The Prospects for `Mediate` Natural Theology in

Transcription

The Prospects for 'Mediate' Natural Theology in John Calvin
Author(s): Michael L. Czapkay Sudduth
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Religious Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Mar., 1995), pp. 53-68
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20019715 .
Accessed: 18/03/2013 13:54
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Religious
Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:54:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Rel. Stud. 31, pp. 53-68.
?
Copyright
1995 Cambridge
University
L. CZAPKAY
MICHAEL
Press
SUDDUTH
THE PROSPECTS FOR 'MEDIATE'
IN JOHN CALVIN
NATURAL THEOLOGY
One
which
of the perennial
questions
to be discussed
continues
in the history
of Reformed
in contemporary
Calvin
theology,
and
and
scholarship
discussion
Calvin's
of religion,
involves
the question
of whether
philosophy
of the natural knowledge
of God in the opening
chapters of the Institutes of the
Christian Religion can be taken as a presentation
of arguments for the existence
of God. How
shall we construe
the mode of man's natural knowledge
of God
in Calvin?
More
isman's
precisely,
or
beliefs
(other
knowledge),
or immediate?
In the present paper
of a mediate natural
natural
of God mediated
knowledge
by
or is it something
in some sense innate
I would
like to consider
the plausibility
on recent
in Calvin. Drawing
in
developments
reasons
theology
to argue
I want
that, though
theology,
philosophical
a
endorse
traditional
natural
based on
explicitly
theology
statements
theistic arguments
and makes
several apparently
negative
regard?
a
are
such
there
nonetheless
for
that
ing
project,
good grounds
holding
epistemology
Calvin
does
mediate
implicit
theology
and
not
natural
theology
in or compatible
to be canvassed
I. THE
can be construed
with
the salient
and
in such a way as to be either
relevant
features of Calvin's
in this paper.
NATURAL
OF
KNOWLEDGE
GOD
to Calvin,
'There
According
an
awareness
natural
instinct,
all men a certain understanding
is within
the human mind,
and indeed by
of divinity_God
himself has implanted
in
of his divine majesty'
(I. iii. i).1 In addition
to this internal
sensus divinitatis
or engraved
on the hearts of all
inscribed
source
to
draws
Calvin
another
attention
man's
of
natural knowledge
people,
of God:
'The knowledge
of God shines forth in the fashioning
of the universe
v.
and the continuing
of
it'
has
governing
(I.
i). 'Not only,' writes Calvin
'sowed in men's minds
that seed of religion of which we have spoken
God,
but
revealed
himself
in the whole workmanship
and daily discloses
himself
men cannot open their eyes without
As a consequence,
being
to see him'
two apparently
passages
compelled
(I. v. i). These
suggest
distinct modes
natural
of God.
In book
i,
(or sources) of man's
knowledge
of the universe.
1
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, tr. Ford Lewis
vol. XX-XXI
The Westminster
Press,
(Philadelphia:
i960).
Battles,
in the Library of Christian Classics,
MICHAEL
54
L.
CZAPKAY
SUDDUTH
that the knowledge
of God has
establishes
3 of the Institutes, Calvin
chapter
been naturally
in
next
human
In
the
the
mind.
implanted
chapter, he argues
that this (naturally
of
God
has
been
smothered
and
knowledge
implanted)
on
to say that, not only
in book
1, chapter
Then,
5 Calvin
goes
corrupted.
has God sowed the seed of religion in the minds of men, but he reveals Himself
of the unmistakable
marks of His
daily by means
on his individual
to Calvin
works.
Subsequent
ments
to the Institutes
and
it became
Catechism)
distinction
here
in the various
(beginning
on
commentaries
in Reformed
commonplace
in terms of a distinction
glory which
between
He
has placed
in the Abridge?
the Heidelberg
to capture Calvin's
internal and external
circles
an
or revelation.2
are two distinct modes
There
by which man has a
one
a priori and another
of
innate
and
God,
internal,
knowledge
a
in
the
work
of
creation
and
external,
posteriori.
we view Calvin
a natural
as maintaining
Whether
of God by
knowledge
on
we
will depend
how
take
Calvin's
way of reasons or arguments
heavily
no
a
to
distinction
whether
there
is
distinc?
apparent
(or
beg
questions
'
'
between
the
of
in
God
the mind
and that
tion)
knowledge
implanted
witness
natural
'set forth in creation'.
This century Edward
knowledge
Dowey
(following
as
B. B. Warfield)
has suggested
the raw material,
that experience
provides
it were, out of which man draws conclusions
about God. Hence
the knowl?
and based upon empirical
observation.
edge ' is inferential
Dowey
speaks of
'
'
'3
character
of Calvin's
the highly
inductive
natural arguments,
and asserts
'
'
man
to Calvin,
of God from nature.
infers certain attributes
that, according
on the other hand,
L. Parker,
that 'Neither
argues
as supplying
to
I
of
book
be
5
chapter
ought
interpreted
'4
to
Parker
St.
Thomas'
demonstrations.
does
equivalent
T. H.
1 nor
chapter
the Calvinian
not
think
that
or sanctioning
as in any way presenting
inferential
a
of
has
God.
Most
Alvin
added
contribution
recently,
Plantinga
knowledge
to this debate by maintaining
innate
that we have been created with certain
Calvin
should
be viewed
to form belief in God
in the appropriate
where
circumstances,
dispositions
at least include widely
realized
these circumstances
conditions,
experiential
the starry night
such as observing
sky or some other aspect of the created
seems to avoid the difficulty
of two-mode
interpretation
one
two
to
of
the
mode
conditions,
(at least)
consisting
by reducing
to the individual.
is external
of which
is internal and the other which
order.5 This
recent
theories
one
Briefly
addressed
2
See John
of the debate
then, these are the basic contours
sketched,
Calvin's
should we construe
here. How
understanding
Platt,
1573-1650
Theology,
3
Edward Dowey,
Reformed Thought and Scholasticism : The Arguments for the Existence of God
3-6, and 8.
chapters
(Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1982), especially
The Knowledge of God in Calvin's Theology
University
(New York: Columbia
to be
of
the
in Dutch
Press,
!952), p. 77
4
T. H. L. Parker, Calvin's Doctrine of theKnowledge of God (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans,
1959), pp. 7-9.
5
in Faith and Rationality :Reason and Belief inGod, ed. Alvin
Alvin Plantinga,
'Reason and Belief in God'
of Notre Dame
and Nicholas Wolterstorff
Press, 1983), pp. 65-67.
(Notre Dame: University
Plantinga
of God?
natural
knowledge
mediated
by reasons?
