Natural Theology and Luther

KEVIN HARRIS: Bill, let’s look at a review^[1] of the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology which you and J. P. Moreland edited and published back in 2012. I’d like to revisit a few topics related to this very influential publication and examine the distinct Lutheran views of this particular reviewer. In fact, this reviewer seems to be saying that Luther wouldn’t have given a lot of value to this volume. Just to rehearse, why did you and J. P. edit this big book?

DR. CRAIG: I think that natural theology helps to create a cultural milieu in which the Gospel can be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women. It's extremely important that we maintain a culture in this country in which belief in God doesn't require a sacrifice of the intellect on the part of the believer. So natural theology, by being robust in its defense of theism as a worldview, helps to create a cultural context that is conducive to belief in the Gospel. Also, I think that God can use the arguments of natural theology to persuade people that God, in fact, does exist so that then they might in turn seek to find him and come to know him by placing their trust and confidence in him.

KEVIN HARRIS: Let's take a look at the first clip from Ken Coughlan. He's media director and director of international programs and staff council for Trinity Lutheran Church and School in Joppa, Maryland. He's also a lawyer. He speaks on apologetics. In this excerpt he gives the definition of natural theology that comes from the Blackwell Companion’s introduction. Here it is.

KEN COUGHLAN: In chapter one of the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Charles Taliaferro defines natural theology as the practice of philosophically reflecting on the existence and nature of God independent of real or apparent divine revelation or Scripture. Look, that definition alone may leave a lot of Lutherans squirming in their seats, if not wanting to stand up and shout. And that's understandable. I think it's fair to say that the way many theologians approach natural theology today is at odds with Luther's conception of the theology of the cross and theology of glory and his understanding of the limitations of fallen human reason. We sometimes seem to presuppose that people have the ability to reason their way all the way to the specific truths about the divine nature. And that's plainly not true. So since I'm talking about a book on natural theology, I really should start out by acknowledging the elephant in the room – whether this book is worth reading for you will depend at the outset upon your view on the role of natural theology and whether it has any place in the Lutheran tradition.

KEVIN HARRIS: The elephant in the room. That includes Luther's distinct views on natural theology which Ken says may cause some of our Lutheran friends to skip the book entirely. What can you tell us about Luther's view on this?

DR. CRAIG: This is very interesting today to interact with a Lutheran theologian. I don't think that we've ever done that before on these podcasts. Luther himself may not have been very enthusiastic about the project of natural theology. As Ken said, Luther emphasized a theology of the cross based upon God's revelation in Jesus and in his Word rather than a theology of glory such as one has in medieval scholasticism where you can literally talk about how many angels dance on the head of a pin. Luther thought that human reason was fallen and corrupted, and therefore not reliable in leading to a knowledge of God apart from the revelation of Scripture. Now, having said that though, it's also true that in Luther's commentary on the book of Romans he recognizes that in Romans chapter 1 Paul does teach that there is a natural knowledge of God which is available from the creation alone apart from divine special revelation. From the created order about us, we can know the eternal power and deity of God. But Luther would simply emphasize that this is not a saving knowledge of God. It gives us knowledge of God's existence and some of his attributes, but it does not save. Despite Luther's somewhat negative attitude toward natural theology, it needs to be said that his younger colleague and successor Philip Melanchthon and post-Reformation Lutheran theology did endorse the project of natural theology but they just didn't consider it to offer saving knowledge of God. I have here a book by the Lutheran theologian Robert Preus entitled The Theology of Post Reformation Lutheranism, and I'd like to read you a passage on the Lutheran theologian’s attitude toward natural theology. This is what Preus says. He says,

What does the scope of natural theology after the Fall include? The answer to this question is very explicit in Lutheran theology. Although natural theology is sufficient to render all men without excuse for their unbelief, it is not sufficient to lead anyone to salvation. The extent of this theology may be summed up in five points. (A) Natural theology is able to discuss God, his nature, and attributes. It knows nothing however of the three persons of the deity of God's evangelical will and works of grace. (B) Natural theology knows the law of God as heathen philosophy and religion abundantly demonstrate. (C) It knows that sin is the transgression of the law. (D) It is aware of the guilt incurred by sin for conscience testifies to this. (E) Natural theology knows of the immortality of the soul and life after death.

