NATURAL THEOLOGY AND ORTHODOX PROTESTANT THEOLOGY

Introduction
The last century of Christian theology and Apologetics has seen quite a bit of discussion,
primarily in protestant circles, concerning what we will label as “the orthodoxy of Natural
Theology”. Theological giants such as Karl Barth, and influential apologists such as Cornelius
Van Til, have made claims that either explicitly, or implicitly (by denying, for example, that man
is actually capable of coming to true knowledge of the true God by any other means than Holy
Scriptures), refused to allow any room for what is commonly known as Natural Theology.1 In
what follows we wish to ask a very simple, yet very important, question: What place does
Natural Theology have, or not have, in orthodox Protestant theology?2
In order to answer this question, we must, first of all, attempt to attain some
comprehension of what we mean by “orthodox” and “unorthodox”. We will then attempt to
provide a very clear explanation of what we mean by “Natural Theology”. With these two
notions clearly defined, we will then attempt to answer the proposed question.
The answer that we will give to this question will carry with it some very important
consequences. For example, if we determine that it is unorthodox to engage in Natural Theology,
then those who do so, are unorthodox. On the other hand, if we determine that Natural Theology
is necessary for orthodox Christian belief, then those who either deny it’s possibility, or refuse to
allow any room for it in their understanding of theology, should be considered unorthodox. It is
always touchy to discuss the orthodoxy, or unorthodoxy, of a person’s beliefs, as nobody wishes
to be told that they are so theologically in error as to be considered outside of true Christian faith.
Yet, if the limits of orthodoxy are not clearly defined, then anybody can determine their own
limits, and either include, or exclude, anybody who does not fit inside their self-determined
limits of orthodoxy. As such, this question should be of the utmost importance for Christian
theologians and philosophers alike. Let us begin with the question of Orthodoxy.

1
The most noted opponents to Natural Theology in recent times have been Cornelius Van Til, and the Van
Tillian school of presuppositionalism, and Karl Barth and his followers. It should be noted that Van Til does not
deny Natural Theology entirely, but claims that it is only possible if one first presupposes the truth of divinely
inspired Christian scriptures (becomes a Christian), and is divinely guided by the Holy Spirit (Cornelius Van Til, An
Introduction to Systematic Theology, vol. 5 of In Defense of the Faith (1974; Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing
Co., 1982), 12, 13, 44, 54, 57, 61, 63, 66, 69, 71, 84, 197.). Karl Barth claimed that, “The possibility of a real
knowledge by natural man of the true God, derived from creation, is, according to Calvin, a possibility in principle,
but not in fact, not a possibility to be realised by us. One might call it an objective possibility, created by God, but
not a subjective possibility, open to man. Between what is possible in principle and what is possible in fact there
inexorably lies the fall. Hence this possibility can only be discussed hypothetically: si integer stetisset Adam (Inst.,
I, ii, I). Man does not merely in part not have this possibility; he does not have it at all. (Karl Barth, NO!, in Natural
Theology, ed. John Baillie (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2002), 106. Cf. Ibid., 108.)”
2
Though we could certainly include Catholicism in our query, it does not seem necessary to ask this
question, as it seems evident that Natural Theology is a necessary part of orthodoxy Catholic belief. I suppose that it
is possible to debate this claim, but it doesn’t seem all that likely that anyone could/would seriously debate the place
of Natural Theology within that church which explicitly claims Thomas Aquinas as it’s doctor. As such, we will be
concerned with the place of Natural Theology within orthodox Protestant theology.

1
 Orthodoxy
Definitions and Nuances
There is much talk of theological orthodoxy, but those who talk about it the most are
often the same who take the least amount of time to define it. In other words, the terms
“orthodox” or “unorthodox” are often used to either discredit or approve a theological or
philosophical claim; yet, we rarely see those who use these terms, offer any explanation of the
basis upon which they cast the judgment, “orthodox” or “unorthodox”. If we are going to
succeed in analyzing the orthodoxy or unorthodoxy of Natural Theology, we are going to need to
make some very clear claims about just what we mean by “orthodox”.3
As is commonly known, the word orthodox comes from two Greek words which mean,
respectively, “right or proper” “belief, opinion, or teaching”.4 As such, the general notion of
orthodoxy could be summarized as follows: A thinker is considered orthodox when he/she
possesses right or true beliefs in that domain of thought concerning which he/she possesses these
beliefs or opinions. In Muller’s terms, “Orthodoxy consists in the faithful acceptance both of the
fundamental articles and of those other, secondary doctrines, that sustain and serve to secure the
right understanding of the fundamental doctrines.”5 Thus, a Christian thinker would be
considered orthodox when they hold to those true doctrines/beliefs/opinions which are taught by
true Christianity—when they hold to be true those doctrines which are truly Christian. When
discussing orthodoxy, we also need to keep in mind that it is possible to be partially orthodox. A
person would be considered partially orthodox when they adhere to a portion (greater or smaller)
of those doctrines are considered necessary for true Christian belief, but deny a portion (greater
or smaller) of those same doctrines. Thus we can say that a person is, for the most part, orthodox,
but unorthodox in relation to some one or another doctrine.6

3
“Unorthodox” would simply be the opposite of “orthodox”.
4
Cf. T.W. Chambers, “Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy”, in The Concise Dictionary of Religious Knowledge
and Gazeteer, 2nd ed., ed. Samuel MacAuley Jackson, Talbot Wilson Chambers, and Frank Hugh Foster (New
York: The Christian Literature Company, 1891), 668. William Staunton, “Orthodox and Orthodoxy”, in An
Ecclesiastical Dictionary, 4th ed. (New York: The General Protestant Episcopal Sunday School Union and Church
Book Society, 1875), 519. “Orthodox”, in Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, 2nd ed., ed. John Henry
Blunt (London: Rivingtons, 1872), 531-532. Charles Buck, “Orthodoxy”, in Fessenden & Co.’s Encyclopedia of
Religious Knowledge, ed. J. Newton Brown (Brattleboro, VT: Brattleboro Typographic Company, 1837), 894-895.
Walter Farquhar Hook, “Orthodoxy”, in A Church Dictionary, 6th ed. Ed. anonymous (Philadelphia: E. H. Butler,
Co., 1854), 418. James D. Davidson and Gary J. Quinn, “Theological and Sociological Uses of the Concept
‘Orthodoxy’”, Review of Religious Research, vol. 18, no. 1 (Autumn, 1976), 74. Francis Brown, “What is
Orthodoxy?”, The North American Review, vol. 168, no. 509 (Apr., 1899), 409. Richard A. Muller, Scholasticism
and Orthodoxy in the Reformed Tradition: An Attempt at Definition (Grand Rapids, MI: Calvin Theological
Seminary, 1995), 2, 19.

5
Muller, Scholasticism and Orthodoxy in the Reformed Tradition, 21.

6
An example of a partially orthodox theologian would be Pelagius, who affirmed, without hesitation, the
Nicaean Creed, but who denied some theological claims which, though not in the creed, were held by all Christians
to be true.