II.
THE
THEOLOGY
NATURAL
'MEDIATE'
it legitimately
Can
OF
ASSESSMENT
NEGATIVE
the beginning
it must
be admitted
disparaging
as based
especially
comments
in the way
From
ently)
MEDIATE
IN
JOHN
be construed
NATURAL
that Calvin
of man's
CALVIN
makes
natural
55
as inferential
or
THEOLOGY
several
knowledge
(appar?
of God,
on arguments.
( i ) The principle of epistemicdeficiencyand thenoetic effectsof sin
'
of God of which Calvin
knowledge
speaks is that primal and
to which
the very order of nature would
have
led us if
simple knowledge
in vain that so many
Adam had remained upright'
(I. ii. i). 'It is therefore
The
natural
to show forth
of the universe
burning
lamps shine for us in the workmanship
us
in
bathe
their
the glory of its Author.
radiance,
yet
they
wholly
Although
in no way
lead us into the right path. Surely
they
they can of themselves
strike some sparks, but before
their fuller
these are
light shines forth
(I. v.
the inner and outer witness
of God, man falls
14). Despite
'
to
dull toward
into superstition
and fails
worship God. We grow increasingly
so manifest
us'
and they flow away without
testimonies,
(I. v. ii).
profiting
two
in
of
is
limited
it is
The natural
God,
ways. First,
though,
knowledge
smothered'
a knowledge
of God
of God as creator; but an adequate
is
knowledge
only
a
and quite important,
of Him as creator and redeemer.
Secondly,
knowledge
man's
of God
is limited by the subjective conditions of man's
natural knowledge
of the two modes
of man's
natural knowledge
discussion
sinful state. Calvin's
of God
as creator
is heavily qualified
that this knowledge
is
by his insistence
man
in
fall
the
of
the
of
and
sin
the
human
presence
by
corrupted
personality.
'
The knowledge
he has in view is the primal and simple knowledge
to which
'
have led us ifAdam
had remained
the very order of nature would
upright
si integer stetisset Adam,
last phrase,
indicates
that
(I. ii. 1). The
a restriction
on how far man can go in terms of knowledge
introduces
reason. Calvin
based upon natural
that for post-lapsarian
recognizes
the fall
of God
man
is corrupted,
and untrustworthy.
the natural knowledge
of God
incomplete
'
If men were
to
would
hold
certain or
taught only by nature,
they
nothing
as to
solid or clear-cut,
but would
be so tied to confused principles
worship
an unknown
tells us that the evidence
of God
in
god'
(I. v. 12). Calvin
not profit man,
his mind has been darkened.
because
Notice
in nature
revelation
is not inherently
that God's
it is rendered
obscure;
we
can
man's
unclear
virtue
of
what
call
blindness.
The human
epistemic
by
so
race
is
that
the
human
is
vitiated
either
from
personality
by sin,
prevented
creation
does
'seeing'
creation.
the wonderful
and
clear
We
therefore
knowledge
marks
'lack
of God'
of God
the natural
(I. v.
or perverts
the witness
in
of God
to mount
up unto the pure
ability
15).
L.
MICHAEL
56
CZAPKAY
(2) The principle
SUDDUTH
of moral
inexcusability
of God
is to render man
knowledge
sees Romans
before God. Calvin
inexcusable
morally
chapter one as laying
an important
down
the
natural
of God :
governing
principle
knowledge
to
Paul
that
is
'Where
teaches
what
be known of God ismade plain from the
the fall
Since
the role of man's
natural
[Romans
1:19], he does not signify such a manifestation
can
but, rather, shows it not to go farther
comprehend;
v.
than to render men
inexcusable'
(I.
14). God gives men a 'slight taste of
so that they 'might not hide their impiety under a cloak of
his divinity'
creation
of the world
as men's
discernment
of the
the original
purpose
(II. ii. 18). Although
ignorance'
(pre-lapsarian)
in the mind
in the natural order was
of God implanted
and revealed
witness
race to an adoration
as well as to
to stir the human
and worship
of God,
man
in the hope of the future
this natural
life, sin has twisted
now
in
of
sits
the
works
of God
knowledge
by idly
contemplation
care
over
to
the
Maker
and
his
the
without
world.
But
regard
providential
'
a
to achieve
all
of God,
pure and clear knowledge
inability
despite man's
encourage
so that man
excuse
is cut off because
the fault
(3) The principle
of dullness
is within
us'
(I. v.
15).
of the evident nature of the external witness
natural
of God
is to render him inex?
of man's
knowledge
reason for God's
then there is a prima facie
self
his Maker,
to be quite evident. But arguments
of
involve a making
of himself
is not itself evident.
But the external witness
is
evident which
If the purpose
before
cusable
revelation
something
something
quite
ence and nature
'very great
account
evident. Calvin's
of God is from the created
clarity'
and
'so manifest
emphasizes
world. God
how
evident the exist?
presents
himself
with
testimonies.'
see that no long or toilsome proof [demonstratio] is needed to elicit evidences
since the few we
[testimonia] that serve to illuminate and affirm the divine majesty;
We
have
sampled
at
random,
withersoever
you
turn,
it
is clear
manifest and obvious that they can easily be observed with
with the finger (I. v. 9).
In this crucial
luted
syllogisms
in creation
that
they
are
very
the eyes and pointed
out
convo?
cites as a reason for not constructing
passage Calvin
of
the fact that there is no need to do so. The manifestation
so there is no need to make
is
evident what
is perspicuous,
because
in fact already evident. And Calvin has good reason for holding
this,
- as
of the natural knowledge
he believes
that the function
just seen above
God
of God
for fallen man
is to render him without
excuse
before God.
This would
and
if men had to reason through cumbersome
be compromised
syllogisms
a
even
at
to
In
his
of
God's
existence.
arrive
distinctions
scholastic
knowledge
'
an
on Acts, Calvin makes
between
distinction
important
philo?
