The thing about natural theology is that it is natural. Proponents of natural theology, particularly on the Protestant side, are okay with natural theology if it has to do with a doctrine of God, but when it comes to ecclesiology they quickly slam the door shut. This seems to be a serious methodological inconsistency in the Protestant’s natural theological approach. They are okay with appealing to our 
capacity to discover God’s attributes in nature, but they are un-okay with finding the attributes of the Church in the natural order of things as those have unfolded in the halls of history. In other words, why does the Protestant natural theologian feel okay with affirming natural theology when it comes to developing a doctrine of God (the proper of theology), but when it comes to subsequent doctrines like a theory of the Church and her authority, the Protestant natural theologian immediately rebuffs natural theology in that application.
In other words, in my view a natural theologian, whether Catholic or Protestant needs to be consistent in their commitment to natural theology. If they want to posit in an ad hoc way that God is discoverable in nature, because God in His providence has decided that that be the way, then they need to carry this through all the way down. Apostolic Succession [Apostolicum] is a seminal concept that developed early on; even as far back as patristic sources. It developed over time to the point that the Pope was seen as having the capacity to speak excathedra for God. It developed in such a way that the authority of the Church became magisterial for the Church’s understanding of the faith. And this reality was something that was present in the shape of the Church for centuries prior to the 16th century Protestant Reformation. As evangelically reformed Christian theologians are retrieving a doctrine of God from the Great Tradition of the Church, and such a doctrine that rests upon a natural theological mode, then, if consistent, how can these same theologians assert that Apostolic Succession isn’t just as discoverable as a doctrine of God? I mean, if God in His providence saw fit to regulate and shape Christ’s Church by the papacy, then how can any natural theologian deny that and remain consistent with their commitment to natural theology simplicter? If natural theology entails looking back at how doctrine developed through the centuries of the Church’s development, then how can the natural theology reject Apostolic Succession in any meaningful way? If God saw fit to use Apostolic Succession as the fundamentum of the Church’s existence for centuries, then how can the natural theologian deny that and not attempt to retrieve that alongside a doctrine of God?
In my view, if the theologian claims to be committed to any form of natural theology then they really have no basis for remaining Protestant; they might as well repent, and swim the river Tiber. Natural theology, as it is deployed in the halls of Protestantism, is a leftover from its roots in Catholicism. In other words, Protestants, in the early stages, failed to reform its way out from the natural theology inherent to the Catholic theology they sought to reform. I am suggesting, firmly, that the Protestant, in order to be consistently committed to a radical theology of the Word, of the sort that led the Protestants away from the authority of the Church, must repudiate any commitment to natural theology. Natural theology works well for the Roman Catholic Thomist, but not well for the Protestant Christian; at least not if the Protestant is committed to the authority of the Word. The authority of the Word comes from the Word’s reality in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is revealed not discovered in the annals of historical development. Jesus Christ is given, not taken. Jesus Christ breaks in on us, moment by moment; we don’t break in on Him through speculating our way through nature in order to know Him and His attributes.
I realize my observations fall on empty ears. Even so, there are some serious holes in the 21st century Reformed Protestant’s theological approach. They constantly appeal to natural theology and the Great Tradition of the Church, but then snipe at the idea that they are inconsistent in their appropriation of natural theology. Seems to me that if you are going to praise the wonders and beauties of natural theology when it comes to a doctrine of God, then you need to be consistent with that. If you aren’t going to be consistent with that then your theological methodology is suspect, and doesn’t warrant a lot of serious consideration. But if the Protestant natural theologian were to take their ostensible commitment to natural theology seriously they would cease being Protestant and become Roman Catholic. This, at least for me, is how radical the implications of all of this are; yet it seems lost on most Protestant theologians of this ilk.
I fail to see how natural theology has anything to do with Apostolic Succession or the Great Tradition of the Church. Since when did natural theology entail “looking back at how doctrine developed through the centuries of the Church’s development”? Natural theology is simply a systematic inquiry into what can be known about the existence and nature of God drawn from the natural world.