2
 The Protestant Problem
Our definition of orthodoxy, however, seems to cause significant problems for
Protestantism as a whole. The problem could be explained as follows: (1) The definition of
“orthodoxy” seems to imply that there is an official list containing a minimum of true Christian
teachings to which a person must adhere in order to be considered orthodox. (2) As has been
frequently noted, it would appear that Protestantism (through the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and
the doctrine of the priority of individual interpretation as led by the Holy Spirit) makes
impossible any official list containing a minimum of true Christian teachings to which a person
must adhere in order to be considered orthodox. (3) If it turns out that #2 is true, then it is
pointless to talk about Protestant Orthodoxy. Alister E. McGrath and Darren C. Marks, state in
the Blackwell Companion to Protestantism, that “The ‘Protestant problematic’ (Karl Rahner) is
that it places priority on individual conscience in response to revelation—in the Bible and the
experience of salvation—as its defining characteristics. As such it must create the possibility, but
not the necessity, of interpretative difference in doctrine, practice and polity.”7 They have rightly
noted the major problem. How can we determine just what is to be considered orthodox Christian
belief when the only authority for theology is the Bible, as interpreted by the reader who is, we
hope and pray, guided by the Holy Spirit? Experience demonstrates that those men who are
looked upon, by Protestants in general, as being the most indwelt and guided by the Holy Spirit,
are also those who tend to disagree the most about some of the most important Christian
doctrines (such as the role of the human will in salvation, the nature of the church, the nature of
the Eucharist, the role of works in the preservation or loss of salvation, etc.). This question, is, in
itself, of the utmost importance, and some will complain that I do not explicitly address it in this
text. Unfortunately, though I have my own ideas about how to solve this problem, these will
need to await a more appropriate time and place. In the meantime, let us consider how
Protestants have traditionally solved this problem.

Standards of Protestant Orthodoxy

There have been at least three traditional ways in which Protestants have determined
orthodoxy. We will not, here, be debating the relevance, coherence, or relative importance of
these ways. For the purposes of this article it is only necessary to name and explain them. They
are: (1) Via close to undebatable interpretation of some biblical text (s), such that other possible
interpretations are either demonstrably false or overly strained, and a clear doctrine can be drawn
out of the passage (s) in question; (2) Via Confessions, Catechisms, and Creeds, which were
purported to represent, at best, the doctrinal claims which are proposed as orthodox for certain
denominations of Protestantism; and (3) Via close to unanimous teaching amongst the great
theologians about some one doctrine, whether this be throughout the entire history of the church
(c. 100AD to the present) or just since the Reformation.

7
Alister E. McGrath and Darren C. Marks, “Introduction: Protestantism – the Problem of Identity”, in The
Blackwell Companion to Protestantism, ed. Alister E. McGrath and Darren C. Marks (Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing, 2004), 14.

3
 Some Protestant denominations have put more emphasis on one, or another, of these
different ways of determining orthodoxy. For example, many Baptist denominations have tended
to reject all forms of Confessions, Creeds, and Catechisms—claiming that the Bible alone could
be authoritative. Many Presbyterian, or broadly reformed, churches have tended to create
confessions and catechisms in order to determine that which would be considered right belief.
Most theologians are familiar with the Fundamentalist movement of the early 1900s which
sought to establish and defend a list of authoritative doctrines which were necessary for
orthodoxy belief, regardless of denomination. In this article we will not attempt to argue that one
or another of these ways should be given precedence in determining orthodoxy. Rather, we will
accept all three of these ways, and ask the following question: What is the status of Natural
Theology when judged according to these standards? Before we can answer this question,
however, we must be clear about what we mean by “Natural Theology”, and it to this that we
now turn.

Natural Theology
One would think that providing a definition of Natural Theology should be fairly straight-
forward. Unfortunately, there is much confusion about just what is meant by Natural Theology.
As such we will begin by providing a general definition of what we mean by Natural Theology,
followed by an explanation of what we do not mean by Natural Theology.
Natural Theology, broadly defined, is that part of philosophy which explores that which
man can know about God (his existence, divine nature, etc.) from nature, via his divinely
bestowed faculty of reason, and, this, unaided by any divinely inspired written revelation from
any religion, and, this, without presupposing the truth of any one religion.
We must distinguish our definition of Natural Theology from a number of other concepts.
Natural Theology, so defined, is not co-extensive with what some have called Natural
Revelation. Natural Revelation is to Natural Theology as the Bible is to Biblical Theology. That
is, Natural Revelation is, as John Calvin says, what God does when He manifests “his perfections
in the whole structure of the universe,” and, so manifests himself daily, “in our view, that we
cannot open our eyes without being compelled to behold him.”8 Natural Revelation is made up
of the traces or footprints of God as they are seen by all men (regenerate and unregenerate) in
creation.9 Natural Revelation is the material with which Natural Theology works, just as the
Bible is the material with which Biblical Theology works.

8
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (2007; repr., Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson Publishers, 2012), 16.
9
See the French edition of the Institutes that was republiches in 1888 (Jean Calvin, Institutes de la religion
chrétienne, nouvelle édition, éd. Frank Baumgartner (Génève : E. Béroud & Cie, éditeurs, 1888)), t.1, c.5, s. 6. In
French we read, « Je voulais seulement observer ici qu’il y a une voie commune aux païens et aux croyants de
l’église de rechercher Dieu, en suivant ses traces, comme ils sont esquissée dans le firmament et sur la terre, comme
les peintures de son image. » Calvin here says, my translation, “I just wanted to note here that there is a way to seek

4
 Natural Theology, so defined, is also not co-extensive with what some have called
Natural Religion.10 Natural Religion was, historically, that attempt, by a number of Deistic
philosophers, to make that which can be known of God via Natural Revelation into a Religion in
its own right.11 The ambiguous conflation of Natural Theology and Natural Religion has caused
many people to reject Natural Theology, thinking that they were rejecting (as they should)
Natural Religion. We distinguish, in this article, Natural Theology and Natural Religion. Natural
Theology is not a religion in and of itself. It is, rather, a part of philosophy which is integrated
into Christian Systematic Theology; and, which, if separated from that theology which is
acquired through the right reading of Holy Scriptures, tends to turn into that monster which
became known as Natural Religion. However, it is not, as defined above, Natural Religion in the
technical sense of the term.
Natural Theology is not the claim that all the truths of Christianity can be proved via
human reasoning, without the aid of divinely inspired scriptures. Rather, Natural Theology,
properly understood, does not venture to say anything about that which can be known only
through divine revelation, such as, that Jesus was born of a virgin, that Jesus is God, that God is
Triune, etc. Having made these distinctions, we are now in position to ask if Natural Theology,