Commentary
Paul
and
for
with
which
the
instance,
simplicity,
argumentation'
sophical
and
Barnabas
Gentiles
treated
the evidence
of God's
providence
at Lystra.
in nature
to the
not
I do
the
understand
this
manner
philosophical
to mean
about
IN
THEOLOGY
NATURAL
'mediate'
that
the
they
secrets
offered
of
uninstructed,
ordinary people. And so they had
was known by all the uneducated. Nevertheless,
order
the
iii.
of nature
the
explicit
Calvin
is a certain
prospects
calvin:
I should
there
begin by
commitment
for
the
nature
and
clear
mediate
a
reasoned
closely
for
nature,
were
they
57
in
discourse
addressing
to set forth in simple words what
they assume this principle that in
manifestation
of God.6
natural
in
theology
inferential
of
CALVIN
JOHN
knowledge
stating at once that the prospects
to theistic arguments
in Calvin
for establishing
any
is quite bleak. Recent
that the explicit
endorse?
has shown quite conclusively
scholarship
of arguments
for the existence
of God
is something
(and attributes)
which
entered
into
Protestantism
the
of Prot?
formally
through
development
estant scholasticism
in the second half of the 16th century under Reformed
ment
such as Theodore
theologians
sinus and Girolamo
Zanchi.7
Beza, Peter Martyr
Vermigli,
The significant methodological
the calvinists
suggest an explicit
Calvin
and
place between
tween
biblical
the Christocentric
philosophical
theology
is interested
theologian
natural
reason, Calvin
theology
of his followers.
in a knowledge
has a different
of Calvin
and
where
Consequently,
of God's existence
goal
in mind.
Zacharias
Ur
shifts that took
distinction
the
be?
theocentric
the philosophical
(and attributes)
by
a
aims to develop
a knowledge which affects
He
of God
but
knowledge
(not simply of His existence),
- a
we
and moves toworship
that has an existential
and
knowledge,
might way,
out
ethical dimension.8
to
Edward Dowey
that
it
is
difficult
down
points
pin
an exact definition
use of the word
to Calvin's
'knowledge,'
though he
awareness
at which
that 'existential'
best describes
the affecting
suggests
at
Calvin
is aiming.9
in
mind
these
So, bearing
distinctions,
any attempt
or
theistic arguments
mediate
in Calvin will have
natural
treating
theology
to rest content with
rather modest
claims.
goals and cautious
to the case for a mediate
Crucial
is the meaning
natural
of
theology
on
we
for
the
the
what
of
former
inferential knowledge,
possibility
depends
to do some epis?
understand
by the latter. To this end, it will be needful
and clarify the notion
temology
belief to be based on other beliefs.
o? grounds of belief and what
it means
for a
If we think of beliefs as the output of various
or mechanisms,
we can think of the ground of a belief as
processes
cognitive
to
the psychological
the
relevant
and where
this
input
cognitive mechanism,
or
input may be either beliefs
experiences
(in the broad sense). The based
6
John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries : The Acts of the Apostles 14-28, tr. John W. Fraser and ed. David
and Thomas
Torrance
F. Torrance
and Boyd,
(London: Oliver
1966), p. 13.
7
See John Platt, Reformed Thought and Scholasticism; John Patrick Donnelly,
'Italian influences on the
of Calvinistic
The Sixteenth Century Journal, VII:8i-ioi
Scholasticism,'
Development
1976),
(April,
'Calvinistic Thomism,'
The Intellectual Origins of the European
Viator, 7:441-5
(1976); Alister McGrath,
Blackwell
8.
Publishers,
Reformation
(Oxford:
1987), chapter
8
It is this sort of knowledge
is often under consideration
which
to the
when Calvin draws attention
of man's
limitations
natural knowledge
of God.
9
The Knowledge of God in Calvin's Theology (New York: Columbia
Dowey,
Press, 1952), pp.
University
W.
24-27.
MICHAEL
58
L. CZAPKAY
SUDDUTH
on relation
will then be spelled out in terms of the processes
taking account
of the appropriate
features of the ground
and the belief being formed - as it
were - in the
a ground will not be the total
light of these features. Hence
a
to
but those features of the input that are
mechanism,
input
belief-forming
taken account
of in the actual formation
can now draw
of the belief.10 We
a distinction
two quite different
one
between
or know
believe
ways
may
something
one sense
though
Grounds
or
is mediated
is
knowledge
by reasons. There
can possess
even
mediated
reasons,
knowledge
by
process of inferring p from q.
through any conscious
where
this belief
in which
a person
S has not gone
may be possessed
and their being utilized
in the formation
implicitly
not be something
aware
the subject is
is happening.
As long
as other
are
attitudes
the
features
of
the
account
taken
propositional
input
on
some
S
believe
even
the
basis
of
other
of,
may
p
belief,
though S is not
on the
conscious
of the fact that she is believing
some
of
other beliefs
grounds
she possesses. This can be contrasted
with a mediate
that is the
knowledge
of a belief
need
p from some other proposition
inferring some proposition
an
reason
for
latter type of mediate
p. The
adequate
be called
the
former
argumentative;
nonargumentative.
result of the subject
constitutes
q which
can
knowledge
What
has often confused
matters
is that both
have
been
referred
to as cases
of inferential
to theistic belief both could be classified
and applied
knowledge,
as instances of mediate
natural
In both cases knowledge
is formed
theology.
on the basis of other
a person believes
or knows. But we should not
things
a beliefs
being based on other beliefs
(and thereby being mediated
a
with
the
of
belief
from
other beliefs.11
by them)
activity
inferring
The distinction
between
these two types of believing
for a reason has been
at
treated
Robert
and his distinction
is
Audi,
length by the epistemologist
confuse
between
inferential'
beliefs
quite helpful. Audi
distinguishes
'structurally
and
inferential'
are
beliefs.12
S
believe
the
that
may
'episodically
Jones's
on.
home for the reason that their living-room
are
not
S
does
believe
lights
are home because he has gone
that the Jones's
through a process of inferring
as
a
this
conclusion
from a premise
S takes note of the
(or set of premises).
fact that the lights are turned on in the Jones's
and, already
living-room
the belief that when
the Jones's
possessing
living-room
lights are turned on
are
in the evening
the Jones's
the belief that they are home is formed.
home,
S's belief that when
the Jones's
living room lights are turned on the Jones's
are home
is taken account
of (along with
the belief that the lights are now
are home. What
of the belief the Jones's
on) in the formation
a
a
reason
is belief due to
(or reasons), but not due to a reasoning
turned
here
10
This
account
(Ithaca: Cornell
11
See William
is taken
University
Alston,
from William
Alston,
'An Internalist
Externalism'
we have
process.
in Epistemic Justification
Press,
1989), pp. 228-231.
of Epistemic
'Concepts
Justification'
and 'An Internalist
Externalism'
in
Press,
Epistemic Justification
(Ithaca: Cornell University
227-229.
1989), pp. 99-101,
See Robert Audi, The Structure of Justification
Press,
(New York: Cambridge
University
1993), pp.
