The Apologetic Value of Natural Theology

Natural Theology was the reaction of William Paley (1743-1805) to Enlightenment’s skeptical David Hume (1711-1776) who denied all revelation, the teleological argument, and miracles. William Paley wrote Natural Theology and famously defended the teleological argument or the Design/Designer argument by illustrating the watch found in the desert.

Not all theologians believe Natural theology is valid. Michael Horton represents this group: “Our natural experience of God is itself an interpretation, and as the interpretation of our fallen hearts, it is corrupt. As soon  as we see a glimmering ember of divine truth we smother it, and this is why there can be no true natural theology, even though we are swimming in general revelation.”[1] This is the strong presuppositional view that many great theologians like Dr. John Whitcomb held to. I will argue that Scripture presents God using both evidentialist and presuppositional approaches. For example, Paul in Acts 14 at Lystra first preached the gospel in 14:7 and then employed the teleological argument in 14:15-17.

            Kenneth D. Boa and Robert M. Bowman, Jr. present four apologetic approaches and place Natural Theology under the Classical apologetic approach. The other three approaches are Evidentialist, Reformed, and Fideist.

            Natural theology falls under the category of Classical apologetics. Robert Lightner states that “the naturalistic theistic argument” derives “primarily from nature and reason rather than Scripture.”[2] Natural theology would be in contrast to Revealed Theology. Lightner defends Natural Theology: “These arguments certainly present some ... unanswerable questions to the unbelieving mind. Surely, these arguments provide reasonable evidence for the existence of the God presented to us in holy Scripture.”[3] So Lightner saw evangelistic value in Natural Theology as well as apologetics.

            This was Thomas Aquinas’ (1225–1274) approach. Later Charles Hodge (1797 -1878) in his Systematic Theology. Hodge wrote that “the Scripture clearly recognizes the fact that the works of God reveal his being and attributes.”[4] Hodge then quotes Psalm 19:1-4; 94:8-10; Acts 14:15-17; 17:24-29; and Romans 1:19-21. These references, Hodges says “lay a stable foundation for natural theology.”[5] B. B. Warfield (1887 to 1921) defended theistic arguments for God’s existence:

            This immediate perception of God is confirmed and the contents of the idea developed by a series of arguments known as the ‘theistic proofs.’ These are derived from the necessity we are under of believing in the real existence of the infinitely perfect Being, of a sufficient cause for the contingent universe, of an intelligent author of the order and of the manifold contrivances observable in nature, and of a lawgiver and judge for dependent moral beings ... from the theistic proofs, however, we learn not only that a God exists, but also necessarily, on the principle of a sufficient cause, very much of the nature of the God which they prove to exist.”[6] 

            Norman Giesler would also advocate Natural Theology. Kenneth D. Boa and Robert M. Bowman, Jr. note the two steps of Classical apologists. The first step is to prove theism is true using deductive arguments or the theistic arguments of natural theology. The next step is to prove Christianity is true using inductive arguments much like Evidentialists, such as the resurrection of Christ.[7]

            After Robert P. Lightner defends the naturalistic theistic arguments, he presents the four well-known theistic arguments of Natural Theology: Cosmological, teleological, anthropological, and ontological arguments.

            The cosmological argument is the Cause/Effect argument. There must be a cause for the effect of the universe. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. The options are atheistic evolution and the Big Bang theory or the creation by the uncaused cause or God.  The Big Bang theory would argue for the eternality of matter and the creation view would argue for the eternality of God who is the cause of the universe. William Lane Craig argues that because the universe had a beginning there had to be a Beginner or a first uncaused cause. Norman Geisler argues that because the universe is finite an Infinite Being had to cause it. The cause/effect is found in Psalm 19:1 and Romans 1:20.

            The teleological argument is the design/designer argument. This is the sequel to the cosmological argument. Wayne Grudem calls the teleological argument a subcategory of the cosmological argument.[8] If God caused the universe then surely the design in His creation would argue for His existence for He would not create chaos. The watchmaker argument not only argues for the cause of the watch or the universe but also for the incredible intricacies of perfect design. All this precision design causes the second hand on your watch to travel 12 times faster than the minute hand, and the minute hand to travel 12 times faster than the hour hand. Design can be seen in the beginning of life at conception in the mother’s womb according to David in Psalm 139:13-14. David praising God’s omnipotence recognized that God planted in his DNA the design of his entire body including his skeletal system, etc. Ryrie noted that “when the people of Lystra were about to offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas because they thought the two were gods, Paul restrained them by using this teleological argument for the existence of the true God (Acts 14:15-18). The world shows the cycle of seasons and the gift of rain in order to give mankind food and gladness. This order of nature serves as a witness to the existence of the true and living God, Paul said.”[9]

            The ontological argument for the existence of God states that because people have in their minds the idea of the most perfect being is proof that that perfect Being exists. Geisler rejects this argument: “No valid ontological proof has been given that makes it rationally inescapable to conclude that there is a necessary Being.”[10] Robert Lightner quotes Calvin to support his belief in the ontological argument: “That there exists in the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of the existence of Deity.”[11] Lightner writes, “Those who use this argument ask the question, Where did this idea of a most perfect and necessary Being come from? ... Some perfect and necessary Being must have planted this idea in them. The ontological argument contends that this perfect Being could only be God.”[12]

            The ontological argument was first credited to Anselm (1033-1109) in a prayer in his Proslogion (1078). A contemporary French monk, Gaunilo, in his rejoinder, On Behalf of the Fool, famously argued that just because he has the idea of a perfect island that exists somewhere does not mean that a perfect island exists. J. Oliver Buswell Jr. (1895 – 1977) also used an island illustration to prove the ontological argument.