God that is common to pagans and to believers of the church, by following in his footsteps, as they are outlined in
the heavens and on earth, as paintings of his image.”
10
This is the case in spite of the fact that some theologians have erroneously equated these two concepts.
Cf. John Macpherson, The Westminster Confession of Faith with Introduction and Notes, in HandBooks for Bible
Classes, ed. Marcus Dods and Alexander Whyte (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clarke, 1881), 29. Another writer who
demonstrates some confusion concerning these terms is David Foster, “‘In Every Drop of Dew’: Imagination and the
Rhetoric of Assent in English Natural Religion”, Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, Vol. 12, No. 3
(Summer 1994): 293-325. In his article “Concerning Natural Religion”, W. W. Fenn notes the difficulty of defining
this term, in light of the fact that “since the term is variously understood by ‘divines and learned men.’ (W. W. Fenn,
“Concerning Natural Religion”, The Harvard Theological Review, vol. 4, no. 4 (Oct., 1911), 460.)” The fact that this
term is given so many different meanings may be partially due to those who, being card-carrying orthodox
Christians, were also seeking to engage in Natural Theology. In order to be clear on what we mean by Natural
Theology, though, we will need to clearly distinguish it from Natural Religion. Even John Henry Blunt’s article on
Natural Religion seems to conflate Natural Religion and Natural Theology (“Religion, Natural”, in Dictionary of
Doctrinal and Historical Theology, 2nd ed., ed. John Henry Blunt (London: Rivingtons, 1872), 630.).
11
Cf. “Deism”, in Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, 2nd ed., ed. John Henry Blunt (London:
Rivingtons, 1872), 194-196. Edmund Gurney, “Natural Religion”, Mind, vol. 8, no. 30 (Apr., 1883), 198-221. Fenn,
“Concerning Natural Religion”, 461. William Warren Sweet, “Natural Religion and Religious Liberty in America”,
The Journal of Religion, vol. 25, No. 1 (Jan., 1945): 45-55. A. Owen Aldridge, “Natural Religion and Deism in
America before Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine”, The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 4 (Oct., 1997):
835-848. Aldridge notes a confusion between Natural Theology and Natural Religion, but proposes a distinction
which seems, to us, a distinction without a difference. He says, “Another confusion exists between the terms ‘natural
religion’ and ‘natural theology.’ The first was used by Jean Bodin in the late sixteenth century and the second by
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz early in the eighteenth. In the strictest sense, natural religion comprises mainly cosmic
evidence to prove the existence and providence of God, whereas natural theology forms one of the branches of
metaphysics dealing with the deity. (Ibid., 836.)” We propose that it is better to understand Natural Theology as that
part of philosophy which “interprets” natural revelation (whose observations are integrated into a properly Christian
Systematic Theology), and that Natural Revelation should be understood as that attempt to worship the God of the
Philosophers which eventually turned into Deism.

5
understood as that which can be known about God via rational human observations of our
Universe (including ourselves), is a necessary part of protestant orthodoxy.

Testing the Orthodoxy of Natural Theology

Having defined Natural Theology, we will now attempt to test the orthodoxy or
unorthodoxy of Natural Theology with the three ways of testing orthodoxy that we outlined
above. We will first consider what the Bible says about Natural Theology, or, at least, the notion
of Natural Theology that we see in our definition. We will then look, briefly, at what some of the
greatest theologians of the church have said about the notion of Natural Theology that we see in
our definition. We will conclude our test by looking, quickly, at what some of the most important
Protestant creeds have said about the notion of Natural Theology that we see in our definition.

The Bible on Natural Theology

When we consult the Scriptures, we find a number of verses that have, traditionally, been
understood as saying that all men (regenerate and unregenerate) are able to know something
about God by their simple, rational, observation of the universe. These verses include, but are
certainly not limited to, Psalm 19:1-5; Acts 14:16-17 and 17:26-27; and Romans 1:19-20, and
2:14-15. We cannot discuss each of these passages, so we will simply make some comments
about Romans 1:19-20, where we read, “For what can be known about God is plain to them,
because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and
divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that
have been made. So they are without excuse.”
Now, though to some the interpretation of these verses may seem fairly straightforward,
their interpretation has been contested (though to be fair, not very many). Cornelius Van Til, the
father of Presuppositionalism, says, concerning Romans 1:19-20, “Accordingly, it must now be
added, as Calvin points out so fully on the basis of Paul’s words, that God is displayed before
men in the works of his hands. This means that God, not some sort of God or some higher
principle, but God, the true God, is displayed before men. That is the fact of the matter, whether
men recognize it or not. Paul does mention the power of God in particular as the attribute that
comes most prominently to the foreground, but he also says that men have the divinity (Theiotes)
displayed before them. This does not mean that God is as fully displayed in nature as he is in the
gospel of Christ…All too often it has been argued that on the basis of nature or by natural
theology man should be able to establish the existence of a God, while it is only by Christ and
through grace that we can know anything more fully about the nature of this God. Now it is true
that we have the fullest revelation of the nature of God in Christ. On the other hand, it is also true
that when man was created in paradise [by paradise Van Til means the Garden of Eden], he knew
not merely of the existence of God, but he knew the nature of God as far as it had been revealed
to him. It is for the loss of this actual knowledge of the nature of God that man, when he became
a sinner, must be held responsible. If this is not done, men will be looked upon merely as

6
unfortunates who have not had the good fortune of having had the right information about
God.”12 For Van Til, the rejection of the knowledge of God to which Romans 1:18-21 refers, for
which men are held responsible, happened at the Fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Is
this the traditional interpretation of Romans 1:18-21?
Note, first of all, that for John Calvin these verses apply to all mankind, and are true of all
men (regenerate and unregenerate) of all time.13 John Calvin says, for example, “When he says
that God made it [His own existence, power and eternal nature] manifest to them: the meaning is,
that mankind was created to this end, that he be the contemplator of this excellent work, the
world: that his eyes were given to him in order that seeing such a beautiful image, he would be
brought to know the author himself that made it.”14 Calvin goes on to say that “But he
[humankind] does not deduce, by himself, all the things that can be considered in God, but he
shows that we come to know his power and eternal divinity. For it is of necessity that he who is
the author of all things, be without beginning and consist of himself. ”15 He goes on to state that
though such knowledge should bring us to worship the one true God, due to our blindness it does
not. Rather, though we come to know of the existence and power of the one true God (in spite of
our blindness), we cannot come to know this true God so as to worship him (because of our
blindness).16 Thus, humans are guilty. But which humans? One final quote from Calvin’s
commentary on Romans should suffice to make this point quite clear, “Because they knew God.
He declares here, quite obviously, that God made a knowledge of his majesty run [the French
word descouler gives the notion of a river running down a mountain] down into the spirits of all
men: which is to say that he has shown himself so much, by his works, that they are forced to see
that which they do not seek by themselves, that is, that there is a God.”17 There can be no doubt
as to how John Calvin though these verses should be interpreted. But perhaps some would not
consider him “up-to-date”? Let us consider, in closing, the thoughts of one of the most well-

12
Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, vol. 5 of In Defense of the Faith (1974; repr.,
Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1982), 100.

