Truly! Suaviter in modo fortiter in re. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here, but I'd say that there are no difficult words to say to unbelievers, only beautiful truth, but there are certainly difficult consequences and contexts from the unbelieving world that will come our way.
Camden, I appreciate your comments on gender. I do not think they are too simple. It seems that your point is Paul's Exhibit A for suppression. You are right, if that is the case, how can we think of a natural law argument that would be successful.
It is good to see real theology happening, and within a deep tradition. I think these conversations would benefit from more precise definition of concepts. For example, in this talk we heard about "supernatural verbal revelation ... called covenant" as co-existing, before the Fall, with natural knowledge, distinct but complimentary and inseparable from it. They distinguish the modes of each -- special providence and creation, respectively. This "supernatural" stuff -- that's to use their own word -- is it not a gift superadded to the natural in Adam? They call it supernatural, and what they have in mind here is verbal or direct revelatory content, or divine disclosures, pertaining to covenant. Leaving aside specifics of what exactly the believers in a donum superadditum think it constitutes, is this not in substance a donum superadditum? It's supernatural in the same sense of the word, as exceeding the powers of nature as such -- Adam before the Fall, being good in the way that God made him to be, is not able of himself to know certain things pertaining to the inner life of God, which God in fact revealed to him "verbally," by "special providence," and not by "creation" alone. Adam in his natural powers, more than each one of us, can know such things as the existence of God, his general goodness, etc; but can he know that God is trinity, or the names of the persons, or things pertaining to God's free and future decisions, like what He might have in story for Adam; and so on, unless God tells him? Such knowledge is supernatural, exceeding Adams natural capacity to produce, even though Adam's nature is able to receive such knowledge. It's supernatural whether Adam was created with it, implanted, told by an audible voice from the heavens, etc. On the other hand, if Adam could have or did know these things already, was God being redundant in verbally disclosing them supernaturally? These distinctions are very important. Without further clarification, what you have said here on Van Til in Nature and Scripture is substantially the same as , or veering close to, what is usually meant by the donum superadditum. There are defensible versions of the DS that hold that the natural and supernatural endowments of Adam, though distinct, were created together -- in other words, Adam never existed in a purely natural state, to be supernaturally elevated later. God creates both Adam's nature and the grace he bestows on Adam -- grace is a created effect, an effect of God in the creature, and is not God himself or in essence. That they are distinct in no way means there is any rivalry -- nature is inherently receptive to (supernatural) grace, and God is the author of both,. That there isn't a single moment of Adam's existence in which he doesn't depend on grace, in no way impugns the magnificence of God's handiwork in Adam's nature qua nature. It only serves to highlight that from the very beginning, God intended radical dependency of the creature on Himself, and intimate fellowship of covenant (this does not preclude a subsequent further elevation(s) to glory or beatitude). And at the same time it highlights God's utter transcendence, by pointing out that a human being, even in the state of integrity, cannot have all imaginable and actual forms of intimacy with All-holy God except by additional gift (additional, because Adam's nature is already gift -- "everything is grace"). Nature was created for, in view of, and receptive to super-nature, with them both together taking man up into life and fellowship with God.
Can you please engage with Lutheran scholastics on this issue (or on others?) I’m trying to sketch out the commonalities and differences and it’s leading into some extremely subtle distinctions. I could really use your expertise and broader knowledge!
I believe natural theology may provide a great point of contact both for the cultural and the Gospel mandates to the unreached elect out there. Yet for the suppressors of truth in unrighteousness both natural theology and a point of contact will serve only to testify against them in their judgment. They dismiss both just as senator Biden dismissed natural law in the hearing of justice Clarence Thomas (1991)
Thank you very much, brothers, for doing this ministry! Such a great blessing!
Fighting the good fight
Amen speaking the truth in love defending the word of God:)
Truly! Suaviter in modo fortiter in re. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here, but I'd say that there are no difficult words to say to unbelievers, only beautiful truth, but there are certainly difficult consequences and contexts from the unbelieving world that will come our way.
25 minute mark - the million dollar question
I don’t get it either???
Sin in Christianity still remains unexplained although the discussion is interesting.
Camden, I appreciate your comments on gender. I do not think they are too simple. It seems that your point is Paul's Exhibit A for suppression. You are right, if that is the case, how can we think of a natural law argument that would be successful.
It is good to see real theology happening, and within a deep tradition. I think these conversations would benefit from more precise definition of concepts. For example, in this talk we heard about "supernatural verbal revelation ... called covenant" as co-existing, before the Fall, with natural knowledge, distinct but complimentary and inseparable from it. They distinguish the modes of each -- special providence and creation, respectively. This "supernatural" stuff -- that's to use their own word -- is it not a gift superadded to the natural in Adam? They call it supernatural, and what they have in mind here is verbal or direct revelatory content, or divine disclosures, pertaining to covenant. Leaving aside specifics of what exactly the believers in a donum superadditum think it constitutes, is this not in substance a donum superadditum? It's supernatural in the same sense of the word, as exceeding the powers of nature as such -- Adam before the Fall, being good in the way that God made him to be, is not able of himself to know certain things pertaining to the inner life of God, which God in fact revealed to him "verbally," by "special providence," and not by "creation" alone. Adam in his natural powers, more than each one of us, can know such things as the existence of God, his general goodness, etc; but can he know that God is trinity, or the names of the persons, or things pertaining to God's free and future decisions, like what He might have in story for Adam; and so on, unless God tells him? Such knowledge is supernatural, exceeding Adams natural capacity to produce, even though Adam's nature is able to receive such knowledge. It's supernatural whether Adam was created with it, implanted, told by an audible voice from the heavens, etc. On the other hand, if Adam could have or did know these things already, was God being redundant in verbally disclosing them supernaturally?
These distinctions are very important. Without further clarification, what you have said here on Van Til in Nature and Scripture is substantially the same as , or veering close to, what is usually meant by the donum superadditum. There are defensible versions of the DS that hold that the natural and supernatural endowments of Adam, though distinct, were created together -- in other words, Adam never existed in a purely natural state, to be supernaturally elevated later. God creates both Adam's nature and the grace he bestows on Adam -- grace is a created effect, an effect of God in the creature, and is not God himself or in essence. That they are distinct in no way means there is any rivalry -- nature is inherently receptive to (supernatural) grace, and God is the author of both,. That there isn't a single moment of Adam's existence in which he doesn't depend on grace, in no way impugns the magnificence of God's handiwork in Adam's nature qua nature. It only serves to highlight that from the very beginning, God intended radical dependency of the creature on Himself, and intimate fellowship of covenant (this does not preclude a subsequent further elevation(s) to glory or beatitude). And at the same time it highlights God's utter transcendence, by pointing out that a human being, even in the state of integrity, cannot have all imaginable and actual forms of intimacy with All-holy God except by additional gift (additional, because Adam's nature is already gift -- "everything is grace"). Nature was created for, in view of, and receptive to super-nature, with them both together taking man up into life and fellowship with God.
Can you please engage with Lutheran scholastics on this issue (or on others?) I’m trying to sketch out the commonalities and differences and it’s leading into some extremely subtle distinctions. I could really use your expertise and broader knowledge!
I believe natural theology may provide a great point of contact both for the cultural and the Gospel mandates to the unreached elect out there. Yet for the suppressors of truth in unrighteousness both natural theology and a point of contact will serve only to testify against them in their judgment. They dismiss both just as senator Biden dismissed natural law in the hearing of justice Clarence Thomas (1991)