237-239
Alston,
12
NATURAL
'mediate'
IN
THEOLOGY
CALVIN
JOHN
59
to Audi,
that underlies
there is an argument
this case, in the sense
According
one
of'an
is
and
abstract
that
structure',
enthyme
argumentai
probably
r to the target belief b.
reason
from the grounding
matic,
(or reasons)
for a reason in such an instance
is structurally inferential.
On
the
Believing
or internal
other hand,
b may
arise from a tokening
recitation
of that
structure by actually
be episodically
inferring h from r. Such a belief would
a
reason
inferential. Although
for
belief
that
is
inferential
every
episodically
the converse
is structurally
inferential,
The
of
consequences
or mediate
inferential
does
not hold.
this for assessing
the plausibility
God
of
should
be noted.
knowledge
in the passages we have
for the existence
of God,
looked
at, expresses
this does not entail
an
of possessing
Calvin,
Although
low view of arguments
a rather
a low view
(or no view for that
in
is
what Calvin
says
theology.
implicit
a
of
the
Institutes
inferential
form of natural
i, chapter 5
structurally
that involves a knowledge
of God based on other
(justified) beliefs
of mediate
matter)
in book
theology
or knowledge
and believes
natural
There
of the person. Perhaps
S takes notice of the order in nature,
for the reason that S takes such things as indications
seems to think that there are many
of a Designer.
And Calvin
(evidences)
to us:
such instances which
themselves
present
in God
are innumerable
There
wonderful
evidences
; not
wisdom
those
only
both
more
and on earth
in heaven
recondite
matters
for
the
that declare
closer
his
observation
of which astronomy, medicine,
and all natural science are intended, but also those
that thrust themselves upon the sight of even the most untutored
and ignorant
so
cannot
that
their
to witness
without
persons,
open
eyes
they
being compelled
them_
To
be
to
look
upon
taught
divine
variety
of
his
glory.
only
by
Even
the
art, for it reveals
of
the
is need
the
art
of
and
to determine
stars,
of more
their
to note their properties. As God's
one observes these, so the mind must
their intervals,
explicitly when
been
there
sure,
the motion
investigate
the
of
common
the
eyes,
folk
host_
heavenly
be argued,
tions of widely
realized
Likewise,
be
to
order
to measure
shows itself more
providence
rise to a somewhat higher level
untutored,
of the
unaware
and yet distinct
in regard
in
stations,
the most
and
cannot
itself in this innumerable
body... the human body
Artificer
is rightly judged
It might
aid
toil
exacting
assigned
to
the
structure
shows itself to be a composition
a wonder-worker
(I. v. 1, 2).
who
have
excellence
of
and well-ordered
of
the
so ingenious
human
that
its
that what we have here are merely
though,
descrip?
in which
circumstances
belief in God
is formed. As
commonsense
mentioned,
Plantinga
(drawing on the Scottish
phil?
can
Thomas
as
has
that
Calvin
be
read
that
osopher
Reid)
argued
holding
we are designed
in such a way that we have an innate disposition
sensus
(the
to form beliefs about God under certain circumstances,
such as
divinitatis)
those laid out by Calvin
in the above passage. But then belief in God is based
already
on
or reasons,
and hence
the
I would
in
to
this
However,
argue
response
of Calvin
its philosophical
that, despite
interpretation
the grounds
of experience,
not mediate.
belief is immediate
increasingly
prevalent
not
other
beliefs
6o
MICHAEL
L.
SUDDUTH
CZAPKAY
it is as an interpretation
of Calvin
somewhat
plausibility,
misleading.
not merely
two elements
to distinguish,
in a single
Calvin means
involved
in which man
of theistic belief formation,
but two distinct modes
mode
a natural knowledge
of God. Note
the contrast Calvin makes:
'He
possesses
in men's
that seed of re?
has not only
minds
[non solum] sowed
... but
in the whole
revealed
himself
and
discloses
himself
[sed]
daily
ligion
v.
Calvin
is quite emphatic
of the universe'
(I.
i). Moreover,
workmanship
men's
the 'sense of divinity...
minds'
about
upon
(I. iii. 3) as
engraved
[God]
of God.
knowledge
constituting
or belief-forming
mechanism
The
sensus divinitatis
is not a mere
that
is innate,
the
but
knowledge
disposition
itself
is
innate.13
are not
external
evidences
suggests that the innumerable
a
sensus
conditions
which
the
divinitatis
theistic
(as
trigger
merely
experiential
a
as an
theistic belief, but function
and yield
belief-forming
mechanism)
reasons
in turn become
of beliefs which
basis for the formation
experiential
This,
of course,
It might
be thought,
though,
the
innate knowledge
of God,
a
sense.
be taken in Reidian
We
the relevant
theistic proposition.
for believing
that even if the sensus divinitatis refers to an
under consideration
may
currently
terms of the experiential
in
for theistic belief
conditions,
solely
believer's
the
of
the
without
step
forming a belief that is then used as
adding
mode
account
the ground
one
modes,
two immediate
has in view
So really Calvin
This
and the other based on experiential
conditions.14
on how one takes Calvin's
in chapter
the
and
claims
5,
for theistic
innate
belief.
obviously
depends
on the interpretation
shows that this is no
of that chapter
history of debate
to decide. However,
I would
is not
favour the view that Calvin
easy matter
on the basis of
are
of
that
there
indications
God
experiential
merely
saying
which
account
sensory
Calvin's
in God having
taken into
believe
that people
to
them in
that
these
the
things presented
belief)
(entertaining
are
Much
of
in
of
God's
existence.
fact indications
experience
the idea that people do in fact recognize
does introduce
discussion
people
but
believe,
to be signs or indications
and
of God's
existence
in question
or
not
are
will
that
these
to
know
whether
they
compelled
'They
'
v. 4). Elsewhere,
are the signs of divinity...
various
after adducing
(I.
in the world, Calvin
control
of God's providential
evidences
speaks of such
as a common way of seeking God
ifwe but 'trace the outlines
that
evidences
the evidences
nature.
above
and below
sketch
a living
likeness
of him'
v.
(I.
6). Moreover,
in the world
refer
many
to facts
order
and
symmetry
examples
are then used as evidences
for the
uncovered
through scientific means, which
In all these cases, I suggest that it is most plausible
of a Designer.
existence
to be emphasizing
the fact that many
to take Calvin
things we come to believe
of Calvin's
of
13
over innate natural knowledge
of God,
on the early controversy
For a discussion
Reformed Thought and Scholasticism.