Jean Calvin, Commentaires sur l’épîstre aux Romains, dans Commentaires de Jehan Calvin sur le
13

Nouveau Testament (Paris : Librairie de Ch. Meyrueis et co., 1855), 3 : 25-27.

Ibid., 26. My translation. In French we read, “Quand il dit que Dieu le leur a manifesté : le sens est, que
14

l'homme a esté créé à ceste fin qu'il fust contemplateur de cest excellent ouvrage du monde : que les yeux luy ont
esté donnez afin qu'en regardant une si belle image, il soit amené à cognoistre l'autheur mesme qui l'a faite.”
15
Ibid. My Translation. In French we read, “Or il ne déduit pas par le menu toutes les choses qui peuvent
estre considérées en Dieu, mais il monstre qu'on parvient jusques à cognoistre sa puissance et Divinité
éternelle. Car il faut nécessairement que celuy qui est autheur de toutes choses, soit sans commencement, et consiste
de soy-mesme. »
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid. My Translation. In French we read, “Pource qu'ayons cognu Dieu. Il déclare yci apertement, que
Dieu a fait descouler dedans les esprits de tous hommes une cognoissance de sa majesté : c'est-à-dire qu'il s'est
tellement démonstre par ses oeuvres, qu'il leur est force de veoir ce qu'ils ne cherchent pas d'euxmesmes, asçavoir
qu'il y a quelque Dieu. »

7
known contemporary reformed commentators, Douglas Moo, thinks about the proper
interpretation of Romans 1:18-21.
Douglas Moo answers the very question that we are asking here by noting the traditional
answer, “Whose experience does Paul describe in these verses? Traditionally, it has been
assumed almost without argument that Paul is depicting the situation of Gentiles.”18 He notes
that some recent scholarship has attempted to argue that Paul was talking about Adam and Eve,
and the experience of the Fall, but states that the evidence falls overwhelmingly in favour of the
traditional interpretation,19 with the qualification that these verses my also include the Jews (and,
thus, be referring to all humanity).20 Moo notes that there are some important elements in this
text that force us to accept the interpretation by which these verses apply to all humans of all
times: first of all, the Greek terms are in the aorist tense, and, “Scholars have long recognized
that the Greek aorist tense does not, in itself, indicate ‘one-time’ action; it can depict action of all
kinds, including continuous and repeated action. Some grammarians would go even further and
claim that the aorist (even in the indicative mood) has, in itself, no indication of time of action
either.”21 Therefore, it is better to understand this passage as being the experience of all men of
all time. Secondly, “this view [the view espoused by Van Til: that these verses apply only to
Adam and Eve] fails to explain the heart of this passage: the characterization of all those upon
whom the wrath of God falls as those who possessed the truth of God but turned from it.”22 Moo
concludes that, “Paul says more than that all people experienced the consequences of an original
turning away from God, or even that all people shared such an original turning away. He insists
that those who turned were also those who knew better, and who are consequently deserving of
God's wrath. This, coupled with the obviously universal thrust of vv. 18 and 32, makes clear that
this foolish and culpable rejection of the knowledge of God is repeated in every generation, by
every individual.”23
It seems, then, that one of the first Reformed theologians and Bible commentators (John
Calvin), and at least one contemporary Reformed Bible commentator (Douglas Moo), agree,
against Van Til, that Romans 1:18-21 is referring to the experience of all humans of all times—
that is, that God’s existence, power and divine nature is so manifest in the universe that all men
know (at least in potency, if not in actuality) that God exists; but, because they reject this

18
Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing,
1996), 96.
19
Ibid., 96-98.
20
Ibid., 97.
21
Ibid., 98fn21.
22
Ibid., 98.
23
Ibid.

8
knowledge of God, they are reprehensible before God.24 It would seem, then, that the notion of
Natural Theology outlined above, is found clearly expressed in scriptures. It meets, therefore, the
first standard of orthodoxy: close to undebatable interpretation of some biblical text (s), such that
other possible interpretations are either demonstrably false or overly strained, and a clear
doctrine can be drawn out of the passage (s) in question. We could stop at this point, and claim
that, based upon the proper interpretation of a clear biblical passage, all those who affirm Natural
Theology are orthodox, and all those who deny Natural Theology are unorthodox. Yet we think
that it would be advisable to consider the other ways of determining orthodoxy.

The Great Theologians on Natural Theology

We have found that the notion of Natural Theology that we described above is
overwhelmingly evident in the proper, and almost entirely undebatable, interpretation of the
Word of God; but what have the great theologians of the church thought about Natural Theology.
We have already noted that at least 2 of the greatest contemporary theologians have denied the
concept of Natural Theology that we have proposed above: Karl Barth and Cornelius Van Til.
What do the others say?
There are so many important Christian theologians that it would be impossible to survey
them all in this brief section, so, perhaps it would be admissible to mention the thoughts of just a
couple fairly important Christian Theologians, such as Tertullian, Gregory of Nyssa, Thomas
Aquinas, John Calvin, Francis Turretin, and J. Gresham Machen.25

Tertullian
According to Everett Ferguson, Tertullian taught (in De Testimonio Animae) that there
are many truths that can be known naturally (from our observations of nature) by man, by reason

24
That this interpretation is the interpretation of the great majority of Biblical exegetes throughout the
history of the Church (100 to the present) is evident to any who have taken the time to peruse the available
commentaries.
25
Be it noted that we could also consider the thoughts of, for example, Pietro Martyr Vermigli, Loci
Communes, caput 2, section 1, where he clearly says, that Paul talks about that which is known of God, in Romans
1:19-20 “because many are the divine mysteries, to be attained naturally by anybody with small ability. (My
translation. Pietro Martyr Vermigli, Loci Communes (Genevae: Petrum Aubertum, 1624), 2.)” Benjamin
Breckinridge Warfield, “The Idea of Systematic Theology,” in Studies in Theology, vol. 9 of The Works of Benjamin
B. Warfield, 49-87 (1932; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2000). Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield,
“The Task and Method of Systematic Theology,” in Studies in Theology, vol. 9 of The Works of Benjamin B.
Warfield, 91-114 (1932; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2000). As well as, Charles Hodge, Systematic
Theology, 3 vols. (1940; repr., Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003). See especially the first 30 pages of
volume 1. See also the Calvinist Baptist Theologian, A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, 3 vols in 1 (1907; repr., Old
Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1979). Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Abridged in one volume,
ed. John Bolt (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 159. I suppose we could go on for a long time,
mentioning such Christian theologians as Anselm, Boethius, Norman Geisler, R. C. Sproul, Aristides, etc.

