Theology and Philosophy: Husband and Wife or Employer and Employee?

"Theology rules over philosophy, and this latter acts as a handmaid to and subserves the former." (Francis Turretin, Institutes, I:xiii:2)

The vid below, courtesy of Reformed Forum generosity, contains over an hour of profitable, erudite discussion on the relationsip between theology and philosophy. Enjoy!

Hawking Folly: Caveat Emptor

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Ps. 53:1).

Ethically, it is as foolish to deny the existence of God as it is to engage in self-deception, denying that which one knows to be true in a wicked refusal to come to grips with what one's heart, mind, and environment are screaming to be true. Lying to oneself is indeed stupid. Romans 1:18-22.

Epistemologically, truth values necessarily depend on predetermined categories. That is to say, knowledge of particulars depend on knowledge of universals. Concomitantly, knowledge of universals depend on knowledge of particulars. Epistemological perichoresis. For any of this to make sense, consistency is required. Scientists refer to the "laws" of the universe. The conundrum is that science fails to account for why these laws must consistently function in the way that they do. The ground for consistency is absent when looked for empirically. Hence, there is no escaping the God by whom "all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him" (Col. 1:16). Attempting this escape is folly.

Metaphysically, objects could not be recognized for what they are without the consistency required by this recognition. This is indissolubly related to the epistemological point. Being, created/finite being, is not something arbitrary but derived (cf. Acts 17:28). Try to imagine what non-being looks like, feels like, tastes like, smells like, sounds like.....OK, stop! It's foolish, it can't be done.

What does someone engaging in ethical, epistemological, and metaphysical folly look like? Find out here.

Cornelius on the Caveman's Club

While the unregenerate, the natural man, knows of the true God (not some notion of generic "deity", cf. Rom. 1:18-20) by virtue of being created in the image of God and by the testimony of the Decalogue engraved in the human heart, he suppresses this knowledge in wickedness, desiring autonomy and the liberty to judge metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical truth on his own terms.

In light of this, only the Reformed apologetic is meet for the task of toppling down these erections of hubris. Cornelius Van Til states:

"It is but to be expected that only in the Reformed faith will we find an uncompromising method of apologetics. Calvinism makes no compromise with the natural man either on his views of the autonomy of the human mind or on his views of the nature of existence as not controlled by the plan of God. Therefore Calvinism cannot find a direct point of contact in any of the accepted concepts of the natural man. He disagrees with every individual doctrine of the natural man because he disagrees with the outlook of the natural man as a whole. He disagrees with the basic immanentistic assumption of the natural man. For it is this basic assumption that colors all his statements about individual teachings. It is therefore this basic assumption of the natural man that meets its first major challenge when it is confronted by the statement of a full-fledged Christianity" (Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics [New Jersey: P & R, 2003], ed. William Edgar, 146).

Only the Reformed ray gun is capable of blasting away the club from the caveman's hands.