# Light of Nature



## Magma2

From Robert Reymond's systematic theology:




> 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 inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary to salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that [revelation] His will unto His church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same [revelation which He had declared to be His will unto His church] wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased. (Westminster Confession of Faith, I/i)
> 
> The Confession begins by asserting that although all men and women know God at some level of consciousness or unconsciousness because of God’s revealing work both within them—that is, “the light of nature” within men and women (John 1:9; Rom. 2:14–15)—and all around them in both his creation and providential care (Ps. 19:1; Acts 14:17; Rom. 1:20), yet this general revelation is not sufficient to give to them the knowledge of God that is necessary for salvation. All it does is leave them in their idolatry without excuse (Rom. 1:20).
> 
> Therefore, the Confession continues, God revealed himself (propositionally) at many different times and in different ways and declared the content of that special revelatory activity to be his will for his church. This makes the Holy Scripture to be “most necessary,” the Confession contends (over against Rome and the Anabaptist mystics), “those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.”
> 
> These verses imply that it is unnecessary for the Christian to try to prove the existence of God to people. They would suggest rather that every human being already knows at some level of consciousness or unconsciousness that God “is really there.” The unregenerate, of course, do all they can to suppress this knowledge (Rom. 1:18), although they are never completely successful. It is for this reason that the Bible speaks of the unregenerate person as both knowing God (Rom. 1:21, 32; 2:14–15) and not knowing Him (1 Cor. 1:21; 2:14; 1 Thes. 4:5; 2 Thes. 1:8) at the same time, that is, he knows God is really there but he does not know Him savingly. Obviously, there is some psychological complexity here: “The unbeliever knows things at one level of his consciousness that he seeks to banish from other levels … he knows God, he knows what God requires, but he does not want that knowledge to influence his decision, except negatively: knowledge of God’s will tells him how to disobey God” (John M. Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God [Phillipsburg, N. J., Presbyterian and Reformed, 1994], p. 8). Consequently, to argue as the classical apologist does that proving the existence of God is necessary, at least for some if not for everyone, is to imply that some people do not know God exists, that they are not “religious people,” and therefore that they are not guilty before God for refusing to worship Him—facts belied by Romans 1:18–2:16 as a whole.
> 
> Much more could be said about methodological natural theology, but suffice it here to say that nowhere does the Bible endorse the notion that general revelation was given to provide people the data by which they might, beginning from themselves, reason their way to God. The Bible introduces general revelation alongside special revelation to emphasize man’s guilt. The entire effort of Thomistic natural theology to discover God by natural reason apart from Jesus Christ must be judged not only a failure (see 1 Cor. 1:20–21) but also as an unwitting handmaid of the entire revolt of human philosophy against the necessity of special revelation. See Robert L. Reymond, The Justification of Knowledge (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1984), 118–30...
> 
> Here is an affirmation of the necessity of Holy Scripture—necessary certainly for salvation and a knowledge of God’s will for his church, its most immediate areas of application within the context of the confessional statement itself—but necessary also for the justification of all knowledge and of personal meaning itself.
> 
> It is important that we clearly see that the Confession grounds its doctrine of the necessity of Scripture in two antecedent conditions that obtain at the present time, namely, (1) the insufficiency of general revelation, and (2) the cessation of special revelation. If general revelation is insufficient to provide that knowledge of God and of his will that is essential to salvation, and if special revelation has ceased, then one must go to Scripture if he would learn those things which are “necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation” (I/vii). Moreover, it must be noted that to the degree that one believes that God still speaks directly to men and women today through prophets and glossolalists, just to that same degree he is saying that he does not absolutely need the Bible for a word from God, and accordingly he has abandoned the great Reformation principle of sola Scriptura.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Moved this to the Confession of Faith forum.

Here is how this is going to proceed because I'm not allowing baggage from the epistemological discussion that caused another thread to be closed to come in here:

You will state your case as to the *Confessional* usage of the term Light of Nature. You are not permitted to criticize or re-interpret the Divines usage but merely to report what they are. Any attempts to turn this into a debate about Scripturalism will be deleted.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

"Light of nature" was a buzzterm in Puritan days for the human faculties of reason.


----------



## RamistThomist

Something I have always wondered: could we use Reymond's line of argumentation against natural law? John Robbins wrote a great essay about 30 years ago against natural law.


----------



## MW

Reymond is suggesting you cannot argue from the light of nature. The Confession and its framers teach otherwise. As quoted in another thread, Anthony Burgess, Vindiciae Legis, p. 73, shows what is meant by the light of nature and its functionality: "Faith therefore, and the light of Nature go to the knowledge of the same thing different waies: faith doth, because of the testimony and divine revelation of God; the light of Nature doth, because of arguments in the thing it self by discourse. And faith is not a dianoeticall or discursive act of the understanding, but it's simple and apprehensive." So William Twisse, Riches of God's Love, p. 246: "Never was it said, I presume, that a man regenerate had two understandings in him, by the one to understand things naturall, and by the other to understand things spirituall; but that by the same understanding he understands both, but by light of nature the one, by light of grace the other." Reymond has clearly not properly applied the confessional teaching.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

This primary source material about "intent" is key. I'm not really interested in other's commenting on how they interpret the Confession's meaning of a thing. If you're going to argue from the Confession then it needs to be based on the intent of the writers.

If the divines believed "light of nature" meant one thing but Reymond says it meant another then it is not proper for Reymond to say "...the Confessional teaching on "light of nature" is this...." He might say I take exception to the Confession on this point but not re-write the meaning of it.

This we need to determine.


----------



## Magma2

SemperFideles said:


> If the divines believed "light of nature" meant one thing but Reymond says it meant another then it is not proper for Reymond to say "...the Confessional teaching on "light of nature" is this...." He might say I take exception to the Confession on this point but not re-write the meaning of it.
> 
> This we need to determine.



 Think about it for a second Rich. Where does the light of nature apart from the Scripture lead? We see men worshipping pieces of wood, their ancestors, the sun, dialectical materialism, other men, science, you name it. Calvin called the minds of men idol makers. While men fashion for themselves countless gods to which they bow, only Scripture provides what the "light of nature" cannot. Do men apart from the teaching of Scripture and the work of the Holy Spirit ever arrive at God and the truth on their own? I'm sticking with Reymond.


----------



## Magma2

Draught Horse said:


> Something I have always wondered: could we use Reymond's line of argumentation against natural law? John Robbins wrote a great essay about 30 years ago against natural law.



I think we could and should. Perhaps more of that kind of thing would be of great service to the Church which often times seems stuck in the Middle Ages in its thinking - or would that be just the Dark Ages.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Understood yet again Sean. I'm interested in how the Divines used it. From what I can see, Reymond only applies the concept of the light of nature in what it cannot do but not what it positively can. Obviously, fallen man cannot reason his way to salvation apart from revelation (as Aquinas argued). I think what I read in Burgess, however, is that faith and the light of nature aren't antithetical to one another because the One revealing them is the same. I want to see more quotes because I'm not sure I quite have it but I also think there is more to "light of nature" than simply stating what it _cannot_ do because the WCF says it can do some things.

Again, let me quote John Calvin on the same concept. I think his quote goes to the same concept because it underlines that the light that is in nature is from God as the fountainhead of knowledge and that we ought not deprecate that knowledge because, by doing so, we call something that God has gifted us with something less than it is and show an impious lack of appreciation:


