Light of Nature

[Magma2]

Warning #2 Sean. Your childish taunts will get you nowhere. Moderate your tone or this time I'm suspending you for a month.

I apologize if anything I said offended you. That certainly wasn't my intent, but I didn't think I was "taunting" you.

I was referring to your post which contained a long selection from the Institutes. I asked if you would be be willing to concede that Reymond is in harmony with Calvin at least on this question? I think he is and I gave a number of different reasons why.

P.S. Just FYI, I can't remember reading anywhere in Calvin where he argued in favor of rational proofs for God from nature and apart from Scripture, which is how LoN is understood by some.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Sean,
Seriously? You wrote: "P.S. Please also do me the favor of not asking Rev. Winzer what you think in advance. Thanks again."

If you desire to receive a fair hearing Sean, it would be wise not to torpedo your request in the same post with a jab that is going to be counter productive of your goal.

I apologize if anything I said offended you. That certainly wasn't my intent, but I didn't think I was "taunting" you.

 

[Theogenes]

I have never found it on the website. I saw it in an old journal of Christian reconstruction. I can summarize the arguments later.

Thanks Jacob!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Fisher's Catechism (an exposition of the Westminster Shorter Catechism):

Q. 4.1. What is the first fundamental truth to be believed, and upon which all other truths depend?

A. That God is; or that there is a God, Heb 9:6. "He that cometh unto God, must believe that he is."

Q. 4.2. Is this fundamental truth known by the light of natural reason?

A. Yes: as the apostle declares, Rom 1:20. "The invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; even his eternal power and Godhead."

Q. 4.3. In what volumes has God discovered the knowledge of himself to all mankind?

A. In the great volumes of creation and providence; which he opens to all the world.

Q. 4.4. What says the volume of Creation as to the being of a God?

A. All creatures in general, and every creature in particular, say that God "made us, and not we ourselves," Ps 100:3.

Q. 4.5. What says the volume of Providence?

A. It says, that the same God who gave us being, upholds us therein; and governs us to the end for which he made us, Heb 1:3.

Q. 4.6. Is not every man's own being, a convincing evidence that there is a God?

A. Yes: for, "in him we live, move, and have our being." No man can have any hand in his own formation in the womb, Ps 139:15-16; nor can he add a cubit unto his stature, or make one hair of his head either white or black, Matt 6:27; and Matt 5:36.

Q. 4.7. Though the works of creation and providence declare that God is, can they also tell us what God is?

A. They afford us some dark glimpses of his eternal power, wisdom, greatness, and goodness; but it is only by and through the scriptures of truth, set home on the soul by his Spirit, that we can attain the saving knowledge of God and of his perfections, John 5:39; 2 Pet 1:19; Rom 15:4.

 

[Magma2]

Sean,
Seriously? You wrote: "P.S. Please also do me the favor of not asking Rev. Winzer what you think in advance. Thanks again."

If you desire to receive a fair hearing Sean, it would be wise not to torpedo your request in the same post with a jab that is going to be counter productive of your goal.

I apologize for that. It was an uncalled for remark.

 

[MW]

Therefore, can we conclude that presuppositionalism is by definition contrary to the Westminister Standards (as I believe some here maintain) and that only various forms of Thomism and evidentialism are consistently Confessional?

The divines were presuppositional, as their view on conscience makes perfectly clear.

 

[staythecourse]

I am not convinced this is matter but time

"The invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; even his eternal power and Godhead."

"Since time began creation has understood...."

rather than,

"Creation displays to creature..."

Rich, is this an out of line question? If so you can remove it and another thread could be started if it would be better.

Thank you.

 

[Magma2]

The divines were presuppositional, as their view on conscience makes perfectly clear.

What is perfectly clear? A. Hodge says the LoN is demonstrated in the cosmological argument. When did Aquinas become a presuppositionalist?

 

[MW]

"Since time began creation has understood...."

That is OK, but the reason why commentators choose to take it that way is due to an evident tautology that emerges if it is understood as referring to the matter. The apostle goes on to say, "being understood by the things that are made." Hence it is likely that creation of the world is a temporal reference given that he eventually says that the matter of creation is the medium by which the invisible things of God are understood.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Thank you Andrew for the many citations, but I think they actually compound the confusion since it is clear, at least to me, that “light of nature” is being understood differently by different people even amongst the Divines themselves.

