without any labor, prior study, or ratiocination. When the necessary conditions are in place (namely, the knowledge of the terms involved), it naturally and necessarily comprehends and assents to these truths by an innate inclination and weight toward this sense of truth. It is similar to how the will, by a certain natural necessity, desires the good as such (whether real or apparent) or the ultimate end, without prior deliberate choice, or how a healthy, open eye cannot avoid seeing any light or visible object presented to it. And certainly, the nature of first principles requires that they not be proven, but taken for granted.
6. That habit or natural intellectual power (if indeed, following Durandus on the 3rd book of Sentences, dist. 33, qu. 1, and other more recent authors, one prefers to deny a superadded habit, since the natural power of the intellect itself, both practical and speculative, suffices; which is to establish its necessity with Thomas Aquinas in his 1st book of Sentences, dist. 21, ad 1) comprehends the truth of principles immediately, without reasoning or proof, by a kind of simple intuition. It grasps partly theoretical principles and partly practical ones. Among the particular theoretical first principles, I place first and formost: “God exists”; and among the practical first principles, first and foremost: “God ought to be worshipped.”
§5. That innate knowledge of God can never be torn away or completely dislodged from the human mind, nor an opposing notion substituted for it. I proved this with four reasons in my response to the Examination by the anonymous Remonstrant-Socinian, to which I added two more reasons in the 1639 disputation on Atheism, part 2, section 4, which I will not repeat here. (Thersites Heautontimorumenos, pp. 181–85; Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum, vol. 1, pp. 140–42).
…
§ 7. In the cited book and disputations, I explained and defended the common doctrine (as I call it, following Alting) of our theologians regarding innate or congenital natural theology. As for acquired natural theology, I did not work as hard at specifically proving that, though I did not ignore it in my lectures on common topics, in treating controversies both in private and public settings, and in my published disputation on Atheism part 4 section 1. (Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum, vol. 1, pp. 166–78) Instead, I showed its truth and methodology of reasoning from God’s works to the maker himself, from visible effects to their cause, drawing from passages like Romans 1, Acts 17, Psalms 8 and 19, Isaiah 40, and confirmed it with quotes from excellent scholars.
On page 174, I also address the issue of the senses—whether and how they can be considered the source (as they are commonly called by philosophers and theologians, specifically by Alting as cited above) of our natural knowledge of God. The role of sense knowledge needs to be clarified, both against the skeptics on one side, and against Vorstius and the anthropomorphites who make God an object of physical vision on the other.
And now I am taking up the defense once again of this truth of natural theology, both innate and acquired, rightly put forward by the orthodox, also mentioned by John Owen in the cited chapter, and previously defended by me against the attacks of the anonymous Remonstrant-Socinian. This truth has been taught fruitfully in this Academy by theologians and philosophers for 28 or 29 years, and is now more clearly and distinctly understood. Among my colleagues who have taught this orthodox position not just in lectures but in their published writings are: Meinardus Schotanus in his 1642 disputation on Theology with the respondent Jacobus Blocquius, J. Hoornbeek in his 1650 volume against Socinus, Matthias Nethenus’ 1654 disputation on Theology with John Vlak, and Andreas Essenius’s 1659 Systematic Theology, part 1. (Hoornbeek, Socinianismi Confutati, vol. 1; Essenius, Systematis Theologici, Pars Priori, Utrecht: office of Johannes Waesberg, 1659)”
.
Articles
1700’s
De Moor, Bernard – Continuous Commentary, ch. 1
12. Natural Theology: Innate
13. Acquired
.
Latin Article
Maresius, Samuel – 1. ‘Whether or solely by natural reason the existence of God may be solidly proved? Affirm, contra atheists and Socinians; and Calvin is liberated from the calumnies of Tirinus, and the natural knowledge of God, acquired as well as innate, is propounded’ in A New Synopsis of Elenctic Theology, or an Index of the Controversies of Faith out of the Sacred Scriptures (1646-1647), vol. 1, 1. ‘On God’, pp. 1-7
Maresius (1599-1673)
.
On Innate Knowledge
Quotes
1500’s
Theodore Beza & Anthony Faius
Propositions & Principles of Divinity Propounded & Disputed in the University of Geneva… (Edinburgh, 1591), disputation 1, ‘Concerning God’, p. 2
“For though all men by nature, as it is now corrupt, be void of the true God: nevertheless there are certain motions and sparks of the knowledge of God, imprinted in the mind of every man, which cannot altogeather be put out: And as these motions do testify that man was born to worship God: So unless a more full light be joined unto them, they leave man straying and groping in the dark, and are small or nothing behooful unto him.
Therefore, as the knowledge which man has by nature is not altogeather of no use unto salvation: so is it very far from being of itself sufficient thereunto: It bereaves them indeed of all excuse, who quench that small light of nature, though never so corrupt, which is left in them.”
.