> Institutes 2.2.13-15
> 
> 
> 
> Yet its [man's natural reason] efforts do not always become so worthless as to have no effect, especially when it turns its attention to things below. On contrary, it is intelligent enough to taste something of things above, although it is more careless about investigating these. Nor does it carry on this latter activity with equal skill. For when the mind is borne above the level of the present life, it is especially convinced of its own frailty. Therefore, to perceive more clearly how far the mind can proceed in any matter according to the degree of its ability, we must here set forth a distinction. This, then, is the distinction: that there is one kind of understanding of earthly things; another of heavenly. I call “earthly things” those which do not pertain to God or his Kingdom, to true justice, or to the blessedness of the future life; but which have their significance and relationship with regard to the present life and are, in a sense, confined within its bounds. I call “heavenly things” the pure knowledge of God, the nature of true righteousness, and the mysteries of the Heavenly Kingdom. The first class includes government, household management, all mechanical skills, and the liberal arts. In the second are the knowledge of God and of his will, and the rule by which we conform our lives to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Of the first class the following ought to be said: since man is by nature a social animal, he tends through natural instinct to foster and preserve society. Consequently, we observe that there exist in all men’s minds universal impressions of a certain civic fair dealing and order. Hence no man is to be found who does not understand that every sort of human organization must be regulated by laws, and who does not comprehend the principles of those laws. Hence arises that unvarying consent of all nations and of individual mortals with regard to laws. For their seeds have, without teacher or lawgiver, been implanted in all men.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not dwell upon the dissension and conflicts that immediately spring up. Some, like thieves and robbers, desire to overturn all law and right, to break all legal restraints, to let their lust alone masquerade as law. Others think unjust what some have sanctioned as just (an even commoner fault), and contend that what some have forbidden is praiseworthy. Such persons hate laws not because they do not know them to be good and holy; but raging with headlong lust, they fight against manifest reason. What they approve of in their understanding they hate on account of their lust. Quarrels of this latter sort do not nullify the original conception of equity. For, while men dispute among themselves about individual sections of the law, they agree on the general conception of equity. In this respect the frailty of the human mind is surely proved: even when it seems to follow the way, it limps and staggers. Yet the fact remains that some seed of political order has been implanted in all men. And this is ample proof that in the arrangement of this life no man is without the light of reason. (2.2.13)
> 
> 
> 
> Then follow the arts, both liberal and manual. The power of human acuteness also appears in learning these because all of us have a certain aptitude. But although not all the arts are suitable for everyone to learn, yet it is a certain enough indication of the common energy that hardly anyone is to be found who does not manifest talent in some art. There are at hand energy and ability not only to learn but also to devise something new in each art or to perfect and polish what one has learned from a predecessor. This prompted Plato to teach wrongly that such apprehension is nothing but recollection. Hence, with good reason we are compelled to confess that its beginning is inborn in human nature. Therefore this evidence clearly testifies to a universal apprehension of reason and understanding by nature implanted in men. Yet so universal is this good that every man ought to recognize for himself in it the peculiar grace of God. The Creator of nature himself abundantly arouses this gratitude in us when he creates imbeciles. Through them he shows the endowments that the human soul would enjoy unpervaded by his light, a light so natural to all that it is certainly a free gift of his beneficence to each! Now the discovery or systematic transmission of the arts, or the inner and more excellent knowledge of them, which is characteristic of few, is not a sufficient proof of common discernment. Yet because it is bestowed indiscriminately upon pious and impious, it is rightly counted among natural gifts. (2.2.14)
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever we come upon these matters in secular writers, let that admirable light of truth shining in them teach us that the mind of man, though fallen and perverted from its wholeness, is nevertheless clothed and ornamented with God’s excellent gifts. If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God. For by holding the gifts of the Spirit in slight esteem, we contemn and reproach the Spirit himself. What then? Shall we deny that the truth shone upon the ancient jurists who established civic order and discipline with such great equity? Shall we say that the philosophers were blind in their fine observation and artful description of nature? Shall we say that those men were devoid of understanding who conceived the art of disputation and taught us to speak reasonably? Shall we say that they are insane who developed medicine, devoting their labor to our benefit? What shall we say of all the mathematical sciences? Shall we consider them the ravings of madmen? No, we cannot read the writings of the ancients on these subjects without great admiration. We marvel at them because we are compelled to recognize how preeminent they are. But shall we count anything praiseworthy or noble without recognizing at the same time that it comes from God? Let us be ashamed of such ingratitude, into which not even the pagan poets fell, for they confessed that the gods had invented philosophy, laws, and all useful arts. Those men whom Scripture [1 Corinthians 2:14] calls “natural men” were, indeed, sharp and penetrating in their investigation of inferior things. Let us, accordingly, learn by their example how many gifts the Lord left to human nature even after it was despoiled of its true good. (2.2.15)


----------



## Poimen

Some help (I hope) from your continental friends:

*CD 3&4 Head, Article 4 *

There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural understanding,[1] whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the difference between good and evil, and shows some regard for virtue and for good outward behavior. But so far is this understanding of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay further, this understanding, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and hinders in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.

1. "Light" has been changed to "understanding".

Note the comparison and contrast to what the Calvinists denied in the same Head. 

*Paragraph 5 *

Who teach: That the corrupt and natural man can so well use the common grace (by which they understand the light of nature), or the gifts still left him after the fall, that he can gradually gain by their good use a greater, that is, the evangelical or saving grace, and salvation itself; and that in this way God on His part shows Himself ready to reveal Christ unto all men, since He applies to all sufficiently and efficiently the means necessary to conversion. 

For both the experience of all ages and the Scriptures testify that this is untrue. He showeth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his ordinances unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his ordinances, they have not known them (Psa. 147:19, 20). Who in the generations gone by suffered all the nations to walk in their own way (Acts 14:16). And: And they (Paul and his companions) having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia, when they were come over against Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not (Acts 16:6,7).


----------



## Magma2

Good Continental points! Seems clear you cannot argue from this natural light to the truth of God after all. Looks to me to be right in line with what Reymond was saying. What do you think Rev. Kok?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Magma2 said:


> Good Continental points! Seems clear you cannot argue from this natural light to the truth of God after all. Looks to me to be right in line with what Reymond was saying. What do you think Rev. Kok?



I know you didn't ask me but I disagree it is the same. Insofar as Reymond agrees with Dordt that the knowledge that man has from nature does not grant him salvific knowledge he is in agreement with them.

Here is where Reymond adds to the testimony of the Confession:


> Here is an affirmation of the necessity of Holy Scripture—necessary certainly for salvation and a knowledge of God’s will for his church, its most immediate areas of application within the context of the confessional statement itself—*but necessary also for the justification of all knowledge and of personal meaning itself.*


That is not affirmed in the Confession nor does Dordt say that. If he had just stuck to the first part without adding the latter then it would have been completely in line and I think that is what Rev. Winzer is pointing out.


----------



## staythecourse

*Light of Nature is an oxymoron*

If Nature is Creation, Creation is dead. Light came into the _cosmos_ and the _cosmos_ did not ___________ it - Grasp, comprehend, see, recognize.

It died and there was darkness all over the earth again. At the Fall God could not be seen by Creation and it now awaits again to see God for who He is on judgment Day. Then Christ and all his judgements on all creations actions will be made revealed.

I confess I do not know how the Divines defined the phrase "Light of Nature" but Reymond and I have come to the same conclusion using Nature and Creation as synonyms.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Here is some Confessional context for the light of nature. Hopefully it will provide more clarity as to what the Dvines meant by it. 



> WCF 1:1
> 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 inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.





> WCF 1:6
> The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the *light of nature* and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.





> WCF 10:4
> Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever,be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the *light of nature* and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may is very pernicious, and to be detested.





> WCF 20:4 And because the power which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the *light of nature,* or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or to the power of godliness; or such erroneous opinions or practices as, either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church; they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the Civil Magistrate.





> WCF 21:1
> The *light of nature* showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is good, and doeth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited to his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.



Here's some more from the Larger Catechism. Note here how the Puritans considered the light of nature "in man" distinct from the works of God in creation. 


> Q2: How doth it appear that there is a God?
> A2: 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.





> Q60: Can they who have never heard the gospel, and so know not Jesus Christ, nor believe in him, be saved by their living according to the light of nature?
> A60: They who, having never heard the gospel, know not Jesus Christ, and believe not in him, cannot be saved, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the *light of nature,* or the laws of that religion which they profess; neither is there salvation in any other, but in Christ alone, who is the Savior only of his body the church.





> Q121: Why is the word Remember set in the beginning of the fourth commandment?
> A121: The word Remember is set in the beginning of the fourth commandment, partly, because of the great benefit of remembering it, we being thereby helped in our preparation to keep it, and, in keeping it, better to keep all the rest of the commandments, and to continue a thankful remembrance of the two great benefits of creation and redemption, which contain a short abridgment of religion; and partly, because we are very ready to forget it, for that there is less *light of nature* for it, and yet it restraineth our natural liberty in things at other times lawful; that it comesthbut once in seven days, and many worldly businesses come between, and too often take off our minds from thinking of it, either to prepare for it, or to sanctify it; and that Satan with his instruments much labor to blot out the glory, and even the memory of it, to bring in all irreligion and impiety.





> Q151: What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous than others?
> A151: Sins receive their aggravations,
> 1. From the persons offending: if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others.
> 2. From the parties offended: if immediately against God, his attributes, and worship; against Christ, and his grace; the Holy Spirit, his witness, and workings; against superiors, men of eminency, and such as we stand especially related and engaged unto; against any of the saints, particularly weak brethren, the souls of them, or any other, and the common good of all or many.
> 3. From the nature and quality of the offense: if it be against the express letter of the law, break many commandments, contain in it many sins: if not only conceived in the heart, but breaks forth in words and actions, scandalize others, and admit of no reparation: if against means, mercies, judgments,*light of nature,* conviction of conscience, public or private admonition, censures of the church, civil punishments; and our prayers, purposes, promises, vows, covenants, and engagements to God or men: if done deliberately, wilfully, presumptuously, impudently, boastingly, maliciously, frequently, obstinately, with delight, continuance, or relapsing after repentance.
> 4. From circumstances of time and place: if on the Lord's day, or other times of divine worship; or immediately before or after these, or other helps to prevent or remedy such miscarriages: if in public, or in the presence of others, who are thereby likely to be provoked or defiled.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

staythecourse said:


> If Nature is Creation, Creation is dead. Light came into the _cosmos_ and the _cosmos_ did not ___________ it - Grasp, comprehend, see, recognize.
> 
> It died and there was darkness all over the earth again. At the Fall God could not be seen by Creation and it now awaits again to see God for who He is on judgment Day. Then Christ and all his judgements on all creations actions will be made revealed.
> 
> I confess I do not know how the Divines defined the phrase "Light of Nature" but Reymond and I have come to the same conclusion using Nature and Creation as synonyms.