For example, George Gillespie and William Gouge both seem to understand LoN as having to do with the position advanced by Calvin that men have certain innate ideas yet “can in no way attain to God unless it be aided and assisted by his Sacred Word . . . .” LoN, at least per the quotes provided from these two men could be explained in terms which Schaeffer would have called “moral motions.” In these cases it would seem to me that Reymond is completely justified in his exposition and not going beyond Confessional bounds.

OTOH some of the other commentators, particularly Shaw and A. Hodge are very clear that what is meant and men can arrive at true knowledge of God completely apart from God’s self-revelation in Scripture and by the use of reason and sensation. Hodge is most explicit when he addresses what he calls; “An extreme opinion on this subject has been held by some Christians, to the effect that no true and certain knowledge of God can be derived. by man, in his present condition, from the light of nature in the entire absence of a supernatural revelations.” He even asserts; “This opinion is disproved . . . by the fact that many conclusive arguments for the existence of a great First Cause, who is at the same time an intelligent personal Spirit and righteous moral Governor, have been drawn by a strict induction from the facts of nature alone, as they lie open to the natural understanding.”

While in hindsight the extreme naiveté in Hodge’s remarks is almost embarrassing, I do think Patrick Severson is correct and that many Divines would have been familiar with the cosmological argument and think of LoN as providing a means by which men can attain true knowledge of God apart from any “assistance from the Sacred Word.” While a seemingly trivial point I think Patrick makes an important observation:

Therefore, can we conclude that presuppositionalism is by definition contrary to the Westminister Standards (as I believe some here maintain) and that only various forms of Thomism and evidentialism are consistently Confessional?

Should presuppositionalist ministers be informing their Presbyteries that they are out of accord with the system of doctrine taught in the WCF? If not, why not?

Or, is there enough ambiguity in how the phrase LoN was understood by other Divines to allow for presuppositionalism?

First, I don't think the gulf between Hodge, Gillespie, and Gouge is that great.

I think the first two sentences from Hodge makes it clear where he stands:

This section affirms the following propositions: -
1. That the light of nature and the works of creation and providence are sufficient to make known the fact that there is a God, and somewhat of his nature and character, so as to leave the disobedience of men without excuse.

2. That nevertheless the amount and kind of knowledge thus attainable is not sufficient to enable any to secure salvation.

I think his critique of some forms of rationalism is that they deny that man can attain to any knowledge of God apart from the Scriptures.

Maybe it's because I'm not really trying to be on any "side" here but I can't see the hard lines you're drawing and calling it Thomism. In fact, the idea of Thomism is rejected in the Confession itself because Thomas believed that men could reason everything about God - even saving knowledge. There is complete consensus in everything quoted above that the Scriptures are indispensible for a man to have his eyes opened to God's saving work but there is yet consensus that man attain to real knowledge, from God Himself, apart from the Scriptures that not only governs them but leaves them without excuse. Acknowledging the latter while preserving the former does not make one a Thomist.

2. One of the reasons I wanted this thread to play out the way it did was to have us all ask the legitimate question you did about whether or not what we believe is what the Confession teaches. If a man is going to claim "...this is what the Confession teaches..." while another man disagrees then it really doesn't work to have the Confession defined differently for both men. I think it is fairly obvious that Reymond's added sentence *not* what the Confession teaches. He's fine as far as agreeing with the Confessional writers that saving knowledge requires the Scriptures and that the light of nature is insufficient for this task but then he adds a sentence that states that *all* knowledge of God is justified by the Scriptures. This simply cannot be sustained by the evidence.

A man ought to be honest enough to say "I disagree with the Confession on this point" when this happens. I don't believe the Confession is infallible but it does have Ecclesiastical authority where individuals do not. Hence the desire for some to cloak a teaching in the WCF to discourage criticism or real scrutiny. I think we all grow weary, as Americans, of draping sins in the sanction of the Constitution. We ought to all have the integrity to let the writers of the Confession speak for themselves and not change their words to suit our needs.

