# For those who collect quotes



## Whitefield (Apr 20, 2009)

Herman Bavinck, _Reformed Dogmatics_, _Vol. 1: Prolegomena_, pp. 304



> The Reformers indeed assumed a revelation of God in nature. But the human mind was so darkened by sin that human beings could not rightly know and understand this revelation either. Needed, therefore, were two things: (1) that God again included in special revelation those truths which in themselves are knowable from nature; and (2) that human beings, in order to again perceive God in nature, first had to be illuminated by the Spirit of God. Objectively needed by human beings to understand the general revelation of God in nature was the special revelation of God in Holy Scripture, which accordingly, was compared by Calvin to glasses. Subjectively needed by human beings was the eye of faith to see God also in the works of his hands.


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 20, 2009)

I actually have a blog where I put my writings and collect other people's writings that I really enjoy reading....thanks!


----------



## Michael Doyle (Apr 20, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> Herman Bavinck, _Reformed Dogmatics_, _Vol. 1: Prolegomena_, pp. 304
> 
> 
> 
> > The Reformers indeed assumed a revelation of God in nature. But the human mind was so darkened by sin that human beings could not rightly know and understand this revelation either. Needed, therefore, were two things: (1) that God again included in special revelation those truths which in themselves are knowable from nature; and (2) that human beings, in order to again perceive God in nature, first had to be illuminated by the Spirit of God. Objectively needed by human beings to understand the general revelation of God in nature was the special revelation of God in Holy Scripture, which accordingly, was compared by Calvin to glasses. Subjectively needed by human beings was the eye of faith to see God also in the works of his hands.



Thank you Lance, this is very helpful


----------



## MW (Apr 20, 2009)

This is a very clear articulation of the matter. The knowledge of God is objectively found in natural revelation but subjectively corrupted by sinful man, thus ascribing all deficiency to sinful man alone.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle (Apr 20, 2009)

I appreciate this quote but it is difficult for me to understand that if 2) is needed then why 1) is needed. I am not asking why Special Revelation is needed mind you but question the reason stated in 1). 

I have other concerns but that would take me back to our other discussion in the Clark thread.


----------



## Christoffer (Apr 20, 2009)

Agree with the above. 

Does nature (given the illumination of the Spirit) contain enough information to make us wise unto salvation?


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle (Apr 20, 2009)

Christoffer said:


> Agree with the above.
> 
> Does nature (given the illumination of the Spirit) contain enough information to make us wise unto salvation?



Not sure if that questions is directed at me?  No, it isn't sufficient to show us those things necessary unto salvation. I am only objecting to Scripture as necessary to make Natural Revelation "objective".


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 20, 2009)

To clarify for my own confused sake: is Bavinck saying that Scripture is necessary to make natural revelation objective? -- Is that the same thing as saying Scripture is necessary to give us as fallen the correct understanding of truths we would otherwise be able to understand from nature?


----------



## Whitefield (Apr 20, 2009)

I think Bavinck is saying that in order for fallen humans to be able to perceive correctly God in nature:

1) they need to be illuminated by the Spirit
2) objectively they need the special revelation of God in Holy Scripture, and 
3) subjectively they need the eye of faith


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 20, 2009)

Rev. Marshall, I understand 1 and 3 to be much the same?

I don't know if I understood the quote correctly, but it seemed like he is saying that the revelation of nature is indeed objective; yet only by being illuminated (subjectively?) by the Spirit, and using the 'objective' special revelation in Scripture as a lens between our subjective state and the um -- further objective, are fallen men able to understand the revelation of nature aright?


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle (Apr 20, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> I think Bavinck is saying that in order for fallen humans to be able to perceive correctly God in nature:
> 
> 1) they need to be illuminated by the Spirit
> 2) objectively they need the special revelation of God in Holy Scripture, and
> 3) subjectively they need the eye of faith




What is the "eye of faith". What does that mean? How is it different from 1)?


----------



## Whitefield (Apr 20, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> Rev. Marshall, I understand 1 and 3 to be much the same?
> 
> I don't know if I understood the quote correctly, but it seemed like he is saying that the revelation of nature is indeed objective; yet only by being illuminated (subjectively?) by the Spirit, and using the 'objective' special revelation in Scripture as a lens between our subjective state and the um -- further objective, are fallen men able to understand the revelation of nature aright?