It is no oxymoron. The light of nature refers to the faculties of human reason. This is distinguished from the revelation of God through creation, at least for the Puritans. It is a different form of general revelation.


----------



## Magma2

SemperFideles said:


> That is not affirmed in the Confession nor does Dordt say that. If he had just stuck to the first part without adding the latter then it would have been completely in line and I think that is what Rev. Winzer is pointing out.



Why don't you state what it is you *think* Rev. Winzer said? It seems to me that his objections is that Reymond "is suggesting you cannot argue from the light of nature" to the truth of God. Yet, Dort says the absolute reverse of Winzer: 



> For both the experience of all ages and the Scriptures testify that this is untrue. He showeth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his ordinances unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his ordinances, they have not known them (Psa. 147:19, 20). Who in the generations gone by suffered all the nations to walk in their own way (Acts 14:16). And: And they (Paul and his companions) having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia, when they were come over against Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not (Acts 16:6,7).



It appears to me that the position of Dort is the same as the one advanced by Calvin and that men *"can in no way attain to God unless it be aided and assisted by his Sacred Word."* He even cites Isiah in this regard and like Dort above asserts; *“The arm of God will not be revealed” to all."* Yet, per you and Rev. Winzer the light of nature, which per the Burgess quote, is nothing more than reason, is another route to knowledge. If it is your position that by the right use of reason one can come to the knowledge of God I'd love to see your argument. For what it's worth I think the so-called "classic proofs" for God are colossal failures. Who knows, perhaps you and Rev. Winzer will succeed where other brilliant minds, like those of Aristotle and Aquinas, have failed. Stranger things have happened. But it should be clear the assertion that "Faith . . . and the light of Nature go to the knowledge of the same thing [in] different [ways]" is completely denied by both Dort and Calvin.


----------



## Magma2

Puritan Sailor said:


> "Light of nature" was a buzzterm in Puritan days for the human faculties of reason.



I believe you are correct and light of nature is just reason. Then would it be fair to say that Rev. Winzer's and Rich's position is that one can then argue to a true knowledge of God through the unaided and right use of reason? Do you think this is the Confessional position?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Magma2 said:


> Why don't you state what it is you *think* Rev. Winzer said? It seems to me that his objections is that Reymond "is suggesting you cannot argue from the light of nature" to the truth of God. Yet, Dort says the absolute reverse of Winzer:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears to me that the position of Dort is the same as the one advanced by Calvin and that men *"can in no way attain to God unless it be aided and assisted by his Sacred Word."* He even cites Isiah in this regard and like Dort above asserts; *“The arm of God will not be revealed” to all."* Yet, per you and Rev. Winzer the light of nature, which per the Burgess quote, is nothing more than reason, is another route to knowledge. If it is your position that by the right use of reason one can come to the knowledge of God I'd love to see your argument. For what it's worth I think the so-called "classic proofs" for God are colossal failures. Who knows, perhaps you and Rev. Winzer will succeed where other brilliant minds, like those of Aristotle and Aquinas, have failed. Stranger things have happened. But it should be clear the assertion that "Faith . . . and the light of Nature go to the knowledge of the same thing [in] different [ways]" is completely denied by both Dort and Calvin.



I'm honestly confused Sean. I don't think I've ever read Rev. Winzer type that he believes that men can come to a saving knowledge of God apart from the Scriptures. I know I don't believe that.

All I was pointing out is that *knowledge* is not restricted to *saving knowledge*.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Magma2 said:


> I believe you are correct and light of nature is just reason. Then would it be fair to say that Rev. Winzer's and Rich's position is that one can then argue to a true knowledge of God through the unaided and right use of reason? Do you think this is the Confessional position?



Please remove my name from that charge because that is a mischaracterization. All I was pointing out is that Reymond says more than the Confession above by saying that the Scriptures are necessary for the justification of *all* knowledge (read: not just Special Revelation). I don't see how that lines up with the Confession.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Incidentally Sean. You are violating the rules I set forth for this thread. Please re-read them. I responded to you so shame on me but do not continue to test me in this.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Magma2 said:


> I believe you are correct and light of nature is just reason. Then would it be fair to say that Rev. Winzer's and Rich's position is that one can then argue to a true knowledge of God through the unaided and right use of reason? Do you think this is the Confessional position?



I'll refer you to the Confessional statements I quoted above. The WCF teaches that a knowledge of God is possible through the light of nature, but not a saving knowledge of God. Nor does the light of nature communicate how God is to be worshipped though it helps order the circumstances of worship.


----------



## Civbert

Puritan Sailor said:


> It is no oxymoron. The light of nature refers to the faculties of human reason.


----------



## Civbert

For your reading pleasure: The Light of Reasoning - Exploring Descartes Views on What is Taught and What is Revealed By Nature



> Descartes thus reasons that understanding the teachings of nature are less clear than the revelations made by the light of nature since they can be contradicted.



You recall Decarte's - "I think therefore I am". He was a true rationalist. And the "light of nature" is man's innate ability to reason (I think therefore I am). He contrasted that with empiricism (the teachings of nature). 

The Westminster Divines had the same understanding of the meaning of "light of nature". It is sad that many have confused the "light of nature" with the "teachings of nature". The light of nature is our natural capacity for reasoning and abstract thinking - which is in contrast to what we think we learn from observing "nature" (bugs trees and mountains).

Colloquially, "light of nature" is more like "common sense".


----------



## Theogenes

Is John Robbins' essay on natural law available at the Trin. Found. web site??
Jim


----------



## Magma2

SemperFideles said:


> I'm honestly confused Sean. I don't think I've ever read Rev. Winzer type that he believes that men can come to a saving knowledge of God apart from the Scriptures. I know I don't believe that.
> 
> All I was pointing out is that *knowledge* is not restricted to *saving knowledge*.



I never mentioned anything about "saving" knowledge.


----------



## Magma2

I wrote:


> I believe you are correct and light of nature is just reason. Then would it be fair to say that Rev. Winzer's and Rich's position is that one can then argue to a true knowledge of God through the unaided and right use of reason? Do you think this is the Confessional position?



A bristling Rich wrote:


SemperFideles said:


> Please remove my name from that charge because that is a mischaracterization. All I was pointing out is that Reymond says more than the Confession above by saying that the Scriptures are necessary for the justification of *all* knowledge (read: not just Special Revelation). I don't see how that lines up with the Confession.



I didn't charge you with anything. It was a question.

Is asking a question against your rules too?


----------



## Magma2

Puritan Sailor said:


> I'll refer you to the Confessional statements I quoted above. The WCF teaches that a knowledge of God is possible through the light of nature.



Is it your position that the WCF affirms the cosmological argument even though it is fallacious? Some other "proof" of God's existence perhaps? How do men using reason arrive at true knowledge of God? Where in the Confession is this explained or do you think it is just assumed?


----------



## Magma2

SemperFideles said:


> Obviously, fallen man cannot reason his way to salvation apart from revelation (as Aquinas argued).



I think Aquinas' position was more like the light of reason can provide us with true knowledge of God. For everything else that is where faith comes in.



> Again, let me quote John Calvin on the same concept. I think his quote goes to the same concept because it underlines that the light that is in nature is from God as the fountainhead of knowledge and that we ought not deprecate that knowledge because, by doing so, we call something that God has gifted us with something less than it is and show an impious lack of appreciation:



I hope it is not in violation of your rules to comment on your quotes from Calvin seeing Calvin died some 80+ years before the Confession was completed.




> Yet its [man's natural reason] efforts do not always become so worthless as to have no effect, especially when it turns its attention to things below. On contrary, it is intelligent enough to taste something of things above, although it is more careless about investigating these. Nor does it carry on this latter activity with equal skill. For when the mind is borne above the level of the present life, it is especially convinced of its own frailty. Therefore, to perceive more clearly how far the mind can proceed in any matter according to the degree of its ability, we must here set forth a distinction. This, then, is the distinction: that there is one kind of understanding of earthly things; another of heavenly. I call “earthly things” those which do not pertain to God or his Kingdom, to true justice, or to the blessedness of the future life; but which have their significance and relationship with regard to the present life and are, in a sense, confined within its bounds. I call “heavenly things” the pure knowledge of God, the nature of true righteousness, and the mysteries of the Heavenly Kingdom. The first class includes government, household management, all mechanical skills, and the liberal arts. In the second are the knowledge of God and of his will, and the rule by which we conform our lives to it.