As far as whether presuppostionalism as a whole is Confessional I think Rev. Winzer and others are better qualified. I think there are certain views of some presuppositionalism that are clearly different. Where they are, they ought to be treated as personal opinion and not be pressed further unless the Church does so. Yet, if the Church does want to testify to a new understanding then she ought to have the courage to ammend the Confession and not simply put words into the mouths of the Reformers.

I apologize if anything I said offended you. That certainly wasn't my intent, but I didn't think I was "taunting" you.

Apology accepted.

I was referring to your post which contained a long selection from the Institutes. I asked if you would be be willing to concede that Reymond is in harmony with Calvin at least on this question? I think he is and I gave a number of different reasons why.

I don't think I've ever denied a good portion of what Reymond wrote about what the light of nature *cannot* do. Will somebody else please pipe in and tell me if I've been at all confusing in what I wrote besides Sean? I'm not upset with you Sean but I'm sometimes absolutely perplexed how I can write a very specific criticism and have it re-interpreted to mean that I'm advocating a Thomistic view on the light of nature. Seriously, I think you have your Clarkian goggles welded on to your eyes and cannot see me using knowledge in the different ways that the Confession does and so you conclude that I have a view that I do not hold.

P.S. Just FYI, I can't remember reading anywhere in Calvin where he argued in favor of rational proofs for God from nature and apart from Scripture, which is how LoN is understood by some.

I'm not aware of any either and am not advocating them. I don't like classical proofs for apologetics to unbelievers. This is not an apologetics thread, however, it is a theological one. I tend to be pretty hard-nosed theologically and might not be a very good apologist. I simply wouldn't have much to argue with an atheist about. I believe he knows God both innately and from the revelation that God has given Him in creation. We've had a few quotes from Calvin that sustain that. He is, in fact, *justified* in believing that God is on the basis of that revelation and is condemned for his suppression of it.

Do I believe that I can persuade him on the basis of that natural revelation? No, because, like I just said, I believe he suppresses that knowledge. But saying he is suppressing it is a far cry from saying he has no knowledge whatsoever. It is also quite different from saying that *all* knowledge is justified by Scripture.

 

[MW]

What is perfectly clear? A. Hodge says the LoN is demonstrated in the cosmological argument. When did Aquinas become a presuppositionalist?

That the divines were presuppositional is perfectly clear. Their moral system is constructed on the basis that God wrote His law on the heart of Adam. There is no neutrality. Hodge refers to causal arguments, which are perfectly consistent with presuppositionalism. As for Aquinas, what does the chaff have to do with the wheat?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

As for Aquinas, what does the chaff have to do with the wheat?

Exactly.

 

[Civbert]

...given that he eventually says that the matter of creation is the medium by which the invisible things of God are understood.

That's not a given, it's the question being asked. And it's an assumption based by some is based on empirical presuppositions and little to no hermetical analysis. This sole verse is read without consideration to the context to justify empirical knowledge when context says otherwise.

The context:

Rom 1:18-19 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, (19) because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
​

The verse alone:

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
​

Now taking this verse by itself - it appears to say that God invisible attributes (emphasis on invisible), are see via empiricism. However, the context of verses 18 and 19, added to the fact that these attributes are "invisible" so they can not be seen (unless Paul is contradicting himself), shows that what is in mind is not "see in creation" but "understood by creation".

What follows:

Rom 1:21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
​

does not support anything like empiricism. And even more damaging to the empirical theory follows when Paul says:

Rom 1:22-23 Professing to be wise, they became fools, (23) and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
​

Instead of recognizing the truth God has manifest in their hearts, men (through empiricism apparently) turn towards the worship of the "natural" world. So much for empiricism leading to knowledge of God.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

That's not a given, it's the question being asked. And it's an assumption based by some is based on empirical presuppositions and little to no hermetical analysis. This sole verse is read without consideration to the context to justify empirical knowledge when context says otherwise.

The context:

Rom 1:18-19 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, (19) because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
​

The verse alone:

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
​

Now taking this verse by itself - it appears to say that God invisible attributes (emphasis on invisible), are see via empiricism. However, the context of verses 18 and 19, added to the fact that these attributes are "invisible" so they can not be seen (unless Paul is contradicting himself), shows that what is in mind is not "see in creation" but "understood by creation".