1600’s
Gisbert Voet
‘Disputation on the Ways of Knowing God’, pt. 2 tr. Michael Lynch (1665; 2024) at Translationes Lyncei
“Flacius Illyricus [an extreme Lutheran]. Marin Mersenne, in his commentary on the early chapters of Genesis, says that by denying innate ideas, Flacius took away the tools we need to fight atheism and atheists. (Mersenne, Quaestiones Celeberrimae in Genesim (Paris: Sébastien Cramoisy, 1623), pp. 236ff.)
Flacius’ rejection of inborn sparks of knowledge was based on his mistaken view of original sin. He apparently claimed that original sin was the actual substance or nature of a human being or the human soul.”
.
On the Three General Ways God is Known by Acquired Knowledge: the Way of Causality, Negation & of Eminence
Order of Contents
Quotes 4
Articles 2
Causality 5
Negation 1
Eminence 1
.
Quotes
Order of
Aquinas
Scotus
Voet
Mastricht
.
1200’s
Thomas Aquinas
On Romans, ch. 1, bk. 6, sect. 115
“But man is capable of knowing God from such creatures in three ways, as Denis says in The Divine Names.
He knows him, first of all, through causality. For since these creatures are subject to change and decay, it is necessary to trace them back to some unchangeable and unfailing principle. In this way, it can be known that God exists.
Second, he can be known by the way of excellence. For all things are not traced back to the first principle as to a proper and univocal cause, as when man produces man, but to a common and exceeding cause. From this it is known that God is above all things.
Third, he can be known by the way of negation. For if God is a cause exceeding his effects, nothing in creatures can belong to him, just as a heavenly body is not properly called heavy or light or hot or cold. And in this way, we say that God is unchangeable and infinite; and we use other negative expressions to describe him.
Men had such knowledge through the light of reason bestowed on them: ‘many say: O, that we might see some good! Lift up the light of your countenance upon us, O Lord’ (Ps 4:6).”
.
On John Duns Scotus
as narrated by Allan B. Wolter, Little Summary of Metaphysics (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1958), pt. 3, article 3, question 2, ‘On the Way that we Know God’, p. 87
“Positively we can say, following the lead of Scotus (Oxon. 1, d.3, part one, q. 1) that our knowledge of God is:…
5) Notions abstracted from creatures, for as Scotus says,
‘All metaphysical investigation of God proceeds as follows: a) by considering the formal idea of something, and b) by taking away from that formal idea the imperfection that it has in creatures, and c) by keeping that formal idea and attributing to it altogether supreme perfection, and by thus attributing it to God’ (Oxon. ibid.).
Note the triple way, namely of affirmation, of negation, and of eminence.”
.
1600’s
Gisbert Voet
‘The Use of Reason in Matters of Faith’ in Willem J. van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism (RHB, 2011), Appendix 2, p. 231
“Because the essence and attributes of the Godhead are never understood by the human mind immediately, adequately, as they are in themselves and therefore also not in a perfect manner, but only by way of negation, causality, and eminence.”
.
Peter van Mastricht
Theoretical Practical Theology (RHB), vol. 2, bk. 2, ch. 2, sect. 19, p. 56 The more specific means Mastricht lists as: (1) the divine names in Scripture, (2) the divine attributes in Scripture, (3) the works of God, (4) the Word of God.
“The means for the knowledge of God: The more general means
XIX. Now, concerning the supports by which we arrive at the knowledge of God, they are observed to be of two kinds. In the first more general kind are enumerated three ways to arrive at the knowledge of God, namely:
(1) the way of causality, whereby having moved through various second causes as if by Jacob’s ladder, we finally arrive at the highest step, where God is, according to the mode which we described above in §VI. And this knowledge is what the apostle seems to indicate in Romans 1:19.
(2) The way of eminence, by which whatever there is of absolute perfection in creatures we attribute with the highest eminence to the Creator, because of the fact that no one can confer on another what he does not have either formally or eminently, nor can an effect be conceived such that it is on the whole more excellent than its own cause. The psalmist seems to use this way in Psalm 94:9. Indeed, it is fitting by this support to interpret all anthropopathic and metaphorical expressions.
(3) The way of negation, by which we entirely remove from him any imperfection that occurs in the creatures, for example, corporality, mortality, finitude, and the like. Scripture seems to follow this way in Numbers 23:19 and Psalm 90:2–3.
And indeed in this manner, we arrive by this threefold way at the knowledge of God, such that (1) the first way chiefly leads to his relative attributes, through which he is called Creator, preserver, governor, and mover; (2) the second way leads to his communicable and affirmative attributes, for example, wisdom, righteousness, and so forth, which we will discuss in their own place; and (3) the third leads to his incommunicable and negative attributes, such as infinity, immutability, and so forth.”
.
Articles
400’s
Augustine – On the Trinity, V, 1, 2; XV, 4, 6
.