I assume this touches on the question of what is the "light of nature" in that men are not nothing and they exhibit the characteristics of the image in which they were made. OK, nothing here to suggest that men arrive at a true knowledge of God through the use of right reason or even wrong reason. Just that men have various natural gifts of managing households, building things and can even excel in the liberal arts apart from "the knowledge of God." 



> Of the first class the following ought to be said: since man is by nature a social animal, he tends through natural instinct to foster and preserve society. Consequently, we observe that there exist in all men’s minds universal impressions of a certain civic fair dealing and order. Hence no man is to be found who does not understand that every sort of human organization must be regulated by laws, and who does not comprehend the principles of those laws. Hence arises that unvarying consent of all nations and of individual mortals with regard to laws. For their seeds have, without teacher or lawgiver, been implanted in all men.



Basically just a restatement and exposition of Romans 2:15. If this is what is meant by light of nature then I would agree. But it seems this is not what the Westminister divines had in mind -- or at least this isn't the argument that is being made. 




> I do not dwell upon the dissension and conflicts that immediately spring up. Some, like thieves and robbers, desire to overturn all law and right, to break all legal restraints, to let their lust alone masquerade as law. Others think unjust what some have sanctioned as just (an even commoner fault), and contend that what some have forbidden is praiseworthy. Such persons hate laws not because they do not know them to be good and holy; but raging with headlong lust, they fight against manifest reason. What they approve of in their understanding they hate on account of their lust. Quarrels of this latter sort do not nullify the original conception of equity. For, while men dispute among themselves about individual sections of the law, they agree on the general conception of equity. In this respect the frailty of the human mind is surely proved: even when it seems to follow the way, it limps and staggers. Yet the fact remains that some seed of political order has been implanted in all men. And this is ample proof that in the arrangement of this life no man is without the light of reason. (2.2.13)




"Yet the fact remains that some seed of political order has been implanted in all men." Calvin is talking about innate ideas which is why even the crassest of sinners all possess a sense of justice. If this is a description of "light of nature" then he is at odds with the Confession writers _if it is correct_ that their position is that knowledge of truth can be arrived at by the use of the right use of reason (i.e., the light of nature). I'm not at all convinced that this is the Confessional position, although it might be, but if it is Calvin so far does not agree.




> Then follow the arts, both liberal and manual. The power of human acuteness also appears in learning these because all of us have a certain aptitude. But although not all the arts are suitable for everyone to learn, yet it is a certain enough indication of the common energy that hardly anyone is to be found who does not manifest talent in some art. There are at hand energy and ability not only to learn but also to devise something new in each art or to perfect and polish what one has learned from a predecessor. This prompted Plato to teach wrongly that such apprehension is nothing but recollection. Hence, with good reason we are compelled to confess that its beginning is inborn in human nature. Therefore this evidence clearly testifies to a universal apprehension of reason and understanding by nature implanted in men. Yet so universal is this good that every man ought to recognize for himself in it the peculiar grace of God. The Creator of nature himself abundantly arouses this gratitude in us when he creates imbeciles. Through them he shows the endowments that the human soul would enjoy unpervaded by his light, a light so natural to all that it is certainly a free gift of his beneficence to each! Now the discovery or systematic transmission of the arts, or the inner and more excellent knowledge of them, which is characteristic of few, is not a sufficient proof of common discernment. Yet because it is bestowed indiscriminately upon pious and impious, it is rightly counted among natural gifts. (2.2.14)



To repeat the relevant statement: "Hence, with good reason we are compelled to confess that its beginning is inborn in human nature. Therefore this evidence clearly testifies to a universal apprehension of reason and understanding by nature implanted in men." It should be clear that what Calvin has in mind is the exercise of the innate or natural endowments all men possess (even to a lesser degree imbeciles) by virtue of being created in God's image. I couldn't agree more. Jesus is the divine Logos that lights the minds of all men. Amen. I agree with Calvin wholeheartedly, but I still fail to see how this comports with the use of "light of nature" as it is used in the Confession (assuming Rev. Winzer and some others here are correct)? 




> Whenever we come upon these matters in secular writers, let that admirable light of truth shining in them teach us that the mind of man, though fallen and perverted from its wholeness, is nevertheless clothed and ornamented with God’s excellent gifts. If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God. For by holding the gifts of the Spirit in slight esteem, we contemn and reproach the Spirit himself. What then? Shall we deny that the truth shone upon the ancient jurists who established civic order and discipline with such great equity? Shall we say that the philosophers were blind in their fine observation and artful description of nature? Shall we say that those men were devoid of understanding who conceived the art of disputation and taught us to speak reasonably? Shall we say that they are insane who developed medicine, devoting their labor to our benefit? What shall we say of all the mathematical sciences? Shall we consider them the ravings of madmen? No, we cannot read the writings of the ancients on these subjects without great admiration. We marvel at them because we are compelled to recognize how preeminent they are. But shall we count anything praiseworthy or noble without recognizing at the same time that it comes from God? Let us be ashamed of such ingratitude, into which not even the pagan poets fell, for they confessed that the gods had invented philosophy, laws, and all useful arts. Those men whom Scripture [1 Corinthians 2:14] calls “natural men” were, indeed, sharp and penetrating in their investigation of inferior things. Let us, accordingly, learn by their example how many gifts the Lord left to human nature even after it was despoiled of its true good. (2.2.15)



Again, nothing about the use of right reason or the light of nature as providing knowledge of God, just Calvin's recognition that it is from God that these various gifts originate. Broken clocks are right twice a day and there are a great many insights men apart from Scripture have stumbled on. Paul even quotes a Pagan poet with approval. But this too is a far cry from what is being argued for concerning the Confession writers. 

To just add another Calvin quote I posted elsewhere, he also said: 



> And I have said that religion ought not to be separated from knowledge; but I call that knowledge, *not what is innate in man, or what is by diligence acquired, but that which is delivered to us by the Law and the Prophets.*"
> 
> Notice, Calvin rejects the idea that men arrive at knowledge via his innate endowments (i.e., the light of nature) or "what is by diligence acquired." Not surprisingly this is in perfect harmony with the above citations you provided, but it also makes clear that for Calvin the light of nature is _not_ a means by which men come to know God or anything else for that matter.
> 
> I would hope you would be at least be willing to concede Rich that what at least what Calvin wrote is in harmony with the section from Reymond that you objected to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an affirmation of the necessity of Holy Scripture—necessary certainly for salvation and a knowledge of God’s will for his church, its most immediate areas of application within the context of the confessional statement itself—*but necessary also for the justification of all knowledge and of personal meaning itself.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me that much.
Click to expand...


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> ...
> Again, let me quote John Calvin on the same concept. I think his quote goes to the same concept because it underlines that the light that is in nature is from God as the fountainhead of knowledge and that we ought not deprecate that knowledge because, by doing so, we call something that God has gifted us with something less than it is and show an impious lack of appreciation:



Light _in_ nature? The issue is the "light _of_ nature". These are two contrary concepts. 

Although the quotes of Calvin do go far to support the idea of the "light of nature" does refer to man's innate ability to reason, and not some sort of "knowledge" man can derive from perceptions of the "natural" world.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Magma2 said:


> Think about it for a second Rich. Where does the light of nature apart from the Scripture lead? We see men worshipping pieces of wood, their ancestors, the sun, dialectical materialism, other men, science, you name it.



If that is where it actually leads then Paul should not have said what he did in Athens. Paul was able to critique them because they knew what they were doing was incorrect and inconsistent.



> Calvin called the minds of men idol makers. While men fashion for themselves countless gods to which they bow, only Scripture provides what the "light of nature" cannot. Do men apart from the teaching of Scripture and the work of the Holy Spirit ever arrive at God and the truth on their own? I'm sticking with Reymond.



When do people actually deny the truth in unrighteousness? According to what you have written it seems that they only deny the truth after they have been introduced to scripture and before they are regenerated.

CT


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Magma2 said:


> Is it your position that the WCF affirms the cosmological argument even though it is fallacious? Some other "proof" of God's existence perhaps? How do men using reason arrive at true knowledge of God? Where in the Confession is this explained or do you think it is just assumed?



Many Divines would have been familiar with it. If you will read the quotes above, you will see just what they believed was possible for the light of nature to comprehend. They base it squarely on Romans 1. They were familiar with Aquinas, and remember there was no presuppositionalism back then, nor were there too many prominent atheists either, so they would not articulate things the way we would today in our modern context. They did believe in some form of natural law/general revelation which made men inexcusable. Heinriech Heppe has a rather large collection of reformed theologian quotes in his Reformed Dogmatics showing how much was possible to know from reason and creation. But their purpose was not to prove the existence of God necessarily, but to show by what knowledge man is justly condemned apart from special revelation, and also provide a basis for the need of special revelation.