What follows:

Rom 1:21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
​

does not support anything like empiricism. And even more damaging to the empirical theory follows when Paul says:

Rom 1:22-23 Professing to be wise, they became fools, (23) and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
​

Instead of recognizing the truth God has manifest in their hearts, men (through empiricism apparently) turn towards the worship of the "natural" world. So much for empiricism leading to knowledge of God.

Are you quoting a council or a writer of the Confession here or are you quoting Anthony Coletti?

You need to re-read both the thread rules and the thread itself. The thread rules will remind you what is appropriate for this thread while the thread will reveal that empericism has been nowhere propounded.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I also wanted to point out that very few of the comments given...

I can delete things you point out that are outside the rules of the thread faster than you can point them out.

 

[MW]

That's not a given, it's the question being asked.

Read what he wrote: "Creation of the world." That is the statement the question centres on. Read what I wrote: "Being understood by the things that are made." That is what my answer centres on. The first statement is considered a tautology if it is saying the same thing as the second statement; hence commentators take the first statement as temporal. Please pay attention.

 

[Civbert]

Are you quoting a council or a writer of the Confession here or are you quoting Anthony Coletti?

You need to re-read both the thread rules and the thread itself. The thread rules will remind you what is appropriate for this thread while the thread will reveal that empericism has been nowhere propounded.

Sorry. I was commenting on Rev. Winzer's comment. I guess he doesn't count as "council or a writer of the Confession".

 

[Civbert]

Read what he wrote: "Creation of the world." That is the statement the question centres on. Read what I wrote: "Being understood by the things that are made." That is what my answer centres on. The first statement is considered a tautology if it is saying the same thing as the second statement; hence commentators take the first statement as temporal. Please pay attention.

Watch out Rev. Winzer! Your'e breaking the rules.

 

[MW]

Watch out Rev. Winzer! Your'e breaking the rules.

Requiring a person to pay attention is breaking the rules?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rev Winzer is explaining his take on the commentators understanding. I don't mind you guys speculating on why commentators are holding to something as long as you can show that the commentators are reasoning that way. You started interacting with Rev. Winzer instead of the commentators themselves.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Requiring a person to pay attention is breaking the rules?

Cross posting.

Yes it is. I'm trying to avoid competing views here. This is about the Confession's view. You should be able to point to him where that view has already been established.

Oy!

 

[MW]

I'm confused. A gentleman asked about "from the creation of the world." I tried to give him an explanation from the commentators. Civbert misconstrues what I said. I ask him to pay attention. What is cross posting?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

You were fine. I just stated that answering from the commentators is what you did.

Cross posting means I was typing while you two were interacting.

I'm trying to avoid a tit for tat. I even just realized that you pointed to the commentators even in your reply to Anthony.

A "pay attention" is, in fact, warranted. Charges of empericism and the like lead me to believe Anthony has not.

I'm not trained well in philosophy but I know when shoes fit and when they do not. If you're going to insist on being precise, Anthony, in using terminology then I must insist you use labels precisely. To refer to the WCF Divines' commentary as empericism is terribly imprecise.

I also think part of the continued problem is a desire to categorize this into philosophical categories insisting that something is either empericism or rationalism, presuppositionalism or Thomism, etc. I think we need to all just sit back and learn and let our categories take a rest, understand what is being said, and then make some categorical applications only if they are warranted.

Now, Anthony, if you want to clarify what a commentator was saying and try to understand how it is not empericism or the like then let's interact on that.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Incidentally,

Here is Calvin on this portion of Romans 1:

The truth of God means, the true knowledge of God; and to hold in that, is to suppress or to obscure it: hence they are charged as guilty of robbery. — What we render unjustly, is given literally by Paul, in unrighteousness, which means the same thing in Hebrew: but we have regard to perspicuity. 44

19. Inasmuch as what may be known of God, etc. He thus designates what it behoves us to know of God; and he means all that appertains to the setting forth of the glory of the Lord, or, which is the same thing, whatever ought to move and excite us to glorify God. And by this expression he intimates, that God in his greatness can by no means be fully comprehended by us, and that there are certain limits within which men ought to confine themselves, inasmuch as God accommodates to our small capacities what he testifies of himself. Insane then are all they who seek to know of themselves what God is: for the Spirit, the teacher of perfect wisdom, does not in vain invite our attention to what may be known, τὸ γνωστὸν; and by what means this is known, he immediately explains. And he said, in them rather than to them, for the sake of greater emphasis: for though the Apostle adopts everywhere Hebrew phrases, and ב, beth, is often redundant in that language, yet he seems here to have intended to indicate a manifestation, by which they might be so closely pressed, that they could not evade; for every one of us undoubtedly finds it to be engraven on his own heart45, By saying, that God has made it manifest, he means, that man was created to be a spectator of this formed world, and that eyes were given him, that he might, by looking on so beautiful a picture, be led up to the Author himself.

