[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Van Til and Natural Theology



Hi James,

thanks for the quote. I have also read the link you pointed to.

However, in the interest of objective fairness, may I correct 
somewhat your comments. In that post you mentioned, there are at
least 2-3 references to VT accepting 'natural theology' in a
'charitable interpretation' contrasted to a strict understanding
of 'natural theology'. 

When I found what is mean by this version, it would appear that
to Sean in fact VT did accept a 'natural theology' which is not
epistemically neutral, not autonomous and is rooted in Scripture!

Sean's repeated _qualification_ seems to me to be addressing your
very criticism. Therefore, your assessment that:

> it surely makes the unqualified comments of certain contributors 
to the Clark list, such as the following, seem somewhat
> irresponsible:

to me appears to be itself unfair, out of context and "somewhat 
irresponsible", I am sorry to observe.

To confirm that I was not reading into Sean, I looked for the post
to which Sean seems to be referring repeatedly in his post where 
VT is extensively quoted, as for example in this vein:

"the proof which argues that unless this God, the God of the Bible,
the ultimate being, the Creator, the controller of the universe, 
be presupposed as the foundation of human experience, this 
experience operates in void. This one proof is absolutely 
convincing."

[quoted from a quote of a quote in 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/clark/message/9087 and the original
post in full is on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/clark/message/8538 
half way down where VT discusses Hepp.]

Sean makes it very clear that that was exactly his intent in the
post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/clark/message/9088:

"Yes, that is the post exactly :)  It's a very good post, glad I 
could read it again :)" 

From this and the other VT quotes in the posts a conclusion could 
be drawn about what VT meant about theistic proofs and 'natural 
theology, discussion of which seems to have been avoided on this 
list, but which I find also disturbing. How can we call such a 
formulation _natural_ theology?

Maybe you could interact with that conclusion and some of the other
criticisms like about 'proofs' more?

Peace, Gerard.


--- In vantil@y..., "James Anderson" <jad@c...> wrote:
> I recently wrote:
> 
> > If this is the case, then it follows that one can with 
consistency endorse
> > VT's criticisms of 'natural theology' *as VT used the term* 
whilst still
> > advocating the use of 'natural theology' *more loosely defined* 



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
-----/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/x8VolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

---