            If we should discover a tropical island, apparently flat, and if we should find that the people on such an island had a language quite distinct from any other known to us, and if we should discover that these people on this apparently flat tropical island had a word for a snow-capped mountain, we should find it necessary to make inquiries as to the source of their idea. We should conclude that either there was a snow-capped mountain far in the interior of their island, or that some traveler had told them of snow-capped mountains. From the data of a flat tropical island, natives could not build up the idea of a snow-capped mountain.”[13]

            I side with Geisler, Robert Reymond, and others who deny the ontological argument. I do contend that everyone has an idea or has knowledge of God because each person has the image of God and nature also testifies to the existence of God and sinners as Paul argues “suppress this truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 2:18).

            Ryrie defends the anthropological argument by stating that because man is a moral, intelligent, and living being, this cannot “be explained apart from a moral, intelligent, and living God.”[14] Ryrie also argues that materialistic, inanimate, impersonal, and the unconscious forces of evolution could not have produced the moral, intelligent, and living person.”[15] The psalmist in Psalm 94:9 argues that man is the result of a living and intelligent Creator: “He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?”

            The anthropological argument is the bigger argument, and the moral argument is one important aspect. Boa and Bowman connect these two arguments: The moral argument can be viewed as one aspect of a larger argument for God’s existence known as the anthropological argument.”[16]

            John Frame in defending the moral argument asks, “Where does the authority of the absolute moral principle come from?.... Ultimately, only two kinds of answers are possible: the source of absolute moral authority is personal or impersonal.”[17]

            The atheist chooses the impersonal when he chooses evolution. However impersonal evolution cannot provide an objective and absolute moral standard. According to evolutionists man is the highest form of an animal, the highest evolutionary stage to date of the primate, and the world species primarily homo sapiens. Animals, however, do not have morals. Animals don’t murder. When a lion kills an antelope, the lion doesn’t murder. So how can atheists condemn the Holocaust? Atheists such as Sam Harris would argue that in the process of evolution, there is progress. Frogs grow feet and hands. With humans, morals become part of man’s being and are necessary for the survival of the fittest. Humans have evolved to know right and wrong. But right and wrong according to whom or what standard? Not to the one absolute being but according to each individual. So there are 7.5 billion standards of what is right and and moral. Many of these individuals believe that the murder of unborn babies is moral. So we are back to no objective and absolute moral standard. Politicians who believe in evolution and support abortion are acting on their beliefs that they are just the highest form of animals and are no different from the lion killing the antelope.

            The obvious answer is that only a personal and moral being constitutes absolute moral authority and standard for evaluating right and wrong.

            This personal and moral being has written His moral law on the hearts of every person according to Romans 2:15 which should enable us to believe that there is a personal and moral being. The personal and moral being commands us to be moral or good. This is called the Divine Command theory. If God is the moral standard then it is only logical that he has given us rules for moral living.

However, atheists have challenged the Divine Command theory. It is at this point that the question is sometimes raised: “If God commands us to do good, how did he choose what is good to command us to do?” This is also the place where the atheist introduces the so-called Euthyphro Dilemma. Plato in his book Euthyphro has his mentor, Socrates, presenting this dilemma to Euthyphro. Both Socrates and Euthyphro are outside the Athens courthouse awaiting trials. Socrates will be tried for spreading his false philosophy and Euthyphro for seeking the death penalty for his father. Socrates thinks this is questionable and asks Euthyphro why he is seeking the death penalty for his own dad. Euthyphro is a Divine Command theorist and believes this is what the gods believe is the right action to take. Socrates asks Euthyphro whether piety or goodness is what the gods say goodness is or do the gods command piety or goodness because of its inherent nature.

  • So the atheist argues if goodness is what God commands then God is arbitrary and he can change his mind and make hatred good.

  • Or, if God commands something because it is good then goodness lies outside of God and he is not the ultimate standard of morality.

  • There is a third option. God commands us to do good because He is good. Therefore, He cannot arbitrarily change His mind and command us to do what is contrary to his nature. Neither does God command something because it is good. God is good. He is the standard for what He commands us to do. “God is love” and commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves.

             Jesus in his sermon on the mount made this point when he commanded “Love you your enemies, and do good.” Then Jesus gave the reason for this divine command to do good: “Your reward shall be great, and you shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be you therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful” (Luke 6:35-36).
 

[1] Michael Horton. The Christian Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 142-143.

[2] Robert P. Lightner. The God of the Bible and Other Gods (Grand Rapids: Kregal, 1998), 41.

[3] Ibid., 42. 

[4]  Charles Hodge. Systematic Theology, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 24.

[5] Ibid., 25.

[6] B. B. Warfield. “Christianity and Revelation” in Shorter Writings, 1:70.71

[7] Boa, D. Kenneth and Robert M. Bowman, Jr. Faith Has its Reasons (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 89.

[8] Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 143.

[9] Charles Ryrie. Basic Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 35.

[10] Geisler, Norman and Winfried Corduan. Philosophy of Religion, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 148.

[11] John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 43.

[12] Robert Lightner. The God of the Bible and Other Gods, 45-46.

[13] J. Oliver Buswell Jr., A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), 1:99.

[14] Charles C. Ryrie. Basic Theology (Chicago: Moody, 1988), 35.

[15] Ibid., 35. 

[16] Boa, D. Kenneth and Robert M. Bowman, Jr. Faith Has its Reasons, 97.

[17] John Frame. Apologetics Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2015, 101.