20. Since his invisible things, 46 etc. God is in himself invisible; but as his majesty shines forth in his works and in his creatures everywhere, men ought in these to acknowledge him, for they clearly set forth their Maker: and for this reason the Apostle in his Epistle to the Hebrews says, that this world is a mirror, or the representation of invisible things. He does not mention all the particulars which may be thought to belong to God; but he states, that we can arrive at the knowledge of his eternal power and divinity; 47 for he who is the framer of all things, must necessarily be without beginning and from himself. When we arrive at this point, the divinity becomes known to us, which cannot exist except accompanied with all the attributes of a God, since they are all included under that idea.

So that they are inexcusable. It hence clearly appears what the consequence is of having this evidence — that men cannot allege any thing before God’s tribunal for the purpose of showing that they are not justly condemned. Yet let this difference be remembered, that the manifestation of God, by which he makes his glory known in his creation, is, with regard to the light itself, sufficiently clear; but that on account of our blindness, it is not found to be sufficient. We are not however so blind, that we can plead our ignorance as an excuse for our perverseness. We conceive that there is a Deity; and then we conclude, that whoever he may be, he ought to be worshipped: but our reason here fails, because it cannot ascertain who or what sort of being God is. Hence the Apostle in Hebrews 11:3, ascribes to faith the light by which man can gain real knowledge from the work of creation, and not without reason; for we are prevented by our blindness, so that we reach not to the end in view; we yet see so far, that we cannot pretend any excuse. Both these things are strikingly set forth by Paul in Acts 14:16-17, when he says, that the Lord in past times left the nations in their ignorance, and yet that he left them not without witness (amarturon,) since he gave them rain and fertility from heaven. But this knowledge of God, which avails only to take away excuse, differs greatly from that which brings salvation, which Christ mentions in John 17:3, and in which we are to glory, as Jeremiah teaches us, Jeremiah 9:24

21. For when they knew God, etc. He plainly testifies here, that God has presented to the minds of all the means of knowing him, having so manifested himself by his works, that they must necessarily see what of themselves they seek not to know — that there is some God; for the world does not by chance exist, nor could it have proceeded from itself. But we must ever bear in mind the degree of knowledge in which they continued; and this appears from what follows.

44 This clause, τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικία κατεχόντων is differently rendered, “ Veritatem injuste detinentes — unjustly detaining the truth,” Turrettin ; “Who stifle the truth in unrighteousness,” Chalmers ; “Who hinder the truth by unrighteousness,” Stuart ; “Who wickedly oppose the truth,” Hodge ; “Who confine the truth by unrighteousness,” Macknight “They rushed headlong,” says Pareus , “into impiety against God and into injustice against one another, not through ignorance, but knowingly, not through weakness, but willfully and maliciously: and this the Apostle expresses by a striking metaphor, taken from tyrants, who, against right and justice, by open violence, oppress the innocent, bind them in chains, and detain them in prison.” The sense given by Schleusner and some others, “ Qui cum veri Dei cognitione pravitatem vitæ conjungunt — who connect with a knowledge of the true God a wicked life,” seems not to comport with the context. “The truth” means that respecting the being and power of God afterwards specified. — Ed.

45 Some take ἐν αὐτοῖς, to mean among them , i.e., as Stuart says, “in the midst of them, or before their eyes,” that is, in the visible world; though many refer it with Calvin , to the moral sense, and that the expression is the same with “written in their hearts,” in Romans 2:15. — Ed.

46 There is a passage quoted by Wolfius from Aristotle in his book De Mundo , which remarkably coincides with a part of this verse — “πάσὟ θνητὣ φύσει γενομενος ἀθεώρητος ἀπ αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων θεορεῖται ὁ θεός — God, unseen by any mortal nature, is to be seen by the works themselves.” — Ed.