2000’s
Bonnette, Dennis – “How God’s Nature Is Known: The Three-Fold Way” (2018)
Bonette is a Romanist and has been a long-time professor of philosophy.
“Classical metaphysics attains knowledge of God’s nature by means of an interpretation, mostly taken from the Christian Neo-Platonist Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (c. late fifth century) known as the via triplex or three-fold way. This entails (1) the way of causality (via causalitatis), (2) the way of remotion or negation (via remotionis), and (3) the way of eminence (via eminentiae).”
.
On the Way of Causality
Article
1200’s
Aquinas, Thomas – ch. 12, ‘Of the opinion of those who say that the existence of God cannot be proved and that it is held by faith alone’ in Summa Contra Gentiles, bk. 1
.
Quotes
1200’s
Thomas Aquinas
Summa Contra Gentiles, bk. 1
“It would also seem well to observe that sensible things, from which human reason derives the source of its knowledge, retain a certain trace of likeness to God, but so imperfect that it proves altogether inadequate to manifest the substance itself of God.
For effects resemble their causes according to their own mode, since like action proceeds from like agent; and yet the effect does not always reach to a perfect likeness to the agent.”
.
“For just as it is self-evident to us that a whole is greater than its part, so is it most evident to those who see the very essence of God that God exists, since his essence is his existence. But because we are unable to see his essence, we come to know his existence not in himself, but in his effects.
…
Therefore, man must come by reasoning to know God in the likenesses to him which he discovers in God’s effects.”
.
1600’s
William Bucanus
Institutions of Christian Religion... (London: Snowdon, 1606), 1. ‘Of God’, How do you prove that there is a God?, p. 1
“So then as when I see an house, I say there has been a carpenter, though I see him not: so when I look upon the frame of this world, I must say, it had a builder, though I behold him not.”
.
Gisbert Voet
‘Disputation On the Ways of Knowing God’, pt. 2 tr. Michael Lynch (1665; 2024) at Translationes Lyncei
“Plus, the proof he [Francis Suarez] tries to give there says nothing peculiar that exceeds in certainty and evidence the common method of demonstrating from effect to cause, from creation to creator, shown in sacred Scripture (Isaiah 40, Psalm 19, Romans 1 and 2, Acts 17), explained and developed by the church fathers, Thomas Aquinas with the scholastics, and more recent thinkers.”
.
Select Theological Disputations, vol. 1 tr. by AI by Onku (Utrecht: Johannes a Waesberg, 1648), pt. 1 Latin
pp. 172-74
“13th Problem: Whether in this method the proof or consequence from effect to cause, or from works to the maker, which they commonly call the way of causality with the saying of Dionysius the Areopagite, and the proof from the book of nature, makes a part and indeed the principal one. I respond in the affirmative, and it is proven:
1. By the authority and example of the Holy Spirit: Rom. 1:19-20; Acts 14:15-17, 17:27-28; Ps. 8:2-4 & 19:1-3, etc., Job 38-39, Isa. 40:21-22, 26; Jer. 10:10-11. These passages should be carefully considered, in which you will hear God himself, the prophets and the apostles disputing by this method.
Secondly, this method is defended against all objections, as can be seen among the scholastics on [Thomas’s Summa,] pt. 1, quest. 2, articles 2-3.
Thirdly, it has been felicitously employed and applied thus far by all the wise men of all ages. Those who object to this method today are one or another inept petty philosopher, or certain idle Athenians eager for novelty (Acts 17), or men who are scarcely semi-literate, especially in metaphysics and natural theology, to the point that they have never even learned the terms or heard of them in conversation. But there are those who have already exposed, and will further expose, the ineptitudes and vertigos of those men.
Meanwhile, on this occasion, let the following be considered and compared:
1. From the Fathers: Lactantius, bk. 1, ch. 2; Eusebius, bk. 1 of Preparation for the Gospel; Theodoret’s Discourses on Providence, and On the Cure of Greek Affections, oration 3; the aforementioned Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names, ch. 17; John of Damascus, bk. 1, On the Orthodox Faith, ch. 3.
2. From the Scholastics: Thomas Aquinas, Opusculum 6 and bk 1, Against the Gentiles, chs. 12-13, and Summa, pt 1, quest. 2, articles 2-3, with Cajetan and other commentators. [Peter Lombard] The Master of the Sentences, bk. 1, distinct. 3, and all his commentators there.
