Can I ask what you mean by the category "natural"? If nature is a synonym for creation, then angels and immaterial human minds are natural, and this is not what we usually mean by the word.
Very good point - the natural is narrower than creation. I believe that standard Christian usage would count God and angels as supernatural (and miraculous actions of either), humans and all else below as nature. An intellectual nature is shared by God, angels, and human beings, which is how humans are more like supernatural beings.
My point would still be that nature is not autonomous of God. It is a whole realm of God’s creation. The fact that scientists, whether they believe or not, can have some understanding of nature does not make nature autonomous of God. Nature itself points to God.
About 15 years ago, I took a "worldview test," not out of any real curiosity whether I would "pass it" and be considered to think Christianly, but out of curiosity for what the questions would be on such a quiz. Well, I gave the "right" answer to every question but one, as per the grading of the test: I said that there was a distinction between the sacred and the secular (much like the biblical distinction between the holy and the common, I would add).
BTW, there are two or more definitions to many words, and I would point out that not all "naturalists" believe that nature is distinct from creation. That is, a person who studies nature, but is not a scientist, is called a naturalist. I consider myself a naturalist by that definition, and I use "nature" and "creation" interchangeably.
I haven't particularly studied the two kingdom/ one kingdom distinction, but some of my favorite theologians are convinced of two kingdoms. My understanding is that two kingdoms has a more thorough understanding of the already/not yet of eschatology. Christ is already Lord over all, but He is not yet acknowledged by those who haven't come under His rule.
Can I ask what you mean by the category "natural"? If nature is a synonym for creation, then angels and immaterial human minds are natural, and this is not what we usually mean by the word.
Very good point - the natural is narrower than creation. I believe that standard Christian usage would count God and angels as supernatural (and miraculous actions of either), humans and all else below as nature. An intellectual nature is shared by God, angels, and human beings, which is how humans are more like supernatural beings.
My point would still be that nature is not autonomous of God. It is a whole realm of God’s creation. The fact that scientists, whether they believe or not, can have some understanding of nature does not make nature autonomous of God. Nature itself points to God.
Good discussion.
About 15 years ago, I took a "worldview test," not out of any real curiosity whether I would "pass it" and be considered to think Christianly, but out of curiosity for what the questions would be on such a quiz. Well, I gave the "right" answer to every question but one, as per the grading of the test: I said that there was a distinction between the sacred and the secular (much like the biblical distinction between the holy and the common, I would add).
BTW, there are two or more definitions to many words, and I would point out that not all "naturalists" believe that nature is distinct from creation. That is, a person who studies nature, but is not a scientist, is called a naturalist. I consider myself a naturalist by that definition, and I use "nature" and "creation" interchangeably.
I haven't particularly studied the two kingdom/ one kingdom distinction, but some of my favorite theologians are convinced of two kingdoms. My understanding is that two kingdoms has a more thorough understanding of the already/not yet of eschatology. Christ is already Lord over all, but He is not yet acknowledged by those who haven't come under His rule.