47 Divinitas , θείοτης, here only, and not θεότης as in Colossians 1:9 Elsner and others make a difference between these two words and say, that the former means the divinity or majesty of God, and the latter his nature or being. There seems to be the idea of goodness conveyed in the word, θείοτης: for in the following verse there are two things laid to the charge of the Gentiles which bear a reference to the two things said here — they did not glorify him as God, and they were not thankful. He made himself known by power as God, and by the beneficent exercise of that power, he had laid a claim to the gratitude of his creatures. See Acts 14:15; and Acts 17:25, 27 Venema , in his note on this passage, shows, that goodness was regarded by many of the heathens as the primary attribute of Deity. Among the Greeks, goodness — τὸ ἀγαθὸν, was the expression by which the Supreme Being was distinguished. And it appears evident from the context that the Apostle included this idea especially in the word θείοτης. — Ed

 

[Puritan Sailor]

While in hindsight the extreme naiveté in Hodge’s remarks is almost embarrassing, I do think Patrick Severson is correct and that many Divines would have been familiar with the cosmological argument and think of LoN as providing a means by which men can attain true knowledge of God apart from any “assistance from the Sacred Word.” While a seemingly trivial point I think Patrick makes an important observation:

Therefore, can we conclude that presuppositionalism is by definition contrary to the Westminister Standards (as I believe some here maintain) and that only various forms of Thomism and evidentialism are consistently Confessional?

I think you've made quite a leap here. If you are going to argue this way then Clarkianism is out of accord with the Standards too. There was plenty of room for development and though they were familiar with the cosmological argument notice they did not use it in the confession. And as Rev. Winzer pointed out, their understanding of the image of God and natural law (developed from Calvin) laid the foundation for later presuppositional development. There argument for Scripture is clearly anticipating that direction as they further broke away from a Roman understanding of things and even rejected an evidentialist approach to authenticating Scripture. Their ethical and civil ideas also understand a common light of nature by which all societies are organized.

But on another note, you need to keep in mind some deeper theological issues. The Divines out right rejected Thomism. Their understanding of natural law was based on covenant theology (especially the covenant of works), not Romanism. Natural law, the light of nature (reason), etc. were all part of the image of God (with the moral law written on the heart), and they argued this way because they believed Scripture (Rom. 1, Ps. 19) teaches that man has a knowledge of God apart from Scripture (though he rebels against it). It is by this knowledge that natural man is justly condemned though he never hear a Scripture in his life. Again I would encourage you to read more of the Divines on this. They believed that man had a true knowledge of God which left man without excuse, yet they could never possess a saving knowledge of God without special revelation and effectual calling. So even though they didn't use the terms of presuppositionalsm today, their basic foundational assumptions were for the most part the same.

 

[MW]

There argument for Scripture is clearly anticipating that direction as they further broke away from a Roman understanding of things and even rejected an evidentialist approach to authenticating Scripture.

This should be qualified. They were content to use evidences in order to establish objective certainty, as WCF 1:5, and LC 4 makes clear; but they insisted on the work of the Spirit for subjective acceptance, as the same sections indicate.

 

[Magma2]

FMaybe it's because I'm not really trying to be on any "side" here but I can't see the hard lines you're drawing and calling it Thomism. In fact, the idea of Thomism is rejected in the Confession itself because Thomas believed that men could reason everything about God - even saving knowledge.

This is what I would call Thomism, but any other name such as evidentialism would suffice as well. I was just trying to give credit where credit is due:

. . . the fact that many conclusive arguments for the existence of a great First Cause, who is at the same time an intelligent personal Spirit and righteous moral Governor, have been drawn by a strict induction from the facts of nature alone, as they lie open to the natural understanding. The fact that this argument remains unanswerable shows that the process by which the conclusions are drawn from purely natural sources is legitimate.

Thomism is, at least historically, the idea that one can argue from nature to nature's God. Wikipedia puts it this way; "Aquinas blended Greek philosophy and Christian doctrine by suggesting that rational thinking and the study of nature, like revelation, were valid ways to understand God. According to Aquinas, God reveals himself through nature, so to study nature is to study God." For this reason I consider for example R. C. Sproul a Thomist. I think if this is the position of the WCF, and Hodge says it is, then presuppositionalism which rejects this kind of natural theology would be contrary to the Confession. I admit that Van Til was not at all consistent on this point. On the one hand he repeatedly and in a number of places called natural theology thoroughly "anti-Christian." OTOH he affirmed the logical validity of the so-called "proofs" provided they are presented in a way that was supposed to be valid, but which neither he nor any of his followers ever produced.