3. From the natural theologians and antagonists of the atheists, Epicureans, gentiles, etc.: Savonarola in The Triumph of the Cross, bk. 1, ch. 6; Raymond of Sabunde in his Natural Theology (which was translated into French by Michel de Montaigne), ch. 1; Steuchus in The Perennial Philosophy, bk. 7, ch. 22; Luis Vives, On the Truth of the Christian Religion, bk. 1, ch. 9; Mutius Pansa in The Kiss of Christian & Pagan Philosophy; Mornay, On the Truth of the Christian Religion, chs. 1, 11-12; Thomas à Jesu, On Procuring the Salvation of the Gentiles, bk. 11, chs. 6 & 8; Possevinus, bk. 10 of the Select Library, ch. 2, sect. 414; Charron, bk. 1 of Truth, chs. 6-7; Pierre Du Moulin in his little book On the Knowledge of God; Alsted in his Natural Theology; Grotius in his book On the Truth of the Faith; Guillaume de Rebreviettes in his Atheomastix.
Add also the French tracts against the atheists: Alexandre Cappe’s in duodecimo; Baruch Canephe’s Atheomachus in octavo; the three tracts of Infanticus, Hotman, where in the first On Providence, ch. 2;
And the English ones: Smith’s The Quiver Against the Atheists, which was published together with his sermons; John Weemes of Lathokar in his tract, On the Four Degenerate Sons; Meredith Hanmer in his Atheomastix, Tract 1.
4. From the writers of common places, at least those who are intimately known to me or currently at hand: Philip Melanchthon, Wolfgang Musculus, John Calvin, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Andreas Hyperius, Stephen Szegedinus, Lambert Daneau, Daniel Tilenus, Amandus Polanus, in the common place on God. Compare also the same authors in the common place on Providence, and other writers who have defended providence ex professo, such as Leonard Lessius, Against the Atheists; Andreas Gorrutius, On Providence; Ulrich Zwingli, On Providence.
5. From the commentators on the aforementioned passages of Scripture: Juan de Pineda, Cornelius a Lapide, Juan de Lorinus, Andrew Willet, André Rivet, David Pareus, etc.
6. From preachers, practical and ascetic writers: Bonaventure in The Mind’s Journey to God; Robert Bellarmine, On the Ascent of the Mind to God, etc.; Jean Taffin, On the Amendment of Life; John Preston in his sermon on 1 Thess. 1.
7. From the metaphysicians: Francisco Suárez and others commonly.
8. From learned jurists, politicians, physicians, philologists: Innocent Gentillet in his Anti-Machiavel, pt. 2, axiom 1; Justus Lipsius in his letter to Berchemius; Hugo Grotius, On the Truth of the Christian Religion; Christoph Besold in his Specimen of Common Places, pt. 2, pp. 19 & 363 in the 16mo edition; François Vallès, ch. 58, Philosophical Sacred 9.
9. From the heterodox or suspect, the above-mentioned Arminius and Vorstius, especially Volckelius the Socinian in Institutions, bk. 1, chs. 2-5; John Trithemius in the book, Eight Questions, question 8 which is about providence.
10. From the Gentiles, such as Aristotle bk. 8 of Physics, Sextus Empiricus, Maximus of Tyre, dissertation 1. See many others cited by Plessis, ch. 2; 12 Against the Mathematicians, pp. 317, 319. Cicero, bk. 2, On the Nature of the Gods. Seneca, On Providence. Galen, bk. 3, On the Usefulness of Parts, which illustrious passage Beza described in the notes to Rom. 1:19.
11. From the Jews, Maimonides in The
Constitution on the Fundamentals of Law, ch. 1.”
.
pp. 206-9
“The extrinsic arguments or testimonies are:
1. Internal, of synteresis and conscience, Rom. 2, and here about the common notions;
2. External, the consensus of all nations, and the doctrine of all sages.
But with all reasons having been subtracted and repeated thoughts more often recurring, we have found that the order both of nature and of our better knowledge is rather to be observed and more safely served in this way, that the demonstration from effects to cause, from works to maker and governor, be put first as preeminent and universal, which embraces all others in itself since indeed all others depend on it and are derived from it, and all presuppose it. For no one doubts that the law of nature and of implanted common notion, and hence the acknowledgment and profession of deity, in addition miracles, prophecies and political order, are to be referred to the works of God.
As for those axioms about causes, about motion, about order, those complex principles would not exist unless those things from which induction and finally complex theses and principles arise had been observed in the works of God or creatures; there would not be observation nor induction about and from creatures unless there were creatures.
But that this method is safest, most expeditious, and most evident, the doctrine and example of the Holy Spirit persuade Christians, Rom. 1, Ps. 19, Acts 17, Isa. 40, etc. To accuse Him of ignorance or pseudography is atheism lurking under the cloak of a Christian.”
.
On the Way of Negation
Article
1200’s
Aquinas – ch. 14, ‘That to acquire knowledge of God one must use the way of remotion’ in Summa Contra Gentiles, bk. 1
.
On the Way of Eminence, or of Perfection
Article
1200’s
Aquinas – Summa Contra Gentiles, bk. 1
ch. 28, ‘Of the Divine Perfection’
ch. 29, ‘Of the Likeness of Creatures’
.