----------



## crhoades

B.B. Warfield on Calvin's Doctrine ofthe Knowledge of God


----------



## Magma2

crhoades said:


> B.B. Warfield on Calvin's Doctrine ofthe Knowledge of God



Just wondering if you can pull a couple of relevant highlights or points since I'm not going to read 107 pages on the internet.


----------



## crhoades

Magma2 said:


> Just wondering if you can pull a couple of relevant highlights or points since I'm not going to read 107 pages on the internet.


 
Nor will I. No relevant quotes or highlights. Just tossing a resource out there. This is also in the 10vol. works if you own that and want to do some devotional reading.


----------



## RamistThomist

Jim Snyder said:


> Is John Robbins' essay on natural law available at the Trin. Found. web site??
> Jim



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


----------



## staythecourse

Using an example helps me to clarify my understanding of "Light of Nature."

A man gets a leaf and examines its color, shape, texture, etc. He can't come to a conclusion about God. But He persists and gets out the microscope and sees cells and can catergorize their workings among each other, but he decidedly comes to no conclusion. He uses His electron microscope and sees shadows of protond, electrons and calculates forces between particals and sees a working together for order and still will come to no correct conclusion. At what point would He see Jesus Christ. If you cry foul saying we are not talking about salvation and I should have said "At what point would he see God?" I still say Man will die without Christ in God's presence, He knows it and for fear of His life will not come to God. You can't "know about God without turning around and looking at Him and being draw to Him for a closer inspection.

Should man come to a conclusion about an "Intelligent Designer" a false God is immediately made as there are "many Gods" but our only revelation of God is in Christ Jesus. We see all of God as He walked the earth with only His righteous judgment on sin postponed.

Again, I say, a man must see Christ before He sees the Father.


----------



## Magma2

Draught Horse said:


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



Could it have been reprinted as Conservatives; An Autopsy (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=115)


_ Editor’s note: An earlier version of this essay first appeared in The Journal of Christian Reconstruction in 1978. (Those were the days when Reconstructionism was underdeveloped, and the movement was still semi-Biblical.) Current events spark this essay’s revision and republication.

Despite being written almost 25 years ago, this essay remains relevant, for little has changed for the better. If anything, those who profess to be Christians are more gullible, confused, and compromised today than they were 25 years ago. For 50 years Christians in America have been bamboozled by Romanists like Patrick Buchanan, William Bennett, and William F. Buckley, Jr., into supporting their Antichristian programs, candidates, and theologies. The rise of the Religious Right-Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition, D. James Kennedy’s Center for Reclaiming America, and Rousas Rushdoony’s-Gary North’s-Greg Bahnsen’s Re-constructionist movement-has exacerbated, not corrected, the situation. Now Romanists are invited to address D. James Kennedy’s political conferences, and putative Protestants endorse books by devout Romanists, and become Romanists and Orthodoxists themselves. And the Reconstructionist movement and its allies and offshoots, by substituting political and cultural action for the proclamation of the Gospel, by substituting eschatology for soteriology, and by mangling the Gospel itself, have become tools of Romanist political action. The lessons of this essay have been ignored._


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Magma2 said:


> I wrote:
> 
> A bristling Rich wrote:


Keep pushing the envelope don't we. Not for long Sean.



> I didn't charge you with anything. It was a question.
> 
> Is asking a question against your rules too?



I've been asleep for a number of hours and then getting some things done today. As I stated at the beginning of this thread, I was allowing the thread to occur to resolve what the WCF teaches about "light of nature". You began the thread because you were disatisfied with the closing of the thread on Scripturalism. I allowed you to open this thread with the stipulation that this be about what the Confession teaches on the term.

I responded to your question about Reymond to Rev. Winzer. Rev. Winzer pointed out that he thinks that Reymond takes the WCF teaching further than what it actually teaches (eisegetically). I pointed out where I believed the extra material was in Reymond claiming that the WCF taught that *all* knowledge had to be justified by the Scriptures.

You then responded with accusations concerning my trust in natural theology.

Whether or not I have a thick skin on such issues is immaterial. I could care less about the charge but I am firm on the rules on this thread. I will not allow it to degenerate into a defense of the Scripturalist definition of the WCF *unless* it is shown that this is what the authors intended when they wrote it.

This thread is not, therefore, a debate about what each of us believes that the light of nature means but only what we can demonstrate from the Divines or those that they were influenced by.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> Light _in_ nature? The issue is the "light _of_ nature". These are two contrary concepts.
> 
> Although the quotes of Calvin do go far to support the idea of the "light of nature" does refer to man's innate ability to reason, and not some sort of "knowledge" man can derive from perceptions of the "natural" world.



Calvin does not make this distinction. The examples he cites of both government and medicine are not merely innate perceptions.


----------



## RamistThomist

Magma2 said:


> Could it have been reprinted as Conservatives; An Autopsy (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=115)
> 
> 
> _ Editor’s note: An earlier version of this essay first appeared in The Journal of Christian Reconstruction in 1978. (Those were the days when Reconstructionism was underdeveloped, and the movement was still semi-Biblical.) Current events spark this essay’s revision and republication.
> 
> Despite being written almost 25 years ago, this essay remains relevant, for little has changed for the better. If anything, those who profess to be Christians are more gullible, confused, and compromised today than they were 25 years ago. For 50 years Christians in America have been bamboozled by Romanists like Patrick Buchanan, William Bennett, and William F. Buckley, Jr., into supporting their Antichristian programs, candidates, and theologies. The rise of the Religious Right-Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition, D. James Kennedy’s Center for Reclaiming America, and Rousas Rushdoony’s-Gary North’s-Greg Bahnsen’s Re-constructionist movement-has exacerbated, not corrected, the situation. Now Romanists are invited to address D. James Kennedy’s political conferences, and putative Protestants endorse books by devout Romanists, and become Romanists and Orthodoxists themselves. And the Reconstructionist movement and its allies and offshoots, by substituting political and cultural action for the proclamation of the Gospel, by substituting eschatology for soteriology, and by mangling the Gospel itself, have become tools of Romanist political action. The lessons of this essay have been ignored._



notwithstanding some of the rhetoric, thanks for the link! I was hoping it was online (I would have hated to type out all of the arguments). Again, thanks for pointing this out.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Incidentally, the Moderating quote was to all parties. We've had a smattering of questions and challenges that have stepped beyond the rules for this thread. It will cease or the offending posts will be deleted.

I'm specifically marshalling this thread for good reason.


----------



## MW

I find it difficult to believe this is still being disputed. Most of the Westminster divines could be quoted to the same effect as Burgess and Twisse. I will provide one more work, which I think is as clear as clear could be. It is written by a group of men who were also members of the Assembly of divines, and was published whilst the Westminster Assembly was in session. It is called the Divine Right of Church Government, an edition of which was published by our friend, Chris Coldwell. For those who have that edition the quotation may be found on pp. 9-11, but for convenience I will cut and paste from the online edition at gutenberg.