9
alone, without the help of divine revelation, such as the existence of God, some divine attributes,
the immortality of the soul, and the future judgment of man.26
As he provides us with this description of God, Tertullian makes some interesting claims,
which, if we are to take his words seriously, sound very much like a somewhat confused attempt
at a demonstration of the existence of God. In spite of the ambiguity of his argument, he very
clearly claims that man is able to have some knowledge of the one true God via his observations
of Nature (including himself and his own thoughts and sensations). He introduces us to his
approach to the natural knowledge that man can have of God with the paradox that is found in
Christian doctrine, “The eye cannot see Him, though He is…visible. He is incomprehensible,
though in grace He is manifested. He is beyond our utmost thought, though our human faculties
conceive of Him. He is therefore equally real and great.”27 Note that Tertullian thinks that this
paradox demonstrates both the greatness and existence of God. Tertullian thinks that even though
God is invisible, intangible, and incomprehensible, he somehow appears to humans such that
man can know of Him through the human faculty of reason.
How, then, does Tertullian think that God is known by human reasoning? We do not find
here an argument which demonstrates, conclusively, the existence of God, but it is clear that
Tertullian thinks that we can prove the existence and greatness of God from the things that are
presented to our senses.28 He explicitly mentions that both God’s creation that surrounds
human’s, and the human soul itself, testify to the existence and great power of God. So much so,
that those who ignore this truth, are guilty for their ignorance.
This it is [the notion mentioned in the quote in the previous paragraph] which
gives some notion of God, while yet beyond all our conceptions —our very incapacity of
fully grasping Him affords us the idea of what He really is. He is presented to our minds
in His transcendent greatness, as at once known and unknown. And this is the crowning
guilt of men, that they will not recognise One, of whom they cannot possibly be ignorant.
Would you have the proof from the works of His hands, so numerous and so great, which
both contain you and sustain you, which minister at once to your enjoyment, and strike
you with awe; or would you rather have it from the testimony of the soul itself?29
Following this question is a brief argument, by which Tertullian seeks to show that the
human soul itself testifies to the existence of God.30 As such, Tertullian clearly thinks that all of
creation, human-beings included, testify to the existence, of “the One God, He who by His
26
Everett Ferguson, “Tertullian,” in Early Christian Thinkers: The Lives and Legacies of Twelve Key
Figures, ed. Paul Foster (Downer’s Grove, IL: InverVarsity Press, 2010), 89-90. Cf. Justo L. Gonzalez, “Athens and
Jerusalem Revisited: Reason and Authority in Tertullian”, Church History, vol. 43, no. 1 (Mar., 1974), 18.
27
Tertullian, Apologeticus, in The Writings of Tertullian, vol. xi of Translations of the Writings of the
Fathers, ed. Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clarke, 1869), 1: 86.
28
Ibid.
29
Ibid., 86-87.
30
Ibid., 87.

10
commanding word, His arranging wisdom, His mighty power, brought forth from nothing this
entire mass of our world, with all its array of elements, bodies, spirits, for the glory of His
majesty.”31 Creation and the human soul also make manifest that God is the judge of all men.32
This idea is clearly based upon his interpretation of Romans 1: 19-20 and 2:14-16. In his
articulation of this position we see the beginnings of a conception of God (conception which we
have already seen in Irenaeus) which will become very popular in the church—that is, that God
is the most perfect Being possible. This notion will find its clearest articulation in the writings of
Anselm. It is interesting to note the negative theology of Tertullian, manifest, for example, in the
following quote: “but that which is infinite is known only to itself. This it is which gives some
notion of God, while yet beyond all our conceptions —our very incapacity of fully grasping Him
affords us the idea of what He really is. He is presented to our minds in His transcendent
greatness, as at once known and unknown.”33

Gregory of Nyssa
In the Great Catechism of Gregory of Nyssa we get a glimpse at his approach to what is
typically called Natural Theology. In the Prologue to the Catechism Gregory explains that it is
not the case that “the same method of instruction will be suitable in the case of all who approach
the word.”34 Rather, “The catechism must be adapted to the diversities of their religious
worship.”35 Gregory explains that “The method of recovery must be adapted to the form of the
Disease. You will not by the same means cure the polytheism of the Greek, and the unbelief of
the Jews as to the Only-begotten God…It is necessary, therefore, as I have said, to regard the
opinions which the persons have taken up, and to frame your argument in accordance with the
error into which each has fallen, by advancing in each discussion certain principles and
reasonable propositions, that thus, through what is agreed upon on both sides, the truth may
conclusively be brought to light.”36 In other words, whenever one enters into dialogue with a
person who holds a position other than the truth of Christianity, we must begin by discovering
what authorities or beliefs we hold in common with the other person. Once we have discovered,
“what is agreed upon on both sides”, then we may successfully bring them to recognize the truth
of Christianity via “certain principles and reasonable propositions.” Gregory, in what follows,

31
Ibid., 86.
32
Ibid., 87.
33
Ibid.
34
Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, in Series 2 of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip
Schaff (NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892), 5:474.
35
Ibid.
36
Ibid., 474.

11
discusses how to properly begin a discussion with people who hold different positions, from the
Atheist to the Heretic.37
Turning to the question of the existence of God, for Gregory recognizes that some people
deny that one God exists, Gregory says, concerning our interlocutor, that “Should he say there is
no God, then, form the consideration of the skilful and wise economy of the Universe he will be
brought to acknowledge that there is a certain overmastering power manifested through these
channels.”38 In other words, Gregory thinks that we can prove the existence of God via an
argument that is based upon our rational observations of nature, and which takes the form of
Design or organisation argument. That is, we live in a world—a unified system of different
beings—which demonstrates a certain order and planning. It is a platitude to say that planning
and order, in a unified system of different beings, are the product of an intelligent Planner and
Organizer. Therefore, our world is the product of an intelligent Planner and Organizer.39

Thomas Aquinas
It is well-known that Thomas Aquinas thought that Natural Theology, as we defined it
above, was not only possible, but biblically supported by the clear reading of Scriptures. In the
first article of the first question of the Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas states that though
humans could come to some knowledge of God via their thinking about their observations of
nature (though it was a long process filled with many errors about God), it was necessary for
God to divinely reveal those truths that were necessary for man’s salvation.40 We will not
belabour Aquinas’s approach, for the simple fact that we are trying to determine whether or not
Natural Theology is necessary for orthodox Protestant belief, and many Protestants explicitly
reject just about anything that Aquinas says, for the simple reason that Aquinas said it. Let’s
look, instead, at some more authoritative figures for contemporary Protestants.

John Calvin
John Calvin states, concerning human knowledge of God, first of all, that “By knowledge
of God, I understand that by which we not only conceive that there is some God, but also
37
Ibid.
38
Ibid.
39
We could also note that Gregory of Nazianzus, another of the important Cappadocian Fathers, expressly
states, in his well-known Homily On Theology, that man can know something of God from his observations of
nature. He compares three sources of knowledge about God (Nature, Holy Scriptures, and the beatific vision), such
that we might say that Natural Theology is like a candle, Holy Scriptures like a spot light (casting direct light on
certain very important things that we must know about God), and the beatific vision like looking directly into the
sun (or being absorbed by it). Cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, On Theology, in Five Theologial Orations, trans. and ed.
Stephen Reynolds (Toronto, ON: Trinity College, 2011), 13-44.
40
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 1, a. 1, respondeo.