The Best: John Owen
The Reason of Faith… (Glasgow, 1801), ch. 6, pp. 114-116, 118-120
“1. And in the first place we, may consider that there are three ways whereby we assent unto anything that is proposed unto us as true, and receive it as such.
1. By inbred principles of natural light, and the first rational actings of our minds. This in reason answers instinct in irrational creatures. Hence God complains that his people did neglect and sin against their own natural light, and first dilates of reason, whereas brute creatures would not forsake the conduct of the instinct of their natures, Isa. 1:3. In general, the mind is necessarily determined to an assent unto the proper objects of these principles; it cannot do otherwise. It cannot but assent unto the prime dictates of the light of nature, yea those dictates are nothing but its assent. Its first apprehension of the things which the light of nature embraces, without either express reasonings or further consideration, are this assent. Thus does the mind embrace in itself the general notions of moral good and evil, with the difference between them, however it practically complies not with what they guide unto; Jude ver. 10. And so does it assent unto many principles of reason, as that the whole is greater than the part, without admitting any debate about them.
2. By rational considerations of things externally proposed unto us. Herein the mind exercises its discursive faculty, gathering one thing out of another, and concluding one thing from another. And hereon is it able to assent unto what is proposed unto it in various degrees of certainty, according unto the nature and degree of the evidence it proceeds upon. Hence it has a certain knowledge of some things, of others an opinion or persuasion prevalent against the objections to the contrary, which it knows, and whose force it understands, which may be true or false.
3. By faith. This respects that power of our minds whereby we are able to assent unto anything as true, which we have no first principles concerning, no inbred notions of, nor can from more known principles make unto ourselves any certain rational conclusions concerning them…
And this assent also has not only various degrees, but is also of diverse kinds, according as the testimony is which it arises from, and rests on; as being human if that be human, and divine if that be so also.
According to these distinct faculties and powers of our souls, God is pleased to reveal or make known Himself, his mind or will three ways unto us. For He has implanted no power on our minds, but the principle use and exercise of it are to be with respect unto Himself, and our living unto Him, which is the end of them all. And a neglect of the improvement of them unto this end, is the highest aggravation of sin.
It is an aggravation of sin when men abuse the creatures of God otherwise than He has appointed, or in not using them to his glory; when they take his corn, and wine, and oil, and spend them on their lusts, Hos. 2:8… But the height of impiety consists in the abuse of the faculties and powers of the soul, wherewith we are endowed purposely and immediately for the glorifying of God. Hence proceed unbelief, profaneness, blasphemy, atheism, and the like pollution of the spirit or mind. And these are sins of the highest provocation. For the powers and faculties of our minds being given us only to enable us to live unto God, the diverting of their principal exercise unto other ends, is an act of enmity against Him, and affront unto Him.
…
He does not reveal Himself by his word unto the principles of natural light, nor unto reason in its exercise. But yet these principles, and reason itself, with all the faculties of our minds, are consequentially affected with that revelation, and are drawn forth into their proper exercise by it…
And concerning these several ways of the communication or revelation of the knowledge of God, it must be always observed that there is a a perfect consonancy in the things revealed by them all. If any thing pretends from the one what is absolutely contradictory unto the other, or our senses as the means of them, it is not to be received.
The foundation of the whole, as of all the actings of our souls, is in the inbred principles of natural light, or first neceflary dictates of our intellectual rational nature. This, so far as it extends, is a rule unto our apprehension in all that follows. Wherefore if any pretend in the exercise of reason, to conclude unto anything concerning the nature, being, or will of God that is directly contradictory unto those principles and dictates, it is no divine revelation unto our reason, but a paralogism [fallacious reasoning] from the defect of reason in its exercise.
This is that which the apostle charges on, and vehemently urges against the heathen philosophers. Inbred notions they had in themselves of the being and eternal power of God; and these were so manifest in them thereby, that they could not but own them. Hereon they set their rational discursive faculty at work in the consideration of God and his being. But herein were they so vain and foolish as to draw conclusions directly contrary unto the first principles of natural light, and the unavoidable notions which they had of the eternal being of God, Rom. 1:21-24. And many upon their pretended rational consideration of the promiscuous event of things in the world, have foolishly concluded that all things had a fortuitous beginning, and have fortuitous events, or such as from a concatenation of antecedent causes are fatally necessary, and are not disposed by an infinitely wise, unerring, holy Providence. And this also is directly contradictory unto the first principles and notions of natural light, whereby it openly proclaims itself not to be an effect of reason in its due exercise, but a mere delusion.
So if any pretend unto revelations by faith which are
contradictory unto the first principles of natural light , or reason in its proper exercise about its proper objects, it is a delusion. On this ground the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation is justly rejected, for it proposes that as a revelation by faith, which is expressly contradictory unto our sense and reason in their proper exercise about their proper objects. And a supposition of the possibility of any such thing, would make the ways whereby God reveals and makes known himself, to cross and interfere one with another; which would leave us no certainty in anything divine or human.