14 am
to me.
out this possibility
for pointing
to Nicholas Wolterstorff
I
indebted
see John
Platt,
NATURAL
'MEDIATE'
IN JOHN
THEOLOGY
CALVIN
6l
to the senses or uncovered
through more
(that are evident
a
or
some
in grounding
of
role
observation
reasoning)
play
degree
and
if we recall the distinction
between
belief. And
episodically
the world
about
careful
theistic
has actual
beliefs, we need not show that Calvin
come
to
believe
about
God
based
that
arguments
things
only
people
on other things they believe about the world and the fact that they take such
an unsophisticated
of God
(in however
sense).
things to be evidence
to
it
is
reasonable
take
book
So I would
then
that
i, chapter 5
say,
quite
reasons for
to external
evidences
that become
of the Institutes as referring
inferential
structurally
in mind,
rather than mere experiential
conditions which
trigger the forma?
believing,
The
exists
mediation
that God
tion of the belief
(without
by reasons).
one
to
not
that
and
here
is
need
go whole-hog
grasp
important
point
as doing
in
like
the
Five
Calvin
characterize
anything
remotely
Aquinas
In this respect Parker
Ways.
- no
ab alio movetur
calvinian
is correct.
we find no omne quod movetur
to Thomas's
demonstrations.
But,
In Calvin
equivalent
inferential
and episodically
above between
structurally
given the distinction
no
it doesn't
follow that there is
inferential
of
inferential
beliefs,
knowledge
one does not necessarily
infer through any syllogistic method
God. Although
God exists as a conclusion
one does
and
from a series of premises
that state the facts of design
to believe
in the existence
of God
(and perhaps
on the basis of certain other beliefs one has about the
come
order,
some of his attributes)
order of nature and the relation
We
can
call
a mediate
of this fact to the existence
of a creator God.
theology
structurally inferential natural
as
an
to
episodically inferential natural theology.
theology,
opposed
Is there such
But what about an episodically
inferential
natural
theology?
a thing in evidence
in Calvin? Well,
if we assume
the presence
of a struc?
turally
believes
tually
such
natural
in the first instance
natural
then a person who
theology,
a
reason
ac?
for
inferential
may,
upon due reflection,
structurally
a discursive
and reason out matters
that were
go through
process
inferential
or implicit. And
this can obviously
take place at various
to
and
Calvin
refers
and
toilsome
sophistication.
'long
proofs,'
in the philosophical
'reasoned discourse
but
manner',
why suppose that this
to any form of argument
stands opposed
for the existence
implies that Calvin
latent
originally
levels of
of God.
In fact, Calvin's
in book 1, chapter 5 could
discussion
(or attributes)
as
a
case
in
of
such
be
taken
fact
basic forms of argument.
easily
(and
has)
are simple; others complex. And
Some arguments
this itself largely depends
on one's audience.
one
And here
should bear in mind Calvin's
aim in the
Institutes.
He
philosophical
type of thing
Nevertheless,
a guide
on
to the Scriptures,
not a textbook
to
not
it
in
interested
the
is,
put
quite bluntly,
the mind
of the philosophical
occupies
theologian.
is presenting
theology. He
which
he does
earlier we
Although
before the common
recognize
saw Calvin
people,
the value
on argumentation.
of carrying
Paul of philosophical
discourse
disabusing
the complete
passage
shows
that Calvin
nonethe
62
claimed
SUDDUTH
an argument
to be offering
Paul and
of sorts. Although
'
'
Calvin
natural
God was manifested
evidences,
by
Paul
less considered
Barnabas
CZAPKAY
L.
MICHAEL
that
says:
this to mean
I do not understand
the
manner
philosophical
secrets
the
of
order
the
of
is watered
fruits
in
nature
by
such
is a
there
great
and
certain
the
because
rain,
abundance
are
sun
are
earth
not
moved
own
their
by
the conclusion is that this amazing
of God_
[italics mine]15
ingenuity
may
the
because
surely
gather
all things. For the heaven
even
less
much
power,
we
year,
Because
its growth,
quickens
by
from these things that there is some God who governs
the
addressing
of God.
manifestation
the
year
produced
they
in
discourse
were
to set forth in simple words what
they assume this principle that in
clear
of
heat
reasoned
for
nature,
uninstructed,
ordinary people. And so they had
was known by all the uneducated. Nevertheless,
earth
a closely
that they offered
about
of nature plainly
by
points
chance.
and
Therefore,
to the providence
at a more
to carry on argumentation
can be seen ifwe compare
account with
the previous
sophisticated
where
of Paul at Athens
before the Stoics and Epicureans,
Calvin's
discussion
'
from nature who God is, what he
showed by arguments
he claims that Paul
even
Calvin
the need
recognizes
level. This
And again,
is like, and how He is to be worshipped
'Moreover,
properly.'16
he takes his proof from
in debate with profane men,
he is dealing
because
with
them by
his time in contending
nature
have wasted
itself, for he would
texts.'17
citing Scriptural
the blindness
Accordingly
confronted
by
of
awareness
downwards,
God's
the
they
power,
is all the more
of men
a clear
such
and
obvious
presence
are bound
of God.
and
goodness.
wisdom,
to fall
shameful
manifestation,
Wherever
on
living,
For God
and intolerable,
are
they
turn
their
they
and
indeed
has
not
not
when,
moved
eyes,
countless,
obscure
given
by
or
upwards
reminders
hints
an
of
of His
glory in the handiwork of the world, but has engraved such plain marks everywhere,
that they can be known also by touch by the blind. From that we gather that men
are not only blind but stupid, when they are helped by such very clear proofs, but
derive
no
benefit
from
them.18
to a structurally
inferential
in
book
i, chapter
5,
says
implicit
theology
an episodically
natural
inferential
we have grounds
for asserting
theology.
not only by the prospects
of rendering
seems to be supported,
The possibility
com?
Calvin's
of
consideration
the
but
what
is
by
positive
implicit,
explicit
in various
show St. Paul engaging
ments on some key texts of Scripture which
I think we
natural
can
conclude
that,
in addition
in what
at least
Calvin
I take it that the points raised in
from natural
theology.
types of arguments
to respond
to objection
this section serve primarily
3 in section II, for if the
are sound,
natural
there can be an inferential
section
in
this
judgments
if given,
and arguments,
of God which does not require argument,
knowledge
seems to dislike. Moreover,
if
need not be the convoluted
type that Calvin
15
Acts of the Apostles 14-28,
18
Ibid., pp. 118-119.
16
p.
13.
17
Ibid., p.
109.
Ibid., p.
112.