> I. By light of nature. That which is evident by, and consonant to the true light of nature, or natural reason, is to be accounted of divine right in matters of religion. Hence two things are to be made out by Scripture. 1. What is meant by the true light of nature. 2. How it may be proved, that what things in religion are evident by, or consonant to this true light of nature, are of divine right.
> 
> 1. For the first, What is meant by the true light of nature, or natural reason? Thus conceive. The light of nature may be considered two ways. 1. As it was in man before the fall, and so it was that image and similitude of God, in which man was at first created, Gen. i. 26, 27, or at least part of that image; which image of God, and light of nature, was con-created with man, and was perfect: viz. so perfect as the sphere of humanity and state of innocency did require; there was no sinful darkness, crookedness, or imperfection in it; and whatsoever was evident by, or consonant to this pure and perfect light of nature, in respect either of theory or practice, was doubtless of divine right, because correspondent to that divine law of God's image naturally engraved in Adam's heart. But man being lapsed, this will not be now our question, as it is not our case. 2. As it is now in man after the fall. The light of nature and image of God in man is not totally abolished and utterly razed by the fall; there remain still some relics and fragments thereof, some glimmerings, dawnings, and common principles of light, both touching piety to God, equity to man, and sobriety to a man's self, &c., as is evident by comparing these places, Psal. xix. 1, 2, &c., Acts xiv. 17, and xvii. 27, 28; Rom. i. 18-21, and ii. 12, 14, 15; 2 Cor. v. 1: in which places it is plain, 1. That the book of the creature is able (without the scriptures, or divine revelations) to make known to man much of God, his invisible Godhead and attributes, Psalm xix. 1, 2, &c.; Acts xiv. 17, and xvii. 27, 28; yea, so far as to leave them without excuse, Rom. i. 18-21. 2. That there remained so much natural light in the minds even of the heathens, as to render them capable of instruction by the creature in the invisible things of God; yea, and that they actually in some measure did know God, and because they walked not up to this knowledge, were plagued, Rom. i. 18-21, 24, &c. 3. That the work of the law (though not the right ground, manner, and end of that work, which is the blessing of the new covenant, Jer. xxxi. 33; Heb. viii. 10) was materially written in some measure in their hearts. Partly because they did by nature without the law the things contained in the law, so being a law to themselves, Rom. ii. 14, 15; partly, because they by nature forbore some of those sins which were forbidden in the law, and were practised by some that had the law, as 2 Cor. v. 1; and partly, because according to the good and bad they did, &c., their conscience did accuse or excuse, Rom. ii. 15. Now conscience doth not accuse or excuse but according to some rule, principle, or law of God, (which is above the conscience,) or at least so supposed to be. And they had no law but the imperfect characters thereof in their own hearts, which were not quite obliterated by the fall. Now so far as this light of nature after the fall, is a true relic of the light of nature before the fall, that which is according to this light may be counted of divine right in matters of religion, which is the next thing to be proved.
> 
> For the second, how it may be proved that what things in religion are evident by, or consonant to this true light of nature, are of divine right. Thus briefly,
> 
> 1. Because that knowledge which by the light of nature Gentiles have of the invisible things of God, is a beam of divine light, as the apostle, speaking of the Gentiles' light of nature, saith, That which may be known of God is manifest in them—for God hath showed it to them. For the invisible things, &c., Rom. i. 19, 20. God himself is the Fountain and Author of the true light of nature; hence some not unfitly call it the divine light of nature, not only because it hath God for its object, but also God for its principle; now that which is according to God's manifestation, must needs be of divine right.
> 
> 2. Because the Spirit of God and of Christ in the New Testament is pleased often to argue from the light of nature in condemning of sin, in commending and urging of duty, as in the case of the incestuous Corinthian; "It is reported commonly, that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles," (who had only the light of nature to guide them,) 1 Cor. v. 1. In case of the habits of men and women in their public church assemblies, that women's heads should be covered, men's uncovered in praying or prophesying. "Judge in yourselves, is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man hath long hair, it is a shame to him? but if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her," &c., 1 Cor. xi. 13-15. Here the apostle appeals plainly to the very light of nature for the regulating and directing of their habits in church assemblies; and thus, in case of praying or prophesying in the congregation in an unknown tongue, (unless some do interpret,) he strongly argues against it from the light of nature, 1 Cor. xiv. 7-11, and afterwards urges that women be silent in their churches, from the natural uncomeliness of their speaking there, for it is a shame for women to speak in the church, 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35.
> 
> Now, if the Spirit of God condemn things as vicious, and commend things as virtuous from the light of nature, is there not divine right in the light of nature? May we not say, that which is repugnant to the light of nature in matters of religion, is condemned by divine right; and what is correspondent to the light of nature, is prescribed by divine right? And if not, where is the strength or force of this kind of arguing from the light of nature?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Now *that* is an example of a post ON TOPIC.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

armourbearer said:


> I find it difficult to believe this is still being disputed. Most of the Westminster divines could be quoted to the same effect as Burgess and Twisse. I will provide one more work, which I think is as clear as clear could be. It is written by a group of men who were also members of the Assembly of divines, and was published whilst the Westminster Assembly was in session. It is called the Divine Right of Church Government, an edition of which was published by our friend, Chris Coldwell. For those who have that edition the quotation may be found on pp. 9-11, but for convenience I will cut and paste from the online edition at gutenberg.


 Copies available.


----------



## Magma2

Rich are you going to answer my question concerning Calvin or are you just going to keep banging your little gavel?? 

I spent some time considering what you posted. Will you please do me the courtesy of responding? 

Thanks in advance.

P.S. Please also do me the favor of not asking Rev. Winzer what you think in advance. Thanks again.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> Rich are you going to answer my question concerning Calvin or are you just going to keep banging your little gavel??
> 
> I spent some time considering what you posted. Will you please do me the courtesy of responding?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> P.S. Please also do me the favor of not asking Rev. Winzer what you think in advance. Thanks again.



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

I'm not certain which question I did not answer but I assume it is this one:


Magma2 said:


> Why don't you state what it is you *think* Rev. Winzer said? It seems to me that his objections is that Reymond "is suggesting you cannot argue from the light of nature" to the truth of God.


I didn't state what it is I think Rev. Winzer said because I cannot speak for him. At the time, I thought I understood what he was stating but I didn't want to misrepresent him. Not all the quotes from the Divines had been presented. Further, Reymond wrote more than a couple of sentences and I was guessing at the portion that I thought that Rev. Winzer was pointing out was not consonnant with the WCF.



> Yet, Dort says the absolute reverse of Winzer:
> 
> It appears to me that the position of Dort is the same as the one advanced by Calvin and that men *"can in no way attain to God unless it be aided and assisted by his Sacred Word."* He even cites Isiah in this regard and like Dort above asserts; *“The arm of God will not be revealed” to all."* Yet, per you and Rev. Winzer the light of nature, which per the Burgess quote, is nothing more than reason, is another route to knowledge. If it is your position that by the right use of reason one can come to the knowledge of God I'd love to see your argument. For what it's worth I think the so-called "classic proofs" for God are colossal failures. Who knows, perhaps you and Rev. Winzer will succeed where other brilliant minds, like those of Aristotle and Aquinas, have failed. Stranger things have happened. But it should be clear the assertion that "Faith . . . and the light of Nature go to the knowledge of the same thing [in] different [ways]" is completely denied by both Dort and Calvin.



This portion is completely off topic and was not responded to intentionally. Careful readers will note that one objection does not follow to the other. It is one thing to note that the "light of nature" cannot lead to saving knowledge (as Aquinas reasoned it did and the WCF states it cannot) while quite another to conclude that all knowledge must be justified by the Scriptures. You leapt to an unwarranted conclusion.

Again, we are discussing the authors' intent on the WCF. If you keep that in mind then it will make this thread discussion much clearer. It doesn't matter what *I* believe the WCF states in this thread, it matters what can be demonstrated that it actually states. My statement was challenging that I didn't believe that Reymond's additional content could be supported by the words of the WCF or primary sources. If you want to dispute that then the dispute is not with me but you must show how the authors of the WCF intended what Reymond wrote. Otherwise, I can produce plenty of people with opinions about what the WCF says.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Pardon the length of this post. I am trying to consolidate some resources I have compiled on this subject relating to the teaching of the Westminster Assembly. Although not exhaustive by any means, hopefully, they will be helpful.

From a previous post:



VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Not to resurrect an old debate, but I think it is worth mentioning that _Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici_ addresses what is meant by "light of nature" in the context of ecclesiastical government (Part I, chapter 3) and applies the principle to civil government as well (Part II, chapter 9).
> 
> [Edited on 9-2-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]



See _Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici: The Divine Right of Church Government_ by the Sundry Ministers of London online here.

Samuel Rutherford discusses "nature's light" in _Lex Rex_, Question 2 and Question 20. Also, see Rutherford's Catechism: 



> _Q. Quhat ar the lights that directeth conscience?
> 
> A._ The law of nature in manes heart and the light of the Word ar the two candles that God hes lighted to lett it see to walk.



The phrases "light of nature," "nature's light" and "light and law of nature" are found repeatedly in George Gillespie's writings, such as _Notes of debates and proceedings of the Assembly of divines and other commissioners at Westminster_; _Ordination of Ministers_ ["And shall the Church (which must go a great deal further than the *law and light of nature*,) come short of that which nature itself teacheth all human societies? 'Tis both a natural and a scriptural rule, Let all things be done decently and in order, 1 Cor. 14.40, for God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, Ibid. verse 33."]; _Aaron's Rod Blossoming_ [p. 84: "But presbyterial government is tied up in all such particulars as are properly spiritual and proper to the church, though, in other particulars, occasional circumstances of times, places, accomodations, and the like, the same *light of nature and reason* guideth both church and state; yet in things properly spiritual and ecclesiastical, there is not near so much latitude left to the presbytery, as there is in civil affairs to the magistrate."]; and elsewhere.

William Gouge, _Dometical Duties_: "...so as not only those who have been enlightened by God's word, but also the heathen, who had no other than the *light of nature*, have adjudged [the sin of self-murder] to be a most desperate sin."; "So clear is this point, that the heathen discerned it by the glimpse of that *light of nature* which they had: for they could say, that that which is honest and right, is to be preferred before that which is commodious and profitable."; "All men know that there is an higher than the highest on earth. The *light of nature* revealeth as much, no pagan, much less Christian, can be ignorant thereof."; "Nature hath placed an eminency in the male over the female: so as where they are linked together in one yoke, it is given by nature that he should govern, she obey. This did the heathen by *light of nature* observe."; "Though they were heathen, yet they shewed what subjection is required of wives to their husbands by the very *light of nature*, whereby this sin is aggravated."; "Nature teacheth us that this is true of the head of a natural body, and the Apostle by entitling an husband, an head, teacheth us that it is as true of an husband: whence it followeth, that it standeth with common equity, and with the *light of nature*, that the wife should be subject to her husband. This argument doth the Apostle in plain terms urge in another place, saying, doth not nature teach you, &c. (1 Cor 11:14)."Many strong arguments there be to press it upon the consciences of mothers, and to shew that [so far as they are able] they are bound to give suck to their own children. Some are taken from the light of God's word; and some from the *light of nature*."; etc.

