Comments on: Misinterpreting Brute Facts http://www.feedingonchrist.com/misinterpreting-brute-facts/ Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:55:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Nicholas T. Batzig http://www.feedingonchrist.com/misinterpreting-brute-facts/comment-page-1/#comment-3072 Nicholas T. Batzig Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:32:06 +0000 http://www.feedingonchrist.com/?p=2618#comment-3072 Van Til was very clear about the kind of "natural theology" he was rejecting, namely, a Thomistic approach that undergirds a Roman Catholic system of autonomy and human reason. It is the subjective "oughtness" of the RC ethic, built on their form of Natural Theology, that Van Til is rejecting. There is no "natural theology" in that sense. But Van Til constantly affirmed the truth that the law of God was written on the heart of all men by nature, and that, by common grace, the natural man could get some things right in a metaphysical sense--even in the sphere of ethics. Van Til was very clear about the kind of “natural theology” he was rejecting, namely, a Thomistic approach that undergirds a Roman Catholic system of autonomy and human reason. It is the subjective “oughtness” of the RC ethic, built on their form of Natural Theology, that Van Til is rejecting. There is no “natural theology” in that sense. But Van Til constantly affirmed the truth that the law of God was written on the heart of all men by nature, and that, by common grace, the natural man could get some things right in a metaphysical sense–even in the sphere of ethics.

]]> By: Jeff Waddington http://www.feedingonchrist.com/misinterpreting-brute-facts/comment-page-1/#comment-3065 Jeff Waddington Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:48:41 +0000 http://www.feedingonchrist.com/?p=2618#comment-3065 Unfortunately Raschke is not the only one to misread Van Til this way. Speaking of misreading Van Til, Paul Helm over at his blog, Helm's Deep, says that Van Til rejected natural theology. This is an odd thing for him to say. Odd for two reasons. Odd because it is not true and odd because Helm is a bright man and usually is right on the money. Firstly, Van Til distinguishes between natural revelation and natural theology which is a distinction some fail to make. Natural revelation is God's revelation of himself in creation and natural theology is man's reflection on and response to natural revelation. Even the post-Reformation Reformed scholastics had a distinction between worthwhile natural theology and futile natural theology. Secondly, Van Til affirms a proper natural theology in his chapter "Nature and Scripture" in the Westminster faculty symposium "The Infallible Word." So let's get Van Til correct, even if we do not agree with him. Unfortunately Raschke is not the only one to misread Van Til this way.

Speaking of misreading Van Til, Paul Helm over at his blog, Helm’s Deep, says that Van Til rejected natural theology. This is an odd thing for him to say. Odd for two reasons. Odd because it is not true and odd because Helm is a bright man and usually is right on the money.

Firstly, Van Til distinguishes between natural revelation and natural theology which is a distinction some fail to make. Natural revelation is God’s revelation of himself in creation and natural theology is man’s reflection on and response to natural revelation. Even the post-Reformation Reformed scholastics had a distinction between worthwhile natural theology and futile natural theology. Secondly, Van Til affirms a proper natural theology in his chapter “Nature and Scripture” in the Westminster faculty symposium “The Infallible Word.”

So let’s get Van Til correct, even if we do not agree with him.

]]> By: Nicholas T. Batzig http://www.feedingonchrist.com/misinterpreting-brute-facts/comment-page-1/#comment-3062 Nicholas T. Batzig Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:30:39 +0000 http://www.feedingonchrist.com/?p=2618#comment-3062 Thinking God's thoughts after Him, as Van Til so persuasively argues, actually destroys the stronghold of postmodernity, as well as every other deviant philosophy. Thinking God’s thoughts after Him, as Van Til so persuasively argues, actually destroys the stronghold of postmodernity, as well as every other deviant philosophy.

]]>