'MEDIATE'
of man
the mind
NATURAL
has been
that, though the external
(as Calvin
emphasizes),
in every instance.
person
evident
as Calvin
But
not
follow
surely
there
63
says it has, then it may be
evident
order is objectively
darkened,
in the natural
witness
it does
CALVIN
that
it will
is a possibility
to every
made
be evident
of it being
by argument.
A
STRENGTHENED
NATURAL
THEOLOGY:
IV.
IN JOHN
THEOLOGY
CASE
AN
FOR
EPISODICALLY
INTRA-FAITH
FUNCTION
INFERENTIAL
FOR
NATURAL
THEOLOGY
for an episodically
inferential
in Calvin
natural
also
prospects
theology
- an
on how we construe
the function
of natural
often
depend
theology
to
an
overlooked
the
I
debate.
There
is
believe
aspect
interesting
analogy
The
that can be drawn
between
what
Calvin
in Scripture
and evidence
for
or role of natural
function
theology.
faith
says about the relationship
the credibility
of Scripture
between
and
the
the topic of arguments
introduces
Interestingly
enough, Calvin
explicitly
in relation
to the knowledge
comes to us through
of God as redeemer which
God's Word
the Holy Scriptures.19
Calvin notes that 'since for unbelieving
men
seems
to
stand
alone,
religion
by opinion
they, in order not believe
or lightly, both wish
anything
foolishly
Moses
and the Prophets
spoke divinely'
and
demand
rational
proof
that
and
(I. vii. 4). But the prophets
on
not
tells
'do
dwell
to
rational
and
us,
apostles,
proofs,'
according
our
a
to
'we
in
seek
conviction
than
human
Calvin,
ought
higher
place
or conjectures,
that is, in the secret testimony
of the
reasons, judgments,
vii. 4). 'The testimony
of the Spirit
is more
excellent
than all
Spirit'
'(I.
as
sees
Calvin.
The
basic
Calvin
it
is
that
faith in
reason,
explains
problem
as
no
or
God's
Word
but
rational
Scripture
argument
requires
certainty,
are the very Word
that the Scriptures
of
proof can establish with certainty
God.
'The certainty
it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony
of the
seems to think of the
of
the
(I. vii. 5). Calvin
Spirit'
testimony
Holy
Spirit
as an actual source of belief and one that is
superior to inference or argument
Calvin
it produces
beliefs with a greater degree of strength or conviction.
No
can
a
firm
no
one
such
should
argument
conviction;
therefore,
produce
believe on the basis of argument
that Scripture
is the Word
of God. Consider
Calvin's
statement:
suffice for a saving
following
'Scripture will ultimately
when
of
God
its
is
founded
the inward
upon
knowledge
only
certainty
of
the
to
to
those who wish
unbelievers
persuasion
Holy
prove
Spirit_But
that Scripture
is the Word
of God are acting foolishly,
for only by faith can
this be known'
(I. viii. 13).
since
19
Calvin's
discussion
'evidence'
and 'proofs'
to Scripture,
the terms
here could very well shed light on how we are to understand
such terms as
in the earlier sections which
treated the knowledge
of God as creator. In relation
'
are clearly used to indicate
and 'proof(s)'
'evidence(s)
'argument,'
especially
since the latter term is used in close connection with
(perhaps even as an equivalent
to) the former terms.
L.
MICHAEL
64
CZAPKAY
SUDDUTH
the
said this, Calvin
Nevertheless,
goes on to say that, though
having
'
a
no
isGod's Word
it
is
conviction
that Scripture
reason,
knowledge
requires
then Calvin
the best reason agrees'
with which
goes on to
(I. vii. 5). And
support this in book 1, chapter 8: 'So far as human
the credibility
firm proofs are at hand to establish
reason
goes, sufficiently
'
As Calvin
of Scripture.
sees matters,
strive to build up faith in Scripture
'those who
through dis?
are
This
that
backwards.'
suggests
actually
things
actually
doing
putation
a
or evidences
to
in
faith.
that
is
do have
role
fact,
This,
subsequent
disputation
what
is exactly
Calvin
says
in chapter
8 :
Unless this certainty, higher and stronger than any human judgment, be present, it
to establish it by
will be in vain to fortify the authority of Scripture by arguments,
common agreement of the church, or to confirm it with other helps. For unless this
once we
is laid, it's authority will always remain in doubt. Conversely,
foundation
have embraced it devoutly as its dignity deserves, and have recognized it to be above
the
common
sort
of
and fix the certainty
What
but
play
-
those
arguments
in our minds
of Scripture
not
-
strong
become
enough
to
before
very useful aids.
engraft
(I. viii.
1)
that
that leads to the conclusion
this is an argument
a role that is not antecedent
in the life of the believer,
to faith.
from
emerges
evidences
things,
a role
consequent
(A) Calvin believed that faith in Scripture requires the testimony of the Holy Spirit,
since the certainty which faith requires cannot be generated by argumentation
from
truths
of natural
reason.
is 'in accord with the best
faith in Scripture as God's Word
(B) Nevertheless,
'
'
reason and there are sufficiently firm proofs at hand to establish the credibility
'
of Scripture.
(C)
Calvin
relevant
sees
for
argumentation
the Christian,
(D) Argumentation
the framework
This
is a most
role for natural
and
'
as
evidences
confirmations
for
'
the
and
is legitimate as an activity posterior
of faith, (from (A)-(C))
'credibility
aids.
useful
of
'
Scripture
as
to, and carried out within,
as it sheds light on a most
argument,
illuminating
has been obscured
which
unfortunately
theology
plausible
since the
and philosophers
theologians
period, when
con?
it has usually been natural
of natural
theology
theology
as
tradition
and this has been true in the Reformed
strued as apologetic,
that unless one
well.20 And this has often been conjoined with the assumption
which
such a belief is irrational
has reasons for belief in God,
something
But natural
denied.
have consistently
tradition
and the Reformed
Calvin
Enlightenment.
have thought
In the modern
so narrowly
it was
In medieval
construed.
theology
theology was not always
can
call
We
o?
often part of an intra-faith
faith
seeking understanding.
project
- a
a
faith
natural
this consequent natural theology
presupposes
theology which
20
as apologetically
of theistic arguments
introduction
In fact, it was the case very early on. The
out by John Platt in Reformed Thought and
is carefully brought
oriented
among Reformed
theologians
for the purpose of Christian
theistic arguments
Scholasticism. The interest in employing
begins
apologetics
in Daneau
and appears explicitly
to emerge
in Ursinus
by 1583.
context.
This
is quite
and Proslogion,
in the context
in St. Anselm
evident
arguments
of life in a monastic
who
was
a demonstration
sought
the truth which
his heart
CALVIN
wrote
65
the Monologion
both
of God were
And
community.