Robert Shaw, _Exposition of the Confession of Faith_, I, i:



> There are few doctrines of supernatural revelation that have not, in one period or another, been denied or controverted; and it is a peculiar excellence of the Westminster Confession of Faith, that its compilers have stated the several articles in terms the best calculated, not only to convey an accurate idea of sacred truth but to guard against contrary errors. In opposition, on the one hand, to those who deny the existence of natural religion, and, on the other hand, in opposition to Deists, who maintain the sufficiency of the *light of nature* to guide men to eternal happiness, this section asserts,–
> 
> 1. That a knowledge of the existence of God, and a number of his perfections, is attainable by the *light of nature*, and the world of creation and providence.
> 
> 2. That the *light of nature* is insufficient to give fallen man that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation.
> 
> 3. That God has been pleased to grant to his Church a supernatural revelation of his will.
> 
> 4. That this revelation has been committed to writing, and that the Holy Scripture is most necessary, the ancient modes of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.
> 
> First. That there is a God is the first principle of all religion, whether natural or revealed, and we are here taught that the being of God and a number of his perfections may be discovered by the *light of nature*. By the word God is meant a Being of infinite perfection; self-existent and independent; the Creator, Preserver, and Lord of all things. "It is true, indeed, that to give a perfect definition of God is impossible, neither can our finite reason hold any proportion with infinity; but yet a sense of this Divinity we have, and the find and common notion of it consists in these three particulars,–that it is a Being of itself, and independent from any other; that it is that upon which all things that are made depend; that it governs all things." When we affirm that the being of God may be discovered by the *light of nature*, we mean, that the senses and the reasoning powers, which belong to the nature of man, are able to give him so much light as to manifest that there is a God. By our senses we are acquainted with his works, and by his works our reason may be led to trace out that more excellent Being who made them. This the Scripture explicitly asserts, Rom. i 19, 20: "That which may be known of God is manifest in them (i. c., in men), for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead." The existence of God is not less indubitable than our own existence. Every man knows, with absolute certainty, that he himself exists. He knows also that he had a beginning, and that he derived his being from a succession of creatures like himself. However far back he supposes this succession to be carried, it does not afford a satisfactory account of the cause of his existence. His ancestors were no more able to make themselves than he was; he must, therefore, ascend to some original Being, who had no beginning, but had life in himself from all eternity, and who gives life and being to all other creatures. This is the Being whom we call God. But "we are not only conscious of our own existence, we also know that there exists a great variety of other things, both material and spiritual. It is equally inconceivable that these things should have existed from all eternity in their present state, or that they should have fallen into this state by chance; and, consequently, as there was a time when they did not exist, and as it was impossible for them to produce themselves, it follows that there was some exterior agent or creator to whom the world owed its being and form: that agent or creator we call God." The amazing works of providence, the regular and unerring motions of the heavenly luminaries for so many thousand years, the never failing return of summer and winter, seed-time and harvest, day and night, and innumerable other wonders, clearly manifest the existence of a Supreme Being, who upholds and governs all things. In the works of creation and providence, too, we see the clearest characters of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness. "The more that we know of these works, we are the more sensible that in nature there is not only an exertion of power, but an adjustment of means to an end, which is what we call wisdom, and an adjustment of means to the end of distributing happiness to all the creatures, which is the highest conception that we can form of goodness."
> 
> As the marks of a Deity are so clearly impressed upon all the works of creation, so we learn from the history of former times, and from the observation of modern travellers, that in every country, and at every period, some idea of a Superior Being, and some species of divine worship, have prevailed. The persuasion of a God is universal, and the most ancient records do not conduct us to a period in the history of any people when it did not exist. That truth must certainly be a dictate of nature, to which all nations have consented. There is much practical Atheism in the world, but it may be questioned whether any have been able entirely to erase from their mind the impression of a Supreme Being. It is, indeed, affirmed, Ps. xiv. 1, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God;" but it is rather the wish of the unsanctified affections, than the proper determination of the deliberate judgment, which these words express. Though some may in words disavow the being of God, let the terrors which they feel in their own breasts, especially upon the commission of some daring wickedness, force upon them the conviction that there is a Supreme Being, who will judge and punish the transgressors of his law. Conscience, indeed, is in the place of a thousand witnesses to this truth. The Apostle Paul, who tells us that "there is a law written in the hearts of men," adds that "their conscience bears witness, and their thoughts accuse, or else excuse one another."–Rom. ii.15. Conscience reproves, condemns, and scourges a man for his wicked deeds, and anticipates the account which he must give of all his actions, and thus demonstrates that there is a God. The Scriptures, accordingly, take the being of God for granted, and instead of first proving that there is a God, begin with telling us what God did. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."–Gen. i. 1.
> 
> This knowledge of God, which is attainable by the *light of nature*, serves various useful purposes. It is a testimony of the goodness of God towards all his creatures.–Acts xiv. 17. As it shows men their duty, and convinces them of sin, in many points; so it has had some influence on mankind, at least by the fear of punishment, in restraining them from extreme degrees of wickedness.–Rom. ii. 14, 15. It excites men to seek after a clearer revelation of God, and prepares the way for their receiving the gospel of his grace.–Acts xvii. 27. It serves to vindicate the conduct of God as a righteous governor, in his severe dealing with obstinate sinners, both here and hereafter. This will leave them without excuse in the great day, when God shall judge the secrets of all hearts.–Rom. i. 20, 21, and ii. 15, 16. But the knowledge of God by the light of nature being obscure and defective,
> 
> The second proposition asserts the insufficiency of the *light of nature* to give fallen man that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. The extent of knowledge, in regard to the things of God, which man is capable of attaining, cannot be ascertained from the writings of modern Deists, who, how much soever they affect to despise supernatural revelation, have derived the greater part of their sentiments respecting God, and moral obligation, from that source. The history of past times and ancient nations shows, that the greater part of mankind, in every country destitute of supernatural revelation, knew but little of the true God, or of their duty towards him. "The world by wisdom knew not God;" even the learned Athenians were so ignorant of the true God that they dedicated an altar "to the unknown God." The heathen world was sunk in the most abominable idolatry and gross superstition. Not only were the heavenly luminaries deified, but almost every creature on earth was worshipped as a god, and innumerable imaginary beings had divine honours paid them. Though some heathen philosophers attained some considerable knowledge of the nature of God, and inculcated upon their followers several moral virtues, this did not prevent them from complying with the idolatry of their country, or deter them from the commission of the most gross and unnatural crimes.–Rom. i. 21-28. From the light of nature we may learn that there is evil both moral and penal in the world; but as to the question how sin entered into the world, and how deliverance from it may be obtained, the *light of nature* is entirely silent. It shows men their sin and misery, but it discovers not the plain and certain way of salvation. The Scriptures assure us, that there is no salvation for sinful men in any other name but that of Jesus Christ,–that there is no salvation through him but by faith, and that there can be no faith nor knowledge of Christ but by revelation.–Acts iv, 12; Mark xvi. 16; Rom. x. 14-17. The Scripture affirms, in terms the most express, that "where there is no vision," or revelation, "the people perish;" and it describes those who are destitute of divine revelation, as "having no hope, and without God in the world."–Prov. xxix. 18; Eph. ii. 12. God does nothing in vain; and were the *light of nature* sufficient to guide men to eternal happiness, it cannot be supposed that a divine revelation would have been given. But,–



David Dickson, _Truth's Victory Over Error_:



> "IS the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary to salvation?"
> 
> No; 1 Cor. 1.21. and 1 Cor. 2.13,14.
> 
> Well then, do not the Socinians err, who maintain, That men living according to the law and light of nature may be saved?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> By what reasons are they confuted?
> 
> 1st, Because none can be saved, unless they be born by the incorruptible seed of the word, 1 Pet. 1.23.
> 
> 2d, Because Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and no man cometh to the Father but by the Son, John 14.6.
> 
> 3d, Because there is none other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved, but by the name of Jesus, Acts 4.12.
> 
> 4th, Because men cannot believe in Christ, without supernatural revelation: and therefore cannot be sanctified; because all justification, sanctification and remission of sins, are by God's grace, and faith in Jesus Christ, Rom. 3.24,25. Acts 26.18. Neither can men be so saved, viz. by living according to the light of nature, because salvation is promised only to believers in Christ, Acts 16.31. John 3.16.
> 
> 5th, Because all that know not God will be punished eternally, 2 Thes. 1.8. But men without supernatural revelation cannot savingly know God, 1 Cor. 1.21. Mat. 11.27.
> 
> 6th, Men destitute of supernatural revelation cannot know their own corruption and misery, by the first Adam, nor the remedy which is offered by Christ the second Adam. They are without God, without hope, without the promises, without the church, and covenant of God; and the mysteries of faith are hid, and unknown to them allenarly, that perish and are lost. Eph. 2.11,12. Rom. 9.4. 2 Cor. 4.3. Mat. 13.11,12. Mat. 11.25-27.