Nature (general revelation) is objective (outside of us) but is confused to our subjective understanding (inside of us).

The Holy Spirit is objective (outside of us) and He needs to illumine us (subjective).

And in order for us to perceive correctly God's truth in general revelation:
Scripture needs to be put on like glasses (objective) on the eyes of faith (subjective).

Are fallen men able to understand the revelation of nature aright? I think Bavinck, based on this quote, would say no.

-----Added 4/20/2009 at 11:52:25 EST-----



Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > I think Bavinck is saying that in order for fallen humans to be able to perceive correctly God in nature:
> ...



The Spirit and His actions are objective, our faith is subjective.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle (Apr 20, 2009)

In Bavincks view, what do you think the basis for inexcusability is? If they are not capable of seeing the clarity of natural revelation then how are they left without excuse to know?


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 20, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> > Rev. Marshall, I understand 1 and 3 to be much the same?
> ...



Rev Marshall, thanks. I think in substance I agree, though I don't think in the same terms -- and my sentence structures are more convoluted! (I'm sorry to be confusing: 'are fallen men able to understand natural revelation' wasn't a question so much as the completion of the statement -- 'only by means of this this and this etc. are fallen men able to understand'.) 

Do you think that because of our created and still functional faculties we *should* be able to see one class of truths in natural revelation (so Calvin distinguishes the knowledge of God as our Creator from the knowledge of Him in Christ as our Saviour); and it is because of the fall and the corruption of our moral nature that we do not exercise our minds aright? -- And so special revelation and illumination become necessary even to understand and worship God as Creator properly? (A parallel would be that we are responsible for rejecting Christ because we have a created and functioning _faculty_ of will, even though we have no power to choose Him because of the darkness of our nature: so the Word and the work of the Spirit are necessary to exercise our will aright?) I _think_ that protects our inexcusability in not seeing God as He is revealed in Creation?


----------



## DonP (Apr 20, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> Herman Bavinck, _Reformed Dogmatics_, _Vol. 1: Prolegomena_, pp. 304
> 
> 
> 
> > The Reformers indeed assumed a revelation of God in nature. But the human mind was so darkened by sin that human beings could not rightly know and understand this revelation either. Needed, therefore, were two things: (1) that God again included in special revelation those truths which in themselves are knowable from nature; and (2) that human beings, in order to again perceive God in nature, first had to be illuminated by the Spirit of God. Objectively needed by human beings to understand the general revelation of God in nature was the special revelation of God in Holy Scripture, which accordingly, was compared by Calvin to glasses. Subjectively needed by human beings was the eye of faith to see God also in the works of his hands.



1. Reformers believed God revealed Himself in nature

2. Sin, fall, perverts the revelation, it is misunderstood as nature is seen by men
---------------
3. God restores in Special revelation the ability to properly see truths nature reveals
------------------
4. in order to have 3. perceive God from nature, one must be illuminated by the Spirit

5. The Spirit through the special revelation in scripture gives the ability for objective observance of general revelation.
Calvin called this glasses.

6. Subjectively needed is the eye of faith, to see God through His works

My intepretation. 

One who is saved and has faith can subjectively see God in His works, but to objectively see God in nature one must have the scriptures also. 

Wonder how accurate the translation is??

This seems to me to leave the unregenerate unable to objective see God from nature. 
It does not address any subjective view of God from nature in the unregenerate. 

I don't think it addresses the unbeliever in accountability to creation. 

I think it must be in a section on the difference between special rev and gen rev for believers. 

That we cannot know God well from nature but we need the scriptures to even know Him from nature. Nature alone is insufficient. 
Therefore we must read the scriptures and have the Spirit illuminate us. 


Thus proving the absolute need for the naturally preserved KJV


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle (Apr 20, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > Herman Bavinck, _Reformed Dogmatics_, _Vol. 1: Prolegomena_, pp. 304
> ...




Well, if you find that section on accountability let me know.  I think I have one of Bavinks books...hm I should go check.


----------



## DonP (Apr 20, 2009)

He, at least via the translation, is hard to understand for me. I like what he says on God, but I can get the same info easier elsewhere. 

Charnock is hard enough.


----------



## Whitefield (Apr 20, 2009)

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> In Bavincks view, what do you think the basis for inexcusability is? If they are not capable of seeing the clarity of natural revelation then how are they left without excuse to know?