'
an example
of meditation
Anselm
to understand
IN JOHN
for the existence
in which
clear, the Monologion
and in the Proslogion
in order
THEOLOGY
NATURAL
'MEDIATE'
undertaken,
himself made
as Anselm
on the grounds of faith'
of God
of the existence
believed
and
loved. What
one
about the existence
is impressed with here is how the project of reasoning
In Cur Deus Homo?, Anselm
towards Christians.
and nature of God is directed
to set forth (for the necessity
of the incar?
says that the proofs he is about
'
'
means
are
to
not for the sake of attaining
faith by
of reason,
but
nation)
'
on
those
and
that believers
be
may
meditating
gladdened
by understanding
and that, as far as possible,
they believe,
things which
they may always be
of
who demands
any one [presumably
Jews and Moslems]
ready to convince
in
which
is
us'
Even
them a reason ofthat
i,
here,
(Book
Chapter
i).21
hope
one is struck with the emphasis
ismentioned,22
purpose
though an apologetic
on the intra-faith
believes
by faith
of
ority
Scripture.
if Calvin
But
knowledge
Scripture
of arguments
and proofs by which what one first
is then demonstrated
of the auth?
by reason,
independent
relevance
to a saving
for Scripture
(as the means
as relevant
of God)
for the Christian
that
who already believes
is theWord
of God by the testimony
of the Spirit, might not natural
'
'
as
as a useful aid
also function
construed
inferential,
episodically
theology,
or a 'rational
sees
evidences
confirmation'
for what
the believer
has
taken
on faith? This
to be a most pertinent
For once we take natural
question.
context
in
and
the
all
it
of
three
of the earlier objections
faith,
put
theology
are
to a mediate
natural
for they all assume a non-faith
removed,
theology
context.
The natural
is no longer separated
of God
from the
knowledge
appears
to me
of God communicated
in Scripture
supernatural
knowledge
by the Spirit. Its
can
now
mere
be
elevated
that
of
purpose
beyond
inexcusability,
perhaps
to its original
restored
of stirring us to a recognition
and
place as a means
of God.
worship
or
But how precisely
should we conceive
of such arguments,
for Scripture
as 'useful aids'? Useful
for God,
for what? What
of
confirmation?
type
Calvin
is admittedly
of 'confirmation',
vague on the meaning
though his
is often similar to Anselm's,
states the
for instance when Calvin
language
as
a
means
of
such
evidences
'the
and
purpose
whereby
(a)
dignity
majesty
are affirmed
in godly hearts'
of Scripture
and (b) Scripture
is 'brilliantly
vindicated
against
suggests
an apologetic
the whiles
purpose,
of
its disparagers'.
I would
highlight
Calvin
here
Although
the intra-faith
emphasis
21
Cur Deus Homo?
in St. Anselm: Basic Writings,
2nd ed., tr. S. N. Deane
Anselm,
(1962; reprint, La
Illinois: Open Court Publishing
Company,
1964), p. 178.
But the apologetic
here is in all probability
directed
towards non-Christians
(Jews and Moslems)
rather than non-theists, as it is, not the existence of God, but the doctrine of the incarnation
that is at stake.
Salle,
22
66
MICHAEL
L.
CZAPKAY
SUDDUTH
his discussion.
Calvin
also seems taken by the aesthetic
as
in much
well
the
the same way
that
aspect
(as
nature),
Scriptures
'
as
Anselm
of
the
his
of
attractive
for
value
and
the
proofs
spoke
beauty
'23
a
But Calvin
is
little vague about what
is actually
for
achieved
reasoning.
the Christian
the
such
evidences.
(beyond
aesthetics)
by considering
that
characterizes
of
Left with
the question
of the function
and with no clear statement
enterprise,
forced I think
Calvin.
from Calvin
theology as an intra-faith
on the matter,
we are
to look for possibilities
at least be compatible
that would
with
there are two, closely related, possibilities.
has been engaged
in developing
the last 12 years, Alvin Plantinga
here
And
During
a Reformed
of natural
epistemology,
of theistic
basicality
proper
even if it is not based
the central
belief-
thesis
that belief
of which
in God
is what
he
calls
can be a rational
the
belief
on other beliefs of a person.
or reasons
So arguments
a
are not needed
that is, it is possible
for a person
for
justified belief in God;
reasons for the belief and
to believe
in God without
having
(or there being)
so
not be violating
in
duties
intellectual
any
believing. Most
recently, Plan?
as
this thesis along
the lines of rationality
understood
tinga has developed
or
to transform
of which
is sufficient
(that quantity
enough
quality
true belief into knowledge).
In 'The Prospects
for Natural
Plan?
Theology,'
natural
that although
(mediate)
theology
(construed
tinga maintains
epi?
a
not
for
theistic
such
warranted
is
belief,
necessary
arguments
sodically)
warrant
increase the warrant
could
of a belief
in God.
Hence,
Plantinga
says:
perhaps good theistic arguments could play the role of confirming and strengthening
my belief in God, and in that way they might increase the degree of warrant belief
in God
has
that belief
from
mere
Thomistic
for me.
Indeed,
in such a way
true
belief;
project
they
such
arguments
as to nudge
might
of transforming
in
might
it over
some
belief
increase
the degree
the boundary
cases
therefore
of warrant
separating
serve
of
knowledge
like
something
the
into knowledge.24
here is quite helpful. On the one hand, we can say
Plantinga's
suggestion
of the Holy
that the immediate sources of theistic belief
(the testimony
Spirit
'
are
sensus
in general epistemically'
and the
superior sources of belief
divinitatis)
a greater degree
of warrant.
On
the other
beliefs with
since they produce
in God
in a basic way has a belief
hand,
suppose that a person who believes
reasons - weak,
If
and wavering.
intermittent
that is for various possible
as
we view theistic belief as produced
(such
by theistic cognitive mechanisms
or the testimony
of the
of our cognitive mechanisms
things go
are interfered with and frequently
processes
as it ought. Moreover,
not function
it may
the sensus divinitatis
other
immediate
degree
sources
and mediate
of warrant
which
it would
could
also
be combined
not have
23
i (p. 179).
Cur Deus Homo ? Book
i, Chapter
24
for
Natural
'The
Theology,'
Prospects
Plantinga,
as happens
with
Spirit),
at
times.
wrong
Belief-forming
our cognitive
does
equipment
Holy
to hold
that
be plausible
to yield a belief with a
if it were
Philosophical
based
Perspectives
on either
5 (1991),
pp.
one of
311-312.