12
apprehend what it is for our interest, and conducive to his glory, what, in short, it is befitting to
know concerning him.”41 The question that we must now ask is, Can man attain to knowledge of
God? To this Calvin’s answer is a resounding “Yes!” Not only can the regenerated man attain to
knowledge of God, but the unregenerate man can also attain some knowledge of God.42 Indeed,
as is well known and attested, Calvin claims that all men, regenerate or unregenerate, have
within them the sensus divinitatus (the sense of deity). He states, for example, “That there exists
in the human minds and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of deity, we hold to be beyond
dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men
with some idea of his Godhead, the memory of which he constantly renews and occasionally
enlarges, that all to a man being aware that there is a God, and that he is their Maker, may be
condemned by their own conscience when they neither worship him nor consecrate their lives to
his service.”43
Finally, Calvin states that God reveals himself to man in nature, in three ways: (1)
through creation itself, (2) through man’s nature & man’s history, and (3) through Gods
providential control of the creation and man. Take, for example, this statement, “He [God] has
been pleased, in order that none might be excluded from the means of obtaining felicity [“the
perfection of blessedness [felicity] consists in the knowledge of God”], not only to deposit in our
minds that seed of religion of which we have already spoken [the sensus divinitatus], but so to
manifest his perfections in the whole structure of the universe, and daily place himself in our
view, that we cannot open our eyes without being compelled to behold him. His essence, indeed,
is incomprehensible, utterly transcending all human thought; but on each of his works his glory
is engraved in characters so bright, so distinct, and so illustrious, that none, however dull and
illiterate, can plead ignorance as their excuse.”44 Here Calvin states that God has not only given,
to all men (regenerate and unregenerate) the sensus divinitatus, but, on top of that, He also gives
to all men, in nature (in all the things He has created), the proof of his existence and glory. This
knowledge of God, attained through the contemplation of creation, is available to all men,
everywhere, regenerate or not.
Concerning the notion of Common Ground between the regenerate and the unregenerate,
let us look at the very words of John Calvin, who, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion,
states that the fact that humankind (regenerate and unregenerate) can know God through his
creation just is common ground between the regenerate and the non-regenerate. Calvin explicitly
states, “I just wanted to note here that there is a way to seek God that is common to pagans and to
believers of the church, by following in his footsteps, as they are outlined in the heavens and on

41
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (2007; repr., Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson Publishers, 2012), 7.
42
Ibid., 4.
43
Ibid., 9. Cf. Ibid., 10.
44
Ibid., 16.

13
earth, as paintings of his image.”45 So, Presuppositionalism, by claiming that there is NO
common ground between believers and unbelievers, and by claiming that unbelievers are unable
to come to some knowledge of the true God through their observations of nature, explicitly
rejects a biblical teaching that John Calvin himself explicitly held to be true.

Francis Turretin
Turning to one who is, without a doubt, one of the greatest reformed theologians, Francis
Turretin, we discover that Presuppositionalism should be considered as Unorthodox by all
Reformed thinkers. Why is this? Turretin, in the first couple pages of his Institutes of Elenctic
Theology, writes (in opposition to the heresies of the Socinians, who denied that the unregenerate
people could acquire some knowledge of God from nature with the unaided reason and “who
deny the existence of any such natural theology or knowledge of God.”46) that “The orthodox, on
the contrary, uniformly teach that there is a natural theology, partly innate (derived from the
book of conscience by means of common notions [koinas ennoias]) and partly acquired (drawn
from the book of creatures discursively).”47 It seems, then, that in so much as
Presuppositionalism denies that the unregenerate can actually know something of the true God
from their observations of nature, it is heretical. Indeed, Turretin explicitly refutes, in the name
of orthodoxy, Van Til’s claim that prior to the Fall human’s could know something of the true
God from their unaided observations of the universe, but that after the Fall they could not.48
Turretin explicitly states that natural theology does not concern knowledge of God that man had
prior to the fall, “Nor does it concern this as it was in Adam before the fall”.49 “rather”, Turretin
goes on, “it concerns this as it remained after the fall.”50 Therefore, for Turretin, Natural
Theology is knowledge of God that can be obtained by fallen humans, even in their fallen,
unregenerate, state.

45
Calvin, IRC, t.1, c.5, s. 6. My translation. Italics are mine. In French we read, « Je voulais seulement
observer ici qu’il y a une voie commune aux païens et aux croyants de l’église de rechercher Dieu, en suivant ses
traces, comme ils sont esquissés dans le firmament et sur la terre, comme les peintures de son image. » Beveridge
translates this line as: “I only wish to observe here that this method of investigating the divine perfections, by tracing
the lineament of his countenance as shadowed forth in the firmament and on the earth, is common both to those
within and to those without the pale of the church. (Calvin, IRC, trans. Beveridge, 20.)”
46
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elentic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T Dennison, Jr.
(Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing: 1992-97), 1:6.
47
Ibid.
48
Cf. Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, vol. 5 of In Defense of the Faith (1974;
repr., Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1982), 100.
49
Turretin, IET, 6.
50
Turretin, IET, 6.

14
J. Gresham Machen
What about the very school where Van Til (the undisputed founder of
Presuppositionalism) taught for almost his entire teaching career? We find that the founder of
Westminster Theological Seminary, in Pennsylvania, J. Gresham Machen, disagreed entirely
with Van Til on the possibility of demonstrating the existence of God. In his well-known book,
The Christian Faith in the Modern World, Machen explicitly states that the first place where God
reveals himself to man in the universe that He created.51 He explains that God’s self-testimony in
the universe that He created comes to different people in different ways, by: 1) the natural
sciences and the complexity and order that they discover in the natural world, (2) philosophy and
ontological arguments which begin with the very existence of the universe, and (3) the existential
experience of transcendence.52 Machen, indeed, thinks that the many philosophical arguments
that demonstrate the existence of God provide good evidence, and that the Christian man,
whether he has a detailed knowledge of them or not, should never devalue or regard them as
being of no importance in the debate concerning the existence of God.53
We could continue but the interested reader can go read the rest for themselves. We think
that we have sufficiently shown that the great majority of the great theologians, both in the entire
history of the church, and since the Reform, have declared unashamedly that Natural Theology
was both possible and a clear biblical doctrine. We have now shown, therefore, that based upon
two of the three Protestant ways of measuring orthodoxy, those who deny Natural Theology are
unorthodox, and those who accept Natural Theology are orthodox. There remains one way, via
the major confessions, creeds and Catechisms.

