Natural Theology?

In our fallen condition we lack this sapiential cognition of God, so God restores it (and its guiding of our scientia) through the incarnation and through the cleansing of the mind by faith and participation in Christ, the repository of all knowledge and wisdom (Col 2:3).

While many persons “perceive” from the order of the world that there must be someone who has so ordered it, the discursive analysis that leads to more complete knowledge of the matter is undertaken by relatively few human beings. And, given the weakness of the human mind, it is mixed with error.84 Indeed, in accord with Romans 1, it is not merely that the Gentiles sin because they are ignorant. Rather, they are ignorant because they have sinned and refused to use the natural knowledge of God to glorify him.

Through the influence of twentieth-century authors like Karl Barth and Cornelius Van Til, the contemporary student of Reformed theology may not readily associate it with a strong natural theology tradition, but the early Reformed do in fact emphasize that the human race possesses a natural knowledge of God, even if that knowledge has been tragically corrupted by sin.

John Calvin affirms that it is “beyond controversy” that there is “in the human mind, by natural instinct, a sense of divinity [sensus divinitatis].” To prevent our claiming to be ignorant about him, God has “endowed” us with an understanding of his own majesty and, indeed, continually “renews” that understanding.

Humanity’s fall into sin yields a holistic corruption of the human subject and therefore a corruption of the human subject’s natural knowledge of God.

Johann Alsted identifies a twofold use: (1) “to render man inexcusable” and (2) “to prepare him for the school of grace” and enable him to read the “book of grace” with prior awareness of the majesty of God and the imperfection of nature that anticipates grace. Turretin comments that natural theology still attests the goodness of God toward sinners (see Jn 1:5; Acts 14:16‑17), encourages us to await further revelation of God (see Acts 17:27), and preserves a certain “subjective condition” in the human person preparatory for the “admission of the light of grace” since God in the gospel “addresses not brutes . . . but rational creatures.”

Ultimately, Barth believes that the problem of natural theology is rooted in the problem of sin. Natural theology is, according to Barth, an attempt to find a manifestation of God in creation that serves as an entrance into the “inner circle of true theology grounded in revelatio specialis.” However, that attempt is viable only in Roman Catholicism or in a Protestant “theology of glory.” For a genuinely Protestant recognition of the “extent of sin” entails that any “direct discernment” of God in relation to creation is lost in the fall and restored only by the gospel. Thus, for Barth, “the theology and the church of the antichrist can profit from [natural theology],” but “the Evangelical Church and Evangelical theology would only sicken and die of it.”Humanity has lost its “capacity for God” or “point of contact” with God. The imago Dei is “totally annihilated” in the fall. Natural theology is therefore a matter of seeking in vain a source of theological knowledge or a “knowability of God” apart from the only true knowability of God in Jesus Christ. (171 Barth, CD I/1, 238‑39.)

The ultimate origin or efficient cause of the natural knowledge of God is God the Creator himself, who purposefully makes himself known by the created order to the human race as a whole. God gives this knowledge. The natural knowledge of God rightly conceived is communicated by God’s own self-revelation—a “natural” revelation but no less divine or true for that reason. Indeed, it is communicated and impressed on us by God not in order to enable us to justify our epistemic prowess before him but in order to render us aware of and accountable to him, which in fact places us in the rather disquieting position of having no excuse for our sin and hubris. If it is a “way of ascent” (as Thomas puts it), it is so not because it is intrinsically a matter of self-exaltation but because we apprehend effects of God and then arrive at knowledge of a cause that is higher than these (i.e., God). Given that this knowledge is available from observation of the created order (Ps 8:1, 3; 19:1‑6; Rom 1:20) and continually accessible to the human race as a whole, it is reasonable to conclude that the subjective “light” by which natural revelation is grasped is not wholly external or only occasionally given to human persons.

The content or object of the natural knowledge of God is God the Creator under the aspect of various attributes like wisdom, power, righteousness, and goodness. In this connection, Scripture compels us to recognize that natural knowledge includes positive knowledge of God, not just a knowledge of what God is not. At the same time, it is limited in scope and specificity.

The purpose of the natural knowledge of God lies in God’s upholding humanity’s ongoing awareness of himself and of our need of him and his mercy. It is a “preamble” to the supernatural revelation that culminates in the incarnation and is transmitted in the biblical canon 

In light of texts like Romans 1 and in accord with various statements in Augustine, Thomas, and early Reformed authors, the natural knowledge of God is limited objectively in its content and also distorted subjectively in its suppression and abuse by sinful humanity. Indeed, knowledge of God in its fullest sense includes love and worship of God. In these respects, the world does not know God (Jn 17:25; Rom 1:21, 28). Here it is fitting to recognize that the tone or level of optimism with which we speak of natural theology should be sensitive to context. In a context (Barthian or otherwise) marked by emphatic denial of any positive role for the natural knowledge of God, we should underscore the reality and positive function of it. In a different context (one pervaded by a theologia gloriae, we might say) where philosophical investigation is brought out from under the guidance of scriptural theology and allowed to develop ideas of God to which Scripture supposedly must conform, we should be ready to criticize resultant claims about God, not least those that exalt a favorite philosophical theme and posit God as simply the maximal instance of that theme.

Natural theology is thus caught up in the overarching purpose of God to lead us to everlasting communion with himself. It retains a positive role even after the fall, but it does not stand alone as an independent agenda for human inquiry. It must be viewed in its relationship to the supernatural revelation that culminates in the incarnation.

If you've made it to the bottom of this extract, and are excited and enthused, then you should grab a copy of God in Himself (just click below). If you've made it here and are excited and bemused, then we'd love to recommend Peter Sanlon's Simply God as a more readable and accessible introduction to some of the issues of Divine Simplicity and theology.