NATURAL
'MEDIATE'
the sources
and her
Now
noetic
alone. All of this will
IN JOHN
THEOLOGY
of course depend
CALVIN
on the
particular
67
individual
situation.
Calvin
effects
for one emphasizes
of sin
sin has effects
have come to call the
theologians
on the human person's cognitive
faculties.
what
so that it doesn't
with
the sensus divinitatis
problems
some
at
in
certain
times and/or
under
certain
people
properly
with the result that we form belief in God in a sort of half-hearted
conditions,
to note that in book i of the Institutes Calvin
way or not at all. It is interesting
Perhaps
function
sin causes
separates
his discussions
of belief
in God
on
the basis
of the sensus divinitatis
on
in
in God
the basis of the external
evidences
(in chapter
3) and belief
a
on
the
noetic
of
sin
creation
effects
(in chapter
(in chapter 5) by
digression
in different ways and
is perverted
4). Calvin
explains how the seed of religion
of God quickly
the knowledge
Calvin writes:
'Yet that seed
degenerates.
remains
which
can
: that there is a seed of divinity
be uprooted
;
worst
that by itself it produces
the
fruits'
(I.
only
of how
goes on to a consideration
immediately
in no wise
this seed is so corrupted
iv. 4., italics mine).
Calvin
but
cre?
himself
revealed
himself
and daily discloses
throughout
sees
as
as
Calvin
these
evidences
ation,
already
emphasized
something
from the sensus divinitatis. Could
the development
in chapters
quite distinct
for mediate
I think so. The noetic
natural
3-5 indicate a function
theology?
God
has
also
and
of sin, rather than present a reason against mediate
a reason for it.What
be evident
would
provide
actually
not
to
fected by sin is
the mind
affected
always evident
effects
open the possibility
in Calvin
grounds
of making
for holding
it evident
that one
natural
theology,
to the mind
unaf?
leaves
by sin. This
more
are
So
there
(or
evident).
to an
role that might
be afforded
natural
is that of increasing
inferential
the warrant
of
episodically
theology
if there is some kind of cognitive malfunction
theistic belief, especially
in the
source (s) of theistic belief.
immediate
to
I would
like to suggest another,
However,
though closely related, way
conceive
of the place of episodically
natural
inferential
for
the
theology
a plausible
to understands^
believer which
introduces
way
quaerens intel
is governed
aims. Some of these aims are
by many
not
such
should
have
cognitive.
only
specific aims as increasing
in her understanding
of Scripture,
but more general
aims such as
epistemic
true
ones.
her stock of
beliefs and minimizing
false
There
is also
increasing
lectum. The
life of faith
The
Christian
I will call reflective rationality, which
the goal of what
consists
status of one's beliefs.
rational beliefs about the epistemic
have
to
in coming
In the present
rational beliefs about
into the desideratum
of acquiring
case, this translates
status of one's belief in God,
or
the epistemic
that it is justified, warranted
a
to
constitutes
It
is
be
knowledge.
generally
thought
(from a
good thing
to
at
of
arrive
sound
about
the
cognitive
point
view)
judgments
epistemic
status of our beliefs. By thinking
over reasons for
in God,
and
believing
to
the adequacy
of such reasons,
the Christian
form
evaluating
begins
68
L.
MICHAEL
rational
rational
beliefs, not in God
status of his belief
CZAPKAY
SUDDUTH
(that can be had without
argument),
in God.25 Here
faith moves
toward
of the rational
for theistic
belief-
but
in the
an under?
toward
the higher-level
be good confirma?
standing
grounds
that belief in God is rational. Such beliefs would
proposition
tions of a faith Christians
have received
from God.26 So it seems
immediately
that another function of an episodically
inferential
natural
could be
theology
on the
that of a consequent
in
natural
which
Christians
mediate
theology
for belief
grounds
faith function
of
position
on
in the rationality
of theistic belief. This higher-level,
intra
seems quite compatible
theistic arguments
with Calvin's
the immediate
knowledge
v.
of God.
CONCLUSION
an attempt
to canvass
two important
I have made
In this paper
consider?
ations which
bear on the plausibility
of a mediate
natural
in John
theology
Calvin:
of inferential
and
(a) the nature
knowledge
(b) the intra-faith
are
of natural
I
function
have
that
there
for
theology.
argued
good grounds
holding
natural
would
over,
tepid)
a
in Calvin
inferential
structurally
implicit
and that even an episodically
inferential
natural
theology
theology,
be compatible
with salient features of the reformer's
theology. More?
the latter contention
is supported
commitment
by Calvin's
(even if
that
there
to evidences
is at
as
least
'confirmations'
for
the believer.
a function
an apt context for developing
for natural
provides
of
faith
the context of faith, a calvinistic
seeking
conception
for the existence
of God can strengthen
arguments
Perhaps
I believe,
theology within
This,
understanding.
the warrant
of
or
a
some
can
such arguments
theistic belief for
make
people,
maybe
signifi?
cant contribution
toward satisfying
the cognitive
of
reflective
goal
rationality
to belief in God.27
with
respect
Oriel College,
Oxford OXi 4EW
25
with believing
in God in a basic way, such that it is formed and justified
This is not incompatible
status is a reason for believing
in
that belief in God has some positive
epistemic
immediately.
Believing
in God. But having a reason
God, and if a person has this belief she will clearly have a reason to believe
to believe
that p or believing
that p but doing so on some
with either not believing
that p is compatible
can still possess a properly
that it
basic theistic belief, even if she believes
So a Christian
other ground.
is a rational belief because of reasons.
26
and Higher
in considerable
detail in my 'Alstonian Foundationalism
I develop
this line of reasoning
and it is
in the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion),
Evidentialism'
Level Theistic
(forthcoming
'
'
and Reformed
inmy Bi-Level Evidentialism
(forthcoming
Apologetics
applied to Reformed
Apologetics
in Faith and Philosophy.
27
and Nicholas Wolterstorff
Swinburne
I would
like to thank Robert Audi, Alister McGrath,
Richard
on earlier drafts of this paper.
for commenting

The Prospects for `Mediate` Natural Theology in

Transcription

Similar documents

ernst käsemann remembered

Calvin Notices Friday, 24 October

2015 Scholarship App - Calvin Johnson Jr Foundation, Inc

Come Experience Catholic Theology According to the Mind and

Student Admission Application Form

John Calvin`s 500th Birthday: glimpses…of his 21st centuery presence

September 9 - Calvin Christian School

A Celebration of Benjamin Banneker

Oxbridge candidates 2015