But yet as these means of divine revelation do harmonize and perfectly agree one with the other, so they are not objectively equal, or equally extensive, nor are they co-ordinate, but subordinate unto one another. Wherefore there are many things discernible by reason in its exercise, which do not appear unto the first principles of natural light. So the sober philosophers of old attained unto many true and great conceptions of God, and the excellencies of his nature, above what they arrived unto who either did not or could not cultivate and improve the principles of natural light in the fame manner as they did.
It is therefore folly to pretend that things so made known of God
are not infallibly true and certain, because they are not obvious unto the first conceptions of natural light, without the due exercise of reason, provided they are not contradictory thereunto. And there are many things revealed unto faith that are above and beyond the comprehension of reason, in the best and utmost of its most proper exercise. Such are all the principal mysteries of Christian religion. And it is the height of folly to reject them, as some do, because they are not discernible and comprehensible by reason, seeing they are not contradictory thereunto.
Wherefore these ways of God’s revelation of himself are not equally extensive, or commensurate, but are so subordinate one unto another, that what is wanting unto the one is supplied by the other, unto the accomplishment of the whole and entire end of divine revelation; and the truth of God is the same in them all.”
.
Amandus Polanus
Syntagma, bk. 2, ch. 4, Arguments for the Existence of God trans. Charles Johnson
“1. The consideration of the world, the mass, the skillful production, the form, the continuous sustaining, the very wise governance, the innumerable variety, the order of bodies, the diverse movement, and the admirable virtues of which teach that there is some intelligent nature from which all of these things come. Ps. 8, 19;
Rom. 1:19-20. “Seeing as τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, that which can be known of God, is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For the invisible things of him are clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.”
Act. 14:17, “Nevertheless, he did not leave himself without witness, in that He did good and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.”
From here, that axiom repeated by the gentile philosophers: “nothing is the cause of itself,” unless the prior and the consequent are the same as it. It would be no less foolish than false to affirm that the same thing is in the same sense simultaneously in potency and act. At any rate, a cause was needed which would produce the world and all its parts. Diagoras openly and explicitly denied that God exists, and not having wood to cook his turnips with, he cut up a statue of Hercules, as Athenagoras relates in Legatio pro Christianis.
And in the same place, he recalls that an infamous rumor of three scandalous acts was spread concerning Christians: impiety, that they did away with gods, cannibalistic feasts, and incestuous copulation. But Athenagoras proves that these scandalous deeds were slanderously attributed to Christians. Justin Martyr testifies that Christians were called atheists, Apologia II. ad Antoninum Pium Imperatorem. But Christians by no means deny that God exists. It is a delusion of the heathens; and therefore, we take up nature arguments to prove that God exists. Hermes Trismegistus said in Poemandres, “Indeed, God cannot be penetrated by human reason, but he can be touched by hands.”
2. The principles innate in us, which are the starting points of doctrines, which it is necessary to have been engraved in the minds of man by an intelligent nature. Rom. 1:19.
3. The special knowledge naturally inherent in us that God exists.
4. The proper testimony of our conscience, upon thunder and other unusual storms, earthquakes, which is frightened, and fears God the judge on account of wicked deeds, and thus, shudders with some trepidation, as may be seen in Caesar Caligula, as Suetonius testifies on Caligula, ch. 51.
5. Punishments for evil deeds, inflicted upon the wicked even in this life, concerning which Thucydides says, μεγάλων ἀδικημάτων μεγάλαι τιμωρίαι εἰσὶ παρὰ Θεοῦ. “To great evil deeds belong great acts of vengeance from God.”
6. The establishing and conserving of political order.
7. Particular virtues and motions in heroic persons. Hence, by Homer, heroes are called “god-like.”
8. Indications of future things. Cicero said concerning divination, “If there is divination, there are gods.”
9. The end of all natural things. For, since it is most certain in all things, and so very few things, rather, have a view to or perceive that end to which they constantly are inclined and continue, it is wholly necessary for there to be some mind that understands all things, and governs particular things and directs them to their ends.
10. The series of causes that does not progress into infinity, leading by hand, as it were, to some first mover, upon whom all motions, actions, and effects depend.
11. Worship itself, whether religious or superstitious, introduced by fear of the deity.
12. The common confession and consent of all peoples, even the most savage. “For no people is so barbaric that it does not judge that there is some god, indeed, so that men prefer to have a false god to none at all: certainly, a sense of the divinity sits so highly in our hearts.” Cicero, Tusc. Sen. 1.21. ep. 118. Divinus ille Jamblichus, de mysteriis. ch. 1.
13. A sense of the goodness of God; that is, of the immense spiritual and corporal benefits of God. For that we live, that we move, and that we exist is a benefit of his. Act. 14:15. And so many benefits of his surround us that He is nearly felt by us, Act. 17:27. Seneca, de benefic. 4.4.