And according to Preus, all Lutheran theologians were united in this. So I think you can say that there's really a rather enthusiastic endorsement of the project of natural theology so long as one doesn't pretend that through natural theology alone one comes to a saving knowledge of God.

KEVIN HARRIS: I suppose that that would require God's special revelation – the atonement, the resurrection of Jesus, and so on. What he did for our sins. You don't get that from natural theology alone.

DR. CRAIG: No. You wouldn't have a knowledge of that. I do think that it's an open question to what degree someone who lives at a time and place in history where he has only the natural revelation available to him whether or not the benefits of Christ's blood can be applied to him without a conscious knowledge of Christ. Certainly there are Old Testament figures like Job that had no knowledge of Christ and his atoning death but who were saved only through Christ and his atoning death. So I think that's an open question. But at least for Lutherans I think you can see that they can endorse, and do endorse, really a very robust natural theology that demonstrates to us the existence and nature of God which is all that the Blackwell Companion is about.

KEVIN HARRIS: Here's the next clip. Ken delves further into Luther's theology. Check this out.

KEN COUGHLAN: I will recommend, if you haven't already read it, what I believe is an excellent article on the subject from 2017 in the European Journal for Philosophy of Religion by Ilmari Karimies titled “Lutheran Perspective on Natural Theology.” According to Dr. Karimies, in Luther's lectures on Romans we see that he argued that all humans have an abstract knowledge of God. Some of this knowledge is innate, but some is also derived from observing the creation. However, our reason builds knowledge based upon what's familiar to it. Without the gift of faith, none of us have experiential knowledge of God's true nature. So while fallen humans are capable of reasoning to God's existence through observing his creation (as Paul says in Romans 1:20), if we try to get more specific and describe his particular attributes our descriptions will inevitably be based upon what we see in the fallen world around us because without the gift of faith we can't have the accurate knowledge of God to make the proper connections between the creation and the specific nature of the Creator. As Karimies puts it, when a person forms by natural reason a concept of God and attributes to him divine properties without the spiritual wisdom that comes from experiential knowledge of God in faith, the person uses in understanding the quality of those properties, the abstractions of the natural finite good things, as his model. This is why, for example, people have worshiped idols or knelt at the proverbial altar of naturalism.

KEVIN HARRIS: A lot to talk about there. I really am curious about the gift of faith that he brought up.

DR. CRAIG: Yes. I think this clip bears out what I was saying before that through natural theology one doesn't gain that experiential knowledge of God through faith. But we mustn't deny the fact that through nature around us we can know certain properties of God, and the Lutheran theologians would affirm that. That God is powerful, for example. That he's a creator. That he's intelligent. These are meaningful and important properties of the God revealed in nature. Now, concerning that gift of faith, it's important to understand that Lutherans and Reformed have a view of God's election and grace that is deterministic. Grace is given to those whom God chooses and it is irresistible. So, in contrast to Arminian Christians and Wesleyan Christians who would emphasize our freedom to respond to God's grace, for Lutherans and Reformed God's grace is unilaterally efficacious.

KEVIN HARRIS: It's troublesome to me. I've had several people tell me they don't think that they have the gift of faith, and that's why they don't believe. I remember well one atheist in dialogue with me told me that that's why he's off the hook. He can't be blamed for not having been given the gift of faith.

DR. CRAIG: Isn’t that ironic that these nonbelievers would be endorsing a Lutheran or Reformed view of the gift of grace! How do they know that that's correct, rather than a more Arminian view of grace? And in any case, it's not clear to me that a person cannot seek for God, and that one will respond to his gift of grace by means of one's own free will. So I don't think this puts people off the hook in any way.

KEVIN HARRIS: Here's the next clip. More on what he says are Luther's concerns with natural theology.

KEN COUGHLAN: This though does leave the door slightly open for the use of natural theology within a Lutheran tradition. First, even Luther agreed that an abstract knowledge of God could be arrived at by observing creation. So natural theology would be useful at least up to that point. Beyond that, though, the chief obstacle in appreciating the quality of God's properties is the lack of faith. If so, then someone who has been given the gift of faith can appreciate these connections and get to know God better by studying how he has acted in creation. So natural theology can be valuable for the believer. Finally, faith is the gift of God through the Holy Spirit. We don't know to whom or when God is going to bestow that gift. God could soften the heart of a non-believer and open their eyes to the divine reality at which point the arguments of natural theology will make sense to them. For that reason, I don't personally see Luther's concern so much as an excuse for not engaging in discussions of natural theology with non-believers, so much as setting the expectation that by and large we shouldn't expect people to recognize the truth behind the arguments. Without God giving them faith, the arguments just won't work.