2. One of the reasons I wanted this thread to play out the way it did was to have us all ask the legitimate question you did about whether or not what we believe is what the Confession teaches. If a man is going to claim "...this is what the Confession teaches..." while another man disagrees then it really doesn't work to have the Confession defined differently for both men. I think it is fairly obvious that Reymond's added sentence *not* what the Confession teaches. He's fine as far as agreeing with the Confessional writers that saving knowledge requires the Scriptures and that the light of nature is insufficient for this task but then he adds a sentence that states that *all* knowledge of God is justified by the Scriptures. This simply cannot be sustained by the evidence.

Again, I think it is a mixed bag. Certainly more mixed in your favor, but nevertheless, I think if LoN is understood as consisting of innate ideas and forms and moral motions, what Calvin called a sensus divinitas, that is dramatically different then saying there are "many conclusive arguments for the existence of a great First Cause [that] have been drawn by a strict induction from the facts of nature alone, as they lie open to the natural understanding." Like I said, I am aware of no instances where Calvin employed or even endorsed such proofs, quite the reverse per the citations I already provide from the Insititues.

A man ought to be honest enough to say "I disagree with the Confession on this point" when this happens. I don't believe the Confession is infallible but it does have Ecclesiastical authority where individuals do not. Hence the desire for some to cloak a teaching in the WCF to discourage criticism or real scrutiny. I think we all grow weary, as Americans, of draping sins in the sanction of the Constitution. We ought to all have the integrity to let the writers of the Confession speak for themselves and not change their words to suit our needs.

I agree. I just don't know it is as clear cut as some here think. Maybe it is, but at this point I still have doubts. I don't know why this would be surprising since the Divines themselves were from various backgrounds. While the Presbyterians were thankfully dominant, there were other views as well. For example, I think that while the WCF leans to the infra position, I think there is enough latitude in some places to also include supralapsarians as well. I wonder if there is similar wiggle room concerning the LoN for a consistent presuppositionalism or for views like Reymond which you say go beyond the bounds?

Please don't get me wrong, if what Hodge says above IS the position of the WCF, then I completely disagree with the WCF at this point and happily so.

I just never understood LoN in those terms. I realized many did, but I didn't think it was the unanimous opinion of all members of the assembly. I thought it was a term that was flexible enough to accommodate some different views concerning the LoN among the members and those they represented. Perhaps not?

Apology accepted.

Thank you.

Do I believe that I can persuade him on the basis of that natural revelation? No, because, like I just said, I believe he suppresses that knowledge. But saying he is suppressing it is a far cry from saying he has no knowledge whatsoever. It is also quite different from saying that *all* knowledge is justified by Scripture.

I don't think the two positions expressed above are all that differentl. I think the latter two views (which are basically the same) are implied by the former. Regardless, if you can't persuade the unbeliever on the basis of natural revelation, then can I assume you at least disagree with the claim there are "many conclusive arguments for the existence of a great First Cause [that] have been drawn by a strict induction from the facts of nature alone"?

 

[Magma2]

I think you've made quite a leap here. If you are going to argue this way then Clarkianism is out of accord with the Standards too.

That's exactly where I was going.

There was plenty of room for development and though they were familiar with the cosmological argument notice they did not use it in the confession. And as Rev. Winzer pointed out, their understanding of the image of God and natural law (developed from Calvin) laid the foundation for later presuppositional development. There argument for Scripture is clearly anticipating that direction as they further broke away from a Roman understanding of things and even rejected an evidentialist approach to authenticating Scripture. Their ethical and civil ideas also understand a common light of nature by which all societies are organized.

I think this is the question, isn't it? If Hodge and others are correct then evidentialism is the Confessional position. You might recall Hodge was arguing against. . .

An extreme opinion on this subject has been held by some Christians, to the effect that no true and certain knowledge of God can be derived by man, in his present condition, from the light of nature in the entire absence of a supernatural revelation; that we are altogether dependent upon such a revelation for any certain knowledge that God exists, as well as for all knowledge of his nature and his purposes.