The Confessions, Creeds, and Catechisms

We need to keep this last section relatively short, so we will restrain our comments to two
very important creeds (1) the French Confession of Faith, written by John Calvin himself, and
approved by Theodore Beza, and (2) the most popular and well-known Protestant confession, the
Westminster Confession.54

51
J. Gresham Machen, The Christian Faith in the Modern World (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing, 1965.), 15.
52
Ibid., 17.
53
Ibid., 16.
54
Be it noted that the Baptist confession of 1689 (which was accepted and promoted by men such as Charles
Haddon Spurgeon and Andrew Gifford, along with all of the leaders of the Reformed Baptist Churches of London),
the Belgic Confession, or La Confession de Foi des Églises Chrétiennes Évangéliques de Belgique (which was also
approved by, and used by, Theodore Beza), the Confession of the Waldenses of 1655, A short Baptist confession of
Faith from the Baptist churches of Amsterdam, one of the first General Baptist Confessions from 1651, and a
number of other confessions, all affirm, as clearly as the Westminster Confession (or clearer), that Natural Theology
is a necessary element of true orthodox theology.

15
The French Confession of Faith: Confessio Fidei Gallicana
The French Confession of Faith was prepared, according to Philip Schaff, by John Calvin
and his pupil De Chandieu, and approved by the 1559 synod of Paris.55 It was delivered by
Theodore de Beza in 1561, to Charles the 9th, and adopted by the Synod of La Rochelle in
1571.56 This confession was translated into a number of languages, including German, Latin, and
English.57 The confession begins, “Confession de foi, faite d’un commun accord par les
François, qui desirent vivre selon la pureté de l’évangile de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ. A.D.
1559.”58 We see, then, that this confession is seen, by Calvin, Beza, and the other great reformers
of the 1500s, as being both (1) in line with the Gospel of Jesus-Christ, and, (2) a test for
orthodoxy—in order to be seen as living according to the purity of the Gospel you must agree
with this Confession. What, then, do they confess concerning the knowledge of God that man
can gain from his rational consideration of Creation? Article 2 begins as follows, “Ce Dieu se
manifeste tel aux hommes, premièrement par ses œuvres, tant par la création que par la
conservation et conduite d'icelles. Secondement et plus clairement, par sa Parole, laquelle au
commencement révélée par oracles, a été puis après rédigé par écrit aux livres que nous appelons
l’Ecriture sainte.”59 Note that this confession, written by Calvin and his colleagues, clearly states
that God makes himself known to men in two ways. The first is through his works, and this
through the conservation of his works and by his providential direction of it. This claim is in
direct accordance with Calvin’s clear teaching in his Institutes, about the knowledge that
unregenerate men can have of God via human reasoning about Creation. He supports the claims
in this article by referring to reader to Romans 1:20, where, think Calvin and the other
Reformers, we find the proof that humans can acquire some knowledge of God (not sufficient for
salvation) through the reasoned consideration of nature.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647

The Westminster Confession of Faith is probably one of the most well-known Protestant
confessions, and is taken to be the standard of faith by Reformed and Presbyterian churches and
Seminaries around the world. Schaff notes that “The Westminster Confession sets forth the

55
Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877), 3:356.
56
Ibid.
57
Ibid.
58
Ibid., 3:359. Schaff provides the following translation of this comment, “Confession of Faith, made in one
accord by the French people, who desire to live according to the purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. A.D.
1559. (Ibid.)”
59
Ibid., 3:360. Schaff provides the following translation for this French text, “As such this God reveals
himself to men; firstly, in his works, in their creation, as well as in their preservation and control. Secondly, and
more clearly, in his Word, which was in the beginning revealed through oracles, and which was afterward
committed to writing in the books which we call the Holy Scriptures.”

16
Calvinistic system in its scholastic maturity after it had passed through the sharp conflict with
Arminianism in Holland, and as it had shaped itself in the minds of Scotch Presbyterians and
English Puritans during their conflict with High-Church prelacy.”60 Concerning the purpose of
the Westminster Confession, we are told by William Dunlop that one of the primary reasons for
the composition of the Westminster Confession was, “to secure the purity of the christian
doctrine from the many contagious heresies which in all ages have infested the church ; to
distinguish betwixt those who were infected by prevailing error, and such as persevered in the
uncorrupted faith of the gospel, and so to discover who in this respect should be admitted into the
communion of saints, or might without danger to religion and truth be ordained to, or continued
in the sacred office of the ministry.”61 Note that this Confession was to be used to discern
between who was Orthodox and Unorthodox, and, thus, who could be accepted into the
communion of the Church, and allowed to serve in a ministerial office.62 If someone disagreed
with the statements of the Confession they were to be excluded from communion, and could not
hold a ministerial office. Dunlop continues by noting that “Creeds and Confessions have been
thus used as a test of orthodoxy in all ages and in all places.”63 Furthermore, when the Reform
took place, the reformers “did not altogether reject Creeds and Confessions, but rectifying the
great abuses of them, still continued them as a means of preserving the purity of christian
doctrine, and preventing the spreading of heresy.”64
Concerning the role of human reason in knowing God, Schaff notes that, “The confession
gives to reason, or the light of nature, its proper place.”65 What is that “proper place”? Some
might suggest that it is outside of the Church, but, when we read the Confession, we find that the

60
Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877), 1:760.
61
William Dunlop, A Preface to an Edition of the Westminster Confession, 2nd ed. (London: T. Cox, 1724),
43. Italics are in the original. Be it noted that the full title of this work is: A Preface To An Edition of the
Westminster Confession, &c. Lately publish'd at Edinburgh. Being a full and particular Account Of all the Ends and
Uses of Creeds and Confessions of Faith: A Defence of their Justice, Reasonableness and Necessity, As Public
Standard of Orthodoxy AND An Examination ot the Principal Objections brought by different Authors against
them; especially such as are to be found in the Works of Ensconus and LeClerk; in the Rights of the Christian
Church, and in the Occasional Papers. The part of the title that I have highlighted in bold is in bold in the original
title. Note that for those who both received and wrote the Westminster Creed, it was understood as a standard of
Orthodoxy for all protestants. He who disagreed with this creed, in any point, was unorthodox (as far as that point
was concerned). As unorthodox they were invited to return to True Christian Belief.
62
Dunlop also points out that in the Acts of the General Assemblies of 1690 and 1700, it was stated that all
church leaders were to subscribe to the Confession, in its entirety (Cf. Dunlop, PEWC, 64.). He quotes the formula
that all church leaders were to state prior to being allowed to serve in a church, “I do sincerely own and declare the
above Confession of Faith, approven by former general assemblies of this church, and ratified by laws in the year
1690, to be the Confession of my Faith; and that I own the doctrine therein contained to be the true doctrine which I
will constantly adhere to. (Ibid., 64-65.)”
63
Ibid., 43. Italics in the original.
64
Ibid., 44. Italics in the original.
65
Schaff, CC, 1:767.