To quote John Polkinghorne, “Natural theology is an intrinsically limited exercise that affords valuable, if only partial, insight into the remarkable world of which we are inhabitants. It flourishes today, not because it provides complete and unquestionable answers to all the questions it addresses, but because it can claim to do a better job of giving insight into the fundamental nature of reality than is the case for natural atheism.” [John Polkinghorne, “Where is Natural Theology Today?” Science & Christian Belief, Vol 18, No. 2 (2006) 169-179]
Paul,
You mean you don’t see how ecclesiology has an antecedent reality in theology proper? Typically in theological reflection or in a theological ordering (taxis) a doctrine of God comes first, then subsequent ologies of which ecclesiology is one. Polkinghorne’s quote doesn’t militate against my premise, in fact it helps to support it. But it seems to me that in reality the context of his quote has more to do with an apologetic concern rather than a strictly dogmatic or theological one. But the premise of my post is couched in a different context, a stridently theological one. You may well want to read up on how ‘natural theology’ is in fact deployed when concerned with understanding what many countenance as the ‘church catholic.’ The argument in nuce is: ‘it is in the Church, therefore it is of God’s providence.’ And the is is what some call the consensus fidelium or consensus patrum or The Great Tradition. The consensus is: because there is tradition, therefore it must be a result of God’s providential oversight. If this is so, the reasoning goes, then God has caused what has been produced within the Great Tradition. That is how ‘natural’ theology is often appealed to, and it is this that I am critiquing.
I can see why you’re confused: you’re attempting to read some other application or definition of natural theology (an apologetic usage rather than strictly theological one) into what I am writing about, and expecting what I am writing about to cohere with the context Polkinghorne is thinking from. But that doesn’t work.
For further insight on how natural theology has functioned in the way I am referring to it, see David Congdon’s big book on Bultmann.
But in what way is apostolic succession a derivative of natural theology? Isn’t the idea that one discovers the “attributes of the Church in the natural order of things as they have unfolded in the halls of history” the very essence of tradition and, generally speaking, the epistemological way of things (as knowledge builds upon prior knowledge in an infinite trajectory towards logos)?
Scratch my last question – someone beat me to it. Even given your definition of natural theology, it still doesn’t address the “consensus patrum” of apostolic succession is apparent even within scripture itself…
Anthony,
You’ll have to rephrase what you just wrote; I’m not following. My basic premise is that to say that something just is, even if it has traditional and consensual support, and precisely because of that, this does not, or should not equal the belief that it is necessarily of God (in his providential care of the Church). I am asserting that apostolic succession is a just is tradition, as such this does not, or should not equal the belief that it is necessarily of God. I am also asserting that, as corollary, anyone who affirms one aspect of natural theology, in re to developing a doctrine of God, in order to be consistent with this prolegomenon, the theologian ought also to affirm apostolic succession; that is, insofar as the latter is of apiece with this whole methodology.
Anthony,
Are you wanting to suggest that the so called consensus patrum is simply latent within Scripture, and this is why there is a consensus to begin with? If so, that is question begging. To be clear: I’m not arguing against the consensus, per se, but instead my aim is to work against the concept of apostolic succession (which is different but related) couched within a theory of authority/revelation.
And I am connecting apostolic succession with natural theology insofar as AS is appealed to as the just is historic reality of the Church. It is this appeal which constitutes an appeal to natural theology qua apostolic succession insofar that AS is affirmed simply by referring to historical development; as if this development is necessarily a result of God’s interaction with the nature of the Church. I am arguing from a different theory of revelation which grounds the reality or esse of the Church in the triune life. And this triune life is never a possession of historical development, or of the Church; instead the triune life, through Christ, breaks in on the Church moment by moment, bringing its life to her like a heart beat from one beat to the next.