I think most would agree that is Clark's Scripturalism and is also the position taken by Reymond in his systematics which I quoted at the outset. Is there enough room in the Confessional language to also include this "extreme opinion" or not? If no, then I would think Clark, Reymond and even Calvin (perhaps to a lesser degree) would all be out of accord with the Standards. Ironic I agree. OTOH if yes, then I think the LoN cannot be understood as dogmatically as Hodge and some others would lead us to believe.

But on another note, you need to keep in mind some deeper theological issues. The Divines out right rejected Thomism.

I think I explained how I was using the word Thomism, but perhaps my post hit before yours.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Regardless, if you can't persuade the unbeliever on the basis of natural revelation, then can I assume you at least disagree with the claim there are "many conclusive arguments for the existence of a great First Cause [that] have been drawn by a strict induction from the facts of nature alone"?

Yes, but I don't think apologetics to the unbeliever is the point of this section.

The Confession (and those that wrote it) are unanimous that man has knowledge revealed to him that leaves him without excuse but that knowledge is insufficient to come to a saving knowledge.

There is a difference between whether evidences exist and whether men who are closing their eyes acknowledge them. I quoted Calvin because there is a great balance that shows the clarity of the things being revealed. If it were not so then it would not leave men without excuse. There is a culpability implied on the part of the one suppressing it. He cannot claim that he's not really responsible because God didn't force open his eyes. Rather, man is morally faulted because he has knowledge and willingly suppresses it and prefers his lie to the truth he knows.

Thus, Calvin can still point out that, as we are created, we have a capacity to see and, in that seeing, we have God revealed to us in the Creation around us. Those of us who are thus enlightened, can and should glorify our Creator for the things he reveals around us and thank him that we no longer suppress the knowledge of Who is responsible for it.

 

[Magma2]

Yes, but I don't think apologetics to the unbeliever is the point of this section.

Perhaps not, but it would be if it were true that there are "many conclusive arguments for the existence of a great First Cause [that] have been drawn by a strict induction from the facts of nature alone."

Frankly, unbelievers aside, I find the proofs destructive to believers for the simple fact that if it is conclusive that there is a "great First Cause," then we could know the God of Scripture is false. This great "First Cause" would be just as much Aristotle's God as he/it would be yours and mine.

I quoted Calvin because there is a great balance that shows the clarity of the things being revealed. If it were not so then it would not leave men without excuse. There is a culpability implied on the part of the one suppressing it. He cannot claim that he's not really responsible because God didn't force open his eyes. Rather, man is morally faulted because he has knowledge and willingly suppresses it and prefers his lie to the truth he knows.

I agree completely that men are completely culpable for suppressing the truth within them, but that doesn't require anything like the type of demonstrations which Hodge and others are endorsing. Of course, I also quoted Calvin from the Institutes where he argues at length that Scripture is needed as a guide and teacher for anyone who could come to God the Creator. I would agree that no one needs Scripture at all to come to the great First Cause. After all Greek pagans and even Muslims get there too.

Calvin also said that God "bestows the actual knowledge of himself upon us only in the Scripture." He is very clear in this;

"For, since the human mind because of its feebleness can in no way attain to God unless it be aided and assisted by his Sacred Word, all mortals at that time — except for the Jews — because they were seeking God without the Word, had of necessity to stagger about in vanity and error. . . Since for unbelieving men religion seems to stand by opinion alone, they, in order not to believe anything foolishly or lightly, both wish and demand rational proof that Moses and the prophets spoke divinely. But I reply: the testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. For as God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men’s hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit . . . “The arm of God will not be revealed” to all [Isaiah 53:1 p.]. Whenever, then, the fewness of believers disturbs us, let the converse come to mind, that only those to whom it is given can comprehend the mysteries of God [cf. Matthew 13:11].

Anyway, I think I've beaten this horse bloody. I am still curious how much latitude there is in LoN and what would be contrary to the Standards and what wouldn't. OTOH, I really don't care because I don't see any evidence either biblical or otherwise that would lead me to conclude that men can come to a true knowledge of God apart from Scripture. Like I said early on, I'm sticking with Reymond on this one.