17
role of reason in acquiring some knowledge of the one true God is affirmed, “Although the Light
of Nature, and the works of Creation and Providence do so far manifest the Goodness, Wisdom,
and Power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that
knowledge of God and of his Will, which is necessary unto salvation.”66 This claim is supported,
as we have already seen in the other confessions, by reference to Romans 2:14-15, 1:19-20, Ps.
19:1-3, etc. Note, again, that the group of Protestant scholars and pastors who wrote, discussed,
and eventually produced this authoritative document, saw fit to state that Nature, the works of
Creation, and divine Providence over creation, manifest, clearly to all men, a number of the
attributes of God: Wisdom, Goodness and Power. John Macpherson, writing an authoritative
commentary on the Westminster Confession, notes, concerning this first article, that “Their
whole system [the system of those who wrote the Westminster Confession] may be estimated by
an examination of their first article.”67 Furthermore, they believed that this claim was based upon
scripture, properly interpreted. Finally, they think that adherence to this belief, which is the
foundational claim for Natural Theology, is necessary for Orthodoxy.
According to Macpherson, “Full acknowledgement is made of the importance of natural
religion within its own province. Apart from a divine revelation as an oral communication of
God’s will, man may arrive at a knowledge of God’s being, and at least a partial perception of
His character.”68 Note that what Macpherson means by “natural religion” is what we are
referring to when we use the term “natural theology”. According to the Westminster, though,
one’s salvation is not placed in doubt based upon their rejection of Natural Theology (that is, one
may still be saved without accepting the biblical truth of Natural Theology), if you reject Natural
Theology, then you are unorthodox. Macpherson notes that “The statement of our Confession
sufficiently guards against errors [thus against unorthodoxy or heresy] in two extreme directions.
On the one hand, some pious men were led to deny altogether the reality of natural religion…On
the other hand, the English Deists started with the assertion that all true knowledge, that of
religion as well as of science and philosophy, is derived from the same revelation,—
understanding by revelation simply the discoveries of man in the exercise of his natural
powers.”69 Thus, according to Macpherson, the purpose of the above noted statement in the
Westminster Confession is to keep the believer from following into two equally unorthodox
positions: (1) denying the reality of Natural Theology, and (2) Making Natural Theology the be-
all and end-all of Christian Revelation—only Natural Theology being necessary. In other words,
those who deny the reality of Natural Theology—that humans can know something of God via
their reasoned observations of Nature—are, according to the Westminster Confession,
Unorthodox.

66
Schaff, CC, 3:599, 600.
67
John Macpherson, The Westminster Confession of Faith with Introduction and Notes, in HandBooks for
Bible Classes, ed. Marcus Dods and Alexander Whyte (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clarke, 1881), 29.
68
Ibid.
69
Ibid., 29-30.

18
 In case there was any confusion as to what was meant by the above quoted statement
from the first article of the Westminster Confession, we are able to support our interpretation of
this statement by referring the reader to the Westminster Larger Catechism. The Catechism was
designed as a way of teaching, dialectically, the doctrines that are affirmed in the Confession.
Note the second question in the Westminster Larger Catechism,70 “Q. How doth it appear that
there is a God? A. The very light of nature in man, and the works of God, declare plainly that
there is a God: but his Word and Spirit only do sufficiently and effectually reveal him unto men
for their salvation.”71 Almost no comment is required here! How do we know that there is a
God? By the very natural light in man, by the creation of God, which clearly manifest his
existence. All men can know that God exists in this way, but, this natural knowledge of God is
not sufficient for salvation. It is, however, still true knowledge of the one true God.
In support of our understanding of both the Westminster Confession and the article in the
Larger Catechism, we point the reader to the work of Thomas Rigdley, A Body of Divinity:
wherein the Doctrines of the Christian Religion are explained and defended. Being the Substance
of several lectures on the Assemblies Larger Catechism. Here Rigdley first quotes the question,
and answer, that we have noted above. He then asks the question, “Why proofs of the being of
God should be studied.”72 To this question Rigdley provides 4 reasons, the first being that the
existence of God is fundamental to both natural theology and revealed religion. His comment
here is priceless, “It, therefore, must not be received merely by tradition, as though there were no
other reason for our believing it than that others do so, or that we have been instructed in it from
our childhood. To receive it in this manner is unbecoming the dignity and importance of the
subject, and would display great stupidity; especially as we have so full and demonstrative
evidence in the whole frame of nature.”73 After having provided three other reasons for studying
the proofs of the existence of God, Rigdley moves on to consider the proofs of the existence of
God. The first point that he treats, before even arriving at the arguments that show that God exist,
is an explanation of the statement that the natural light of man clearly shows that God exists.
Here he states that, “By this we understand that reason which he is endowed with; whereby he is
distinguished from, and rendered superior to, all other creatures in this lower world; and whereby
he is able to observe the connection of things, and their dependence on one another, and to infer
those consequences which may be deduced from thence. The reasoning powers of man, indeed,
are very much sullied, depraved, and weakened, by our apostacy from God; but they are not
wholly obliterated; for there are some remains of them, which are common to all nations,—
whereby, without the help of special revelation, it may be known that there is a God.”74 This is
how, indeed, both the Westminster Confession and the Larger Catechism were understood by

70
This question does not appear in the Shorter Catechism.
71
Ibid., 675.
72
Thomas Rigdley, A Body of Divinity, ed. John M. Wilson (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1855),
1:9. Italics in the original.
73
Ibid.
74
Ibid., 10.

19
Reformed Theologians—from the time of Calvin to the time of Van Til. Those Reformed
theologians who seek to maintain orthodoxy continue to affirm what Rigdley has here stated so
clearly.

Conclusions
Our research has shown, in no uncertain terms, that by the application of all three
Protestant ways for measuring orthodoxy, Natural Theology (as we defined it above) is a
necessary element for complete orthodoxy. Though it may not be necessary for salvation, to
accept the truth that all men are able to know something about God via their rational
observations of nature, it is necessary in order to be considered fully orthodoxy. We have seen
that the Bible clearly teaches this doctrine, that the greatest theologians of the history of the
church (both pre- and post-reformation) clearly teach this doctrine, and that the most important
creeds and confessions of the Protestant church clearly teach this doctrine. It follows, then, that
in order to be considered fully orthodoxy, according to available Protestant standards for
measuring orthodoxy, one must accept Natural Theology. Those who deny it, such as Karl Barth
and Cornelius Van Til, must be considered, on this point, unorthodox.
Francis Brown writing in 1899 about the notion of Orthodoxy, stated that, “Orthodoxy is
right thinking, or, by our usage, right thinking about religion. Nothing could be simpler. But as a
matter of fact no one on earth knows, exactly and exhaustively, what right thinking about
religion is. We have some right thoughts, perhaps many, but we have not all the right thoughts
there are—we are ignorant about some things; nor are all our thoughts probably right—we are
doubtless mistaken about some things. If we were exhaustively and exactly orthodox, there
would be no religious truths of which we are ignorant, and all our thoughts about religious things
would be right. We sometimes talk and act as if this were the case. But the case really is that only
one Being is omniscient and all-wise…Although human orthodoxy is imperfect, we are not free
from the obligation to be orthodoxy. Truth claims our allegiance.”75 There is certainly much
more that could be said about both Natural Theology and Protestant orthodoxy, but this much
should be said: It is impossible to fully possess right opinion on Christian theology without
affirming that all men are able to know something about God via their rational observations of
nature.

75
Brown, “What is Orthodoxy?”, 409.

20