This is a good and helpful summary. As a fellow Anglican, I thank you. I would only differ on one point and that has to do with your critique of Thomas Aquinas. I was not shaped by Van Til. I do not think Thomas would say that reason is ever autonomous, since it is the same God who both creates and reveals. Our reason may be fallen but we can know something regarding natural law and the virtues because God created us with reason and shows forth himself and his world in common grace. That reason to be sure is fallen but is not wholly gone, and does become clearer when we are in Christ. Even Paul acknowledges this at the beginning of Romans. I am writing this “off the cuff” so I am not sure I am saying exactly what I mean.
Thank you for this. I appreciate both the kind words and the pushback.
I agree that Aquinas would never call reason "autonomous" in the sense of independent from God. He firmly believed God is the source of all truth. On this we agree.
The Van Tilian concern is more subtle: it's not that Aquinas denies God as Creator, but that his method grants fallen reason a level reliability it doesn't have apart from regeneration. You mention Romans 1. Paul affirms that God reveals Himself in creation, but verses 21-22 emphasize that fallen humanity "suppresses" this truth. In other words, the knowledge is there; the reception is not.
That said, unlike some who reject natural theology outright, Bavinck helped me see that the Reformers saw its merit but repositioned it within faith rather than before it. Reason can serve theology, but only when renewed by grace.
A conversation worth continuing! Grateful for fellow believers thinking carefully about these things.
John Henry Newman would disagree. After failing to find the via media, he converted and ultimately wrote a book you should read: "Apologia Pro Vita Sua."
Eamon Duffy would disagree, as he explains what was done by the Anglican reformers to the Catholic worship of the English people in "The Stripping of the Altars."
Your grasp of Aquinas would benefit from reading the Summa. Thomas is applying Aristotle's realism (confidence in human common sense) to matters of theology. It sounds like Van Tilian has created a straw man, because Thomas does not grant fallen reason any more reliability than it can handle in its fallen nature. More reading! Original sources! Always better!
"Applying Aristotle's realism to matters of theology." Yes. That's precisely the challenge: a posteriori reasoning, starting from below rather than above.
On the other hand, the Apostle Paul, one who was well versed in Greek philosophy, maintained an a priori stance (Acts 17:22-23; Romans 1:21-22): faith precedes understanding. And, having read their writings, so did Athanasius, Augustine, and Anselm.
I think we can all respectfully agree that epistemology shapes ecclesiology. This is why Newman converted to Roman Catholicism and why I confess Reformed catholicity.
The Greek philosophers quite clearly show what may be said about God by reason and without special revelation. And it is very significant. Reason is employed through prudence by the virtuous.
Yes. I agree that the Greek philosophers achieved something real regarding the existence of a god. Similarly Aquinas's Five Ways (motion, causation, contingency, perfection, design) all arrive at a first cause or necessary being.
The key distinction I was trying to make is that they could reason toward a god, but not the Trinitarian God, which is true knowledge of God. Paul acknowledges this at the Areopagus when he says, "What you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you" (Acts 17:23). The philosophers sensed something was there (natural theology); only special revelation (biblical theology) discloses who He is.
This is a good and helpful summary. As a fellow Anglican, I thank you. I would only differ on one point and that has to do with your critique of Thomas Aquinas. I was not shaped by Van Til. I do not think Thomas would say that reason is ever autonomous, since it is the same God who both creates and reveals. Our reason may be fallen but we can know something regarding natural law and the virtues because God created us with reason and shows forth himself and his world in common grace. That reason to be sure is fallen but is not wholly gone, and does become clearer when we are in Christ. Even Paul acknowledges this at the beginning of Romans. I am writing this “off the cuff” so I am not sure I am saying exactly what I mean.
Thank you for this. I appreciate both the kind words and the pushback.
I agree that Aquinas would never call reason "autonomous" in the sense of independent from God. He firmly believed God is the source of all truth. On this we agree.
The Van Tilian concern is more subtle: it's not that Aquinas denies God as Creator, but that his method grants fallen reason a level reliability it doesn't have apart from regeneration. You mention Romans 1. Paul affirms that God reveals Himself in creation, but verses 21-22 emphasize that fallen humanity "suppresses" this truth. In other words, the knowledge is there; the reception is not.
That said, unlike some who reject natural theology outright, Bavinck helped me see that the Reformers saw its merit but repositioned it within faith rather than before it. Reason can serve theology, but only when renewed by grace.
A conversation worth continuing! Grateful for fellow believers thinking carefully about these things.
John Henry Newman would disagree. After failing to find the via media, he converted and ultimately wrote a book you should read: "Apologia Pro Vita Sua."
Eamon Duffy would disagree, as he explains what was done by the Anglican reformers to the Catholic worship of the English people in "The Stripping of the Altars."
Your grasp of Aquinas would benefit from reading the Summa. Thomas is applying Aristotle's realism (confidence in human common sense) to matters of theology. It sounds like Van Tilian has created a straw man, because Thomas does not grant fallen reason any more reliability than it can handle in its fallen nature. More reading! Original sources! Always better!
"Applying Aristotle's realism to matters of theology." Yes. That's precisely the challenge: a posteriori reasoning, starting from below rather than above.
On the other hand, the Apostle Paul, one who was well versed in Greek philosophy, maintained an a priori stance (Acts 17:22-23; Romans 1:21-22): faith precedes understanding. And, having read their writings, so did Athanasius, Augustine, and Anselm.
I think we can all respectfully agree that epistemology shapes ecclesiology. This is why Newman converted to Roman Catholicism and why I confess Reformed catholicity.
Theology precedes philosophy.
The Greek philosophers quite clearly show what may be said about God by reason and without special revelation. And it is very significant. Reason is employed through prudence by the virtuous.
Yes. I agree that the Greek philosophers achieved something real regarding the existence of a god. Similarly Aquinas's Five Ways (motion, causation, contingency, perfection, design) all arrive at a first cause or necessary being.
The key distinction I was trying to make is that they could reason toward a god, but not the Trinitarian God, which is true knowledge of God. Paul acknowledges this at the Areopagus when he says, "What you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you" (Acts 17:23). The philosophers sensed something was there (natural theology); only special revelation (biblical theology) discloses who He is.