14. The excellence of our mind. For, that we reason, that we dispute in our mind, and that we think up various arts and exercise them, is done by the benefit of God. The soul, in itself, is immobile, and at the same time, by its will it governs all the motions of the body, it reveals itself by admirable effects, and yet, it is not discerned with the eyes, nor can it be comprehended with sharpness of mind. This compels us to think that there is some mind that goes, moves, and guides all these things: that there is a Spirit in whom we live, move, and have our being. Man even sees and feels in himself that there is a God, whether he beholds the body or considers the soul.
15. The immortality of our soul. For the soul goes forth to God, when it departs this body, and flies away as from a prison: and the gentiles said that the soul is our little part of the divine breath.
16. Admirable, remarkable, and unexpected events that could not be done except by a most powerful nature, with which the theater of human life is full.
From these very many arguments, it can be clear to any, even one ignorant of the Holy Scriptures, that God exists. And thus, absolutely all men know that God exists from the touch of divinity, before all use of reason. And thus, Thomas Aquinas and other scholastics deny in vain that God is known in Himself.”
.
Calvin on the Necessity of Scripture for True Natural Theology after the Fall
Institutes, tr. Beveridge, bk. 1, ch. 6, ‘The Need of Scripture, as a Guide & Teacher, in coming to God as a Creator’
“Scripture, gathering together the impressions of Deity, which, till then, lay confused in our minds, dissipates the darkness, and shows us the true God clearly.”
“I am not now treating of the covenant by which God adopted the children of Abraham, or of that branch of doctrine by which, as founded in Christ, believers have, properly speaking, been in all ages separated from the profane heathen. I am only showing that it is necessary to apply to Scripture, in order to learn the sure marks which distinguish God, as the Creator of the world, from the whole herd of fictitious gods…. God, the Maker of the world, is manifested to us in Scripture, and his true character expounded, so as to save us from wandering up and down, as in a labyrinth, in search of some doubtful deity.”
.
“I repeat that, in addition to the proper doctrine of faith and repentance in which Christ is set forth as a Mediator, the Scriptures employ certain marks and tokens to distinguish the only wise and true God, considered as the Creator and Governor of the world, and thereby guard against his being confounded with the herd of false deities.”
“If true religion is to beam upon us, our principle must be, that it is necessary to begin with heavenly teaching, and that it is impossible for any man to obtain even the minutest portion of right and sound doctrine without being a disciple of Scripture. Hence, the first step in true knowledge is taken, when we reverently embrace the testimony which God has been pleased therein to give of himself. For not only does faith, full and perfect faith, but all correct knowledge of God, originate in obedience.”
.
“Since the human mind, through its weakness, was altogether unable to come to God if not aided and upheld by his sacred word, it necessarily followed that all mankind, the Jews excepted, inasmuch as they sought God without the Word, were labouring under vanity and error.”
.
On the Immortality of the Soul
1600’s
Flavel, John – ‘The Immortality of the Soul Proved from Scripture & Reason’ from Pneumatologia: A Treatise of the Soul of Man, wherein the Divine Original, Excellent & Immortal Nature of the are Opened… (London, 1698), pp. 81-120
.
1700’s
Clarke, Samuel – A Letter to Mr. [Henry] Dodwell: wherein all the Arguments in his Epistolary Discourse Against the Immortality of the Soul are Particularly Answered, & the Judgment of the Fathers concerning that Matter Truly Represented… (London, 1718)
Clarke (1675–1729) was an English philosopher and Anglican clergyman. He is considered the major British figure in philosophy between John Locke and George Berkeley. Clarke was an Arian who wrote at length on and debated the Trinity, especially with Daniel Waterland, who defended orthodoxy. Clarke held to Newtonian physics.
.
Latin
Article
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – ‘Natural Theology’ in Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 1, tract 1 Abbr.
Controversies partly principal, partly more universal or general
Whether natural theology, innate [congenita] and acquired, may be given? It is affirmed against Socinus.
How far natural theology may extend itself? It is explained.
Whether and which is the use of natural theology? The first is affirmed, the latter is explained.
Whether natural theology is sufficient to salvation? It is denied against Socinus.
Whether there may be some common religion? It is denied contra the same.
Whether the principle of theology, out of which is the rule, is that nothing is to be believed except that which has been deduced from human reason, as it now is? It is denied.
Whether natural light, or right reason, and wholesome philosophy out of that and according to it is a principle of demonstration in theological questions? It is distinguished.
Controversies partly less principal, partly more particular and hypothetical, partly problematic
Whether natural theology is bad? It is denied.
Whether every theology of the ethnics, where truly spoken, was merely natural? It is distinguished.
Whether philosophy fights with theology, or whether natural theology fights with supernatural theology? It is denied.