Maybe this might be a way of answering this by analogy. I go outside my house and throw paint on my windows, thereby obscuring them. I go back and sit, looking out the window, waiting for the school bus to arrive to pick up my kids. The bus comes and stops, and waits a minute and then drives off. Who is accountable for my kids missing school. No one? The bus driver? My kids? Or me? Would the excuse, "I didn't see the bus drive up", release me from accountability, since I'm the one who covered the windows with paint? The point of this analogy is that sin, human sin, our sin, obscures our ability to see what is right before us. We should see and know, but we have blinded ourselves.

-----Added 4/20/2009 at 01:31:23 EST-----



a mere housewife said:


> Do you think that because of our created and still functional faculties we *should* be able to see one class of truths in natural revelation (so Calvin distinguishes the knowledge of God as our Creator from the knowledge of Him in Christ as our Saviour); and it is because of the fall and the corruption of our moral nature that we do not exercise our minds aright? -- And so special revelation and illumination become necessary even to understand and worship God as Creator properly? (A parallel would be that we are responsible for rejecting Christ because we have a created and functioning _faculty_ of will, even though we have no power to choose Him because of the darkness of our nature: so the Word and the work of the Spirit are necessary to exercise our will aright?) I _think_ that protects our inexcusability in not seeing God as He is revealed in Creation?



We should be able to see .... but it is obscured. All people should be able to see and do to some extent (always failing in the end) ... Humans can perceive there is some creator, but wind up creating idols and myths, until the Creator speaks and identifies His true self. That there is a creator should be obvious to everyone but WHO this creator is, we cannot deduce from nature; He must inform us via the Holy Spirit and Scriptures.


----------



## DonP (Apr 20, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> > In Bavincks view, what do you think the basis for inexcusability is? If they are not capable of seeing the clarity of natural revelation then how are they left without excuse to know?
> ...



My flesh cries out, It wasn't me it was Adam. It wasn't me, I didn't throw the paint Adam did. So how can He be fair and blame me. How is it just for Him to make Adam my representative without my say? 

Why did I not get my own chance? 

And you would answer me ....?


----------



## Whitefield (Apr 20, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> ...



Are you serious?


----------



## DonP (Apr 20, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> > Whitefield said:
> ...



Yes I am serious I want your answer to this


----------



## Whitefield (Apr 20, 2009)

Well, lets go out and check the outside of the window .. hmmm what's this? There seems to be a second layer of fresh paint. I wonder who put that on there. 

Romans 5:12ff, WCF VI.2-4


----------



## DonP (Apr 20, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> Well, lets go out and check the outside of the window .. hmmm what's this? There seems to be a second layer of fresh paint. I wonder who put that on there.
> 
> Romans 5:12ff, WCF VI.2-4



That's not fair either. I have a fallen nature now and can't do anything but sin. 

But its not my fault God gave me Adam's nature. 
I never got a chance to be innocent 

Stop evading my question, how can God be fair and make Adam my head and not give me a chance.


----------



## Whitefield (Apr 20, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > Well, lets go out and check the outside of the window .. hmmm what's this? There seems to be a second layer of fresh paint. I wonder who put that on there.
> ...



Start a thread and ask that question. This thread isn't about imputation of guilt.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle (Apr 20, 2009)

Now I want Bavinck's_Reformed Dogmatics. My husband is going to faint. lol


----------



## DonP (Apr 20, 2009)

Do you have his Doctrine of God?


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle (Apr 20, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> Do you have his Doctrine of God?



No, I sure don't.


----------



## MW (Apr 20, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> Maybe this might be a way of answering this by analogy. I go outside my house and throw paint on my windows, thereby obscuring them. I go back and sit, looking out the window, waiting for the school bus to arrive to pick up my kids. The bus comes and stops, and waits a minute and then drives off. Who is accountable for my kids missing school. No one? The bus driver? My kids? Or me? Would the excuse, "I didn't see the bus drive up", release me from accountability, since I'm the one who covered the windows with paint? The point of this analogy is that sin, human sin, our sin, obscures our ability to see what is right before us. We should see and know, but we have blinded ourselves.



Keeping to the analogy -- where did the idea of expecting the bus come from, or that the kids need to get on the bus? There is obviously still a functioning rational and moral framework within which man operates in order to render man inexcusable.


----------