KEVIN HARRIS: More on the gift of faith there. He said the door is not completely closed to the Lutheran when it comes to the value of natural theology.

DR. CRAIG: Oh, not at all. In these remarks, I think this is a really strong endorsement of the project of natural theology. There's both an innate knowledge of God in the human soul, but then also acquired knowledge of God via the creation around us. And all he wants to emphasize is that given our fallenness and sinfulness, our experiential knowledge of God will not be complete through natural theology. We need God's grace to work in our heart. In my theology I would say that God's will is that all persons be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth and that therefore he bestows on all persons sufficient grace to come to saving faith if they will respond to God's gracious initiatives. I don't think that God passes anybody by, but as the Scripture says he truly wants all to be saved. So natural theology can be a sort of propaedeutic (or introduction) to the knowledge of God through the Gospel.

KEVIN HARRIS: Here's more of Ken's review. He talks about who the book was written for.

KEN COUGHLAN: Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland. At 662 pages long (not including the introduction or Index), this is not a beginner's book. It's not even an intermediate book. This is an advanced in-depth treatment of the leading arguments in natural theology presented by some of the brightest minds in the field. To be clear, if you do not already have a solid background in natural theology you will likely have a hard time following many of the chapters. The argumentation is rigorous, dense, and often assumes that the reader already has an understanding of the terminology and fundamental concepts. If this isn't you, I'd recommend William Lane Craig’s On Guard as a more introductory resource, or his Reasonable Faith or Philosophy of Religion: A Reader and Guide for reading at an intermediate level.

KEVIN HARRIS: Well, it is a big book. I mean, it's quite thick. Do you agree with his assessment of who the audience is for the book?

DR. CRAIG: Oh, absolutely. It's not the length of the book that's daunting, it's the depth of the book that is difficult. This is a book written for professional philosophers and philosophical theologians. It is not a book that's intended for lay people. I really appreciated Ken's endorsement of my more elementary books to introduce these subjects to people. You don't throw somebody into the deep end when he's just learning to swim. But I think, again, to come back to my opening remarks, in an increasingly secular culture in which the university intelligentsia scorns belief in God and in Christianity, it is vitally important that we outthink them – that our scholarship is better than theirs is. And that there are books like the Blackwell Companion where in depth, robust, sophisticated arguments for the existence of God are presented. So when J. P. and I put this book together, we said to the contributors, “You can write as long an article as you want. We want you to fully develop your arguments.” So rather than limiting one of the contributors to 20 or 25 pages, we said, “Write a treatise as long as you want, and we'll include it.” So there are essays in this book that are 80 pages, 100 pages long, unfolding in tremendous depth the different arguments. Alexander Pruss writing on the argument from contingency. James Sinclair and I writing on the kalam cosmological argument. Robin Collins’ superlative work on the teleological argument from the fine-tuning of the universe. Mark Linville's discussion of the moral argument. This is intended to be a book that will be read and interacted with by our philosophical colleagues. I must say I have been really thrilled with the reception that the book has received over the years.

KEVIN HARRIS: Here is the final excerpt and Ken's summation. Let's check out this clip.

KEN COUGHLAN: If you're the kind of person that picks up most of the mass market books on subjects like these and you find yourself feeling like you've read all this before and you're longing to go deeper, then I would suggest giving the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology a try. Thank you very much. God bless.

KEVIN HARRIS: Bill, you and J. P.  have said that the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology is not exactly a casual read. Sum it up for us as we conclude today.

DR. CRAIG: Well, again, I just appreciate so much Ken's endorsement especially for those in the Lutheran confession. I think that Lutheran believers can come to this book with confidence that the contributors to this book are offering solid, substantive arguments for the existence of God that Lutheran theologians would have endorsed, and that it is in no way meant to be a substitute for proclamation and faith in the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, now that I think about it, one of the important essays in the book is a very long defense of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection from the dead by Timothy and Lydia McGrew. So the book actually does spill over into Christian apologetics as well as merely theistic argumentation.^[2]