Whether the mystery of faith may be convenient with reason? It is distinguished.
Whether the judgment of contradiction in mysteries of faith ought to be taken from reason? It is denied.
Whether the study of philosophy and especially of metaphysics may be useful to solid theology, even necessary in its own way? It is affirmed.
…
Whether natural theology is distinguished by species from supernatural? It is distinguished.
Whether theology is theoretical, or practical, or mixed? It is affirmed to be practical.
.
Books
1600’s
Voet, Paulus – Natural Theology Reformed, to which is subjoined a brief disquisition on a Separated Soul (Utrecht: Waesberg, 1656) 609 pp. Extended ToC
Paul Voet (1619-1667) was the son of Gisbert Voet and a professor of metaphysics, logic and law at Utrecht.
.
Concise ToC
1. Author’s design and the reason of the design 1
2. Name of God 9
3. Gives the natural notion of God, and that as subjective, or implanted 19
4. The divine essence is able to be known in its own way by us 36
5. The dogma of the Trinity is not able to be explicated well except the nature of substance be known 53
6. In what way the principle is defined 93
7. The dogma of the Trinity is [of] the office of Christian philosophy: briefly explained 100
8. The definition of God is given, and it is explained 137
9. Of the finite and infinite in general 157
10. In what way divine infinity is not to be accepted 199
11. …
12. What is life in general 284
13. Will in the sign of reason follows the intellect 324
14. The rule of order is posited 373
15. How many kinds are the the divine actions, and how are they distinguished 446
16. Providence in general is treated, and it is defined and divided 463
17. What of the name ‘justice’? 563
Disquisition on a Separated Soul 577
1. Knowledge of the soul is illustrious and necessary, but difficult 577
2. Whether the soul is from passing over, or by God created? 578
3. Whether the soul is the form informing, or rather assisting? 581
4. Whether the soul is able to be separated from matter? 583
5. That the soul is spiritual and immortal is demonstrated 584
6. Objections are satisfied 592
7. Whether the soul is immortal by nature or rather by grace? 595
8. Whether the soul of a brute is capable of immortality, and is the soul of a man? 598
9. Some things are brought forth on the soul in a separated state, and the end of the disquisition is imposed 605
.
1700’s
Wolff, Christian – Natural Theology treated in a Scientific Method, vol. 1 (Existence & Attributes of God is Demonstrated a Posteriori), 2 (Existence & Attributes of God from Most Perfect Being, & the Nature of the Soul, is Demonstrated) (Frankfurt & Leipzig: Rengeriana, 1737-1739) ToC 1, 2 Indices: Subject 1, 2; Scripture 1, 2
Wolf (1679–1754) was a German, Lutheran philosopher and has been characterized as one of the most eminent German philosophers between Leibniz and Kant. His life work spanned almost every scholarly subject of his time, displayed and unfolded according to his demonstrative-deductive, mathematical method, which some deem the peak of Enlightenment rationality in Germany.
.
vol. 1
Dedicatory Epistle
Preface
Prolegomena to Natural Theology 1
pt. 1, The divine existence and attributes are demonstrated a posteriori
1. Existence of God & Independent Attributes 25
2. Intellect of God & Independent Attributes 114
3. Power & Will of God 312
4. Wisdom & Goodness of God 563
5. Creation & Divine Providence 727
6. Right of God in Creatures 929
7. Divine Attributes which are demonstrated through anterior things 979-1084
.
vol. 2, pt. 2
Dedicatory Epistle
Preface
sect. 1, The divine existence and attributes are demonstrated a priori
1. Notion of perfect being and its existence 1
2. Intellect of God 51
3. Will of God 175
4. Creation, providence and power of God 275
sect. 2, On Atheism and other cognate errors
1. Atheism 369
2. Fatalism, Deism & Naturalism 509
3. Anthropomorphism, Materialism & Idealism 564
4. Paganism, Manichaeism, Spinozism & Epicureanism 642-736
.
French
1900’s
Beauchamp, Maurice – Méthode Thomiste de la Théologie Naturelle (Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest, LLC, 1941) Available for free on PDF.
Grison, M. – Théologie Naturelle ou Théodicée 10th ed. (Paris: Beauchesne et ses Fils, 1959)
“A helpful French, textbook style, introduction to Natural Theology.” – David Haines
.
On Muslim Natural Theology
Middle Ages
Shihadeh, Ayman – ch. 5, ‘Avicenna’s Proof of the Existence of God: Problem 7’ in Doubts on Avicenna: A Study & Edition of Sharaf al-Dīn al-Masʿūdī’s Commentary on the Ishārāt in Islamic Philosophy, Theology & Science: Texts & Studies, vol. 95 (Brill, 2016)
Al-Masudi posits doubt into Avicenna’s Cosmological argument from possibility for the existence of the First Cause.
.
.
.
Related Pages