A.A. Hodge, _A commentary on The Westminster Confession of Faith_, I, i:



> 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.
> 
> 3. That consequently it has pleased God, of his sovereign grace, to make, in various ways and at different times, a supernatural revelation of himself and of his purposes to a chosen portion of the human family. 4. And that subsequently God has been pleased to commit that revelation to writing, and that it is now exclusively embraced in the Sacred Scriptures.
> 
> 1. The *light of nature* and the works of creation and providence are sufficient to enable men to ascertain the fact that there is a God, and somewhat of his nature and character, end thus render them inexcusable.
> 
> Three generically distinct false opinions have been entertained with respect to the capacity of men, in their present circumstances, to attain to any positive knowledge of the being and character of God.
> 
> (1.) There is the assumption of all those extreme Rationalists who deny the existence of any world beyond the natural one discoverable by our senses, and especially of that school of Positive Philosophy inaugurated by Auguste Comte in France, and represented by John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer in England, who affirm that all possible human knowledge is confined to the facts of our experience and the uniform laws which regulate the succession of those facts; that it is not possible for the human mind, in its present state, to go beyond the simple order of nature to the knowledge of an absolute First Cause, or to a designing and disposing Supreme Intelligence, even though such an one actually exists; that whether there be a God. or not, yet as a matter of fact he is not revealed, and as a matter of principle could not, even if revealed, be recognized by man in the present state of his faculties.
> 
> This assumption is disproved - (a.) By the fact that men of all nations, ages, and degrees of culture, have discerned the evidences of the presence of a God in the works of nature and providence, and in the inward workings of their own souls. This has been true, not only of individuals, communities, or generations unenlightened by science, but pre-eminently of some of the very first teachers of positive science in the modern scientific age, such as Sir Isaac Newton, Sir David Brewster, Dr. Faraday, etc. (b.) By the fact that the works of nature and providence are full of the manifest traces of design, and that they can be scientifically explained, and as a matter of fact are explained by these very sceptics themselves, only by the recognition and accurate tracing out of the evident " intention" which each of these works is adapted to subserve in their mutual relations. (c.) The same is disproved from the fact that conscience, which is a universal and indestructible element of human nature, necessarily implies our accountability to a personal moral Governor, and as a matter of fact has uniformly led men to a recognition of his existence and of their relation to him.
> 
> (2.) 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.
> 
> This opinion is disproved -- (a.) By the direct testimony of Scripture. Rom. i. 20 -- 24; ii. 14, 15. (b.) 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. The fact that this argument remains unanswerable shows that the process by which the conclusions are drawn from purely natural sources is legitimate. (c.) All nations, however destitute of a supernatural revelation they may have been, have yet possessed some knowledge of a God. And in the case of the most enlightened of the heathen, natural religion has given birth to a considerable natural theology. We must, however, distinguish between that knowledge of the divine character which may be obtained by men from the worlds of nature arid providence in the exercise of their natural powers alone, without any suggestions or assistance derived from a supernatural revelation -- as is illustrated in the theological writings of some most eminent of the heathen who lived before Christ -- and that knowledge which men in this age, under the clear light of a supernatural revelation, are competent to deduce from a study of nature. The natural theology of the modern Rationalists demonstrably owes all its special excellences to that Christian revelation it is intended to supercede.
> 
> (3.) The third erroneous opinion which has been entertained on this subject is that of Deists and theistic Rationalists -- viz., that the *light of nature*, when legitimately used, is perfectly sufficient of itself to lead men to all necessary knowledge of God's being, nature, and purposes. Some German Rationalists, while admitting that a supernatural revelation has been given in the Christian Scriptures, yet insist that its only office is to illustrate and enforce the truths already given through the light of nature, which are sufficient in themselves, and need re-enforcement only because they are ordinarily not properly attended to by men. But, in opposition to this, the Confession teaches --
> 2. That the amount of knowledge attainable by the *light of nature* is not sufficient to enable any to secure salvation.
> 
> This is proved to be true -- (1.) From Scripture. 1 Cor. i. 21; ii. 13, 14. (2.) From the fact that man's moral relations to God have been disturbed by sin; and while the *natural light of reason* may teach an unfallen being spontaneously how he should approach and serve God, and while it may teach a fallen being what the nature of God may demand as to the punishment of sin, it can teach nothing by way of anticipation as to what God may be sovereignly disposed to do in the way of remission, substitution, sanctification, restoration, etc. (3.) 'From the facts presented in the past history of all nations destitute of the light of revelation, both before and since Christ. The truths they have held have been incomplete and. mixed with fundamental error; their faith has been uncertain; their religious rites have been degrading, and their lives immoral. The only apparent exception to this fact is found in the case of some Rationalist' in Christian lands; and their exceptional superiority to others of their creed is due to the secondary influences of that system of supernatural religion which they deny, but the power of which they cannot exclude.
> 
> Hence, the Confession teaches in this section --
> 3. That consequently it has pleased God, of his sovereign grace, to make, in various ways and at different times, a super natural revelation of himself and of his purposes to a chosen portion of the human family. And that --
> 4. God has been pleased subsequently to commit that revelation to writing, and it is now exclusively embraced in the Sacred Scriptures.
> 
> Since, as above shown, the *light of nature* is insufficient to enable men to attain such a knowledge of God and his will as is necessary for salvation, it follows -- (1.) That a supernatural revelation is absolutely necessary for man; and, (2.) From what natural religion alone teaches us of the character of God, it follows that the giving of such a revelation is in the highest degree antecedently probable on his part. Man is essentially a moral agent, and needs a clearly revealed rule of duty; and a religious being, craving communion with God. In his natural state these are both unsatisfied. But God is the author of human nature. His intelligence leads us to believe that he will complete all his works and crown a religious nature with the gift of a religion practically adequate to its wants. The benevolence of God leads us to anticipate that he will not leave his creatures in bewilderment and ruin for the want of light as to their condition and duties. And his righteousness occasions the presumption that he will at some time speak in definite and authoritative tones to the conscience of his subjects. (3.) As a matter of fact, God has given such a revelation. Indeed he has in no period of human history left himself without a witness. His communications to mankind through the first three thousand years were made in very "diverse manners"-- by theophanies and audible voices, dreams, visions, the Urim and Thummim, and prophetic inspiration; and the results of these communications were diffused and perpetuated by means of tradition.
> 
> The fact that such a revelation has been made, and. that we ' have it in the Christian Scriptures, is fully substantiated by that mass of proof styled the " Evidences of Christianity." The main departments of this evidence are the following: --
> (a.) The Old and New Testaments, whether the Word of God or not, bear all the marks of genuine and authentic historical records.
> 
> (b.) The miracles recorded in these Scriptures are established as facts by abundant testimony; and when admitted as facts they demonstrate the religion they accompany to be from God.
> 
> (c.) The same is true in all respects with regard to the many explicit prophecies already fulfilled which are contained in the Scriptures.
> 
> (d.) The unparalleled perfection of the moral system they teach, and the supernatural intelligence they discover in adaptation to all human characters and conditions in all ages.
> 
> (e.) The absolutely perfect excellence of its Founder.
> 
> (f.) The spiritual power of Christianity, as shown in the religious experience of individuals, and also in the wider influence it exerts over communities and nations in successive generations.
> 
> For the questions concerning the Holy Scriptures as containing the whole of this revelation now made by God to men, see below.



Irish Articles (see also various writings by James Ussher), which was highly influential in the drafting of the Westminster Confession:



> 31. They are to be condemned that presume to say that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that *law and the light of nature*. For holy scripture doth set out unto us only the name of Jesus Christ whereby men must be saved.



See Edward D. Morris, _Theology of the Westminster Symbols: A Commentary Historical, Doctrinal, Practical, on the Confession of Faith and Catechisms and the Related Formularies of the Presbyterian Churches_, pp. 68-75 for an extended treatment of what is meant by "light of nature" in the Westminster Standards.

See Thomas Ridgeley's Exposition of the Westminster Larger Catechism in various places.


----------



## MW

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Samuel Rutherford discusses "nature's light" in _Lex Rex_, Question 2 and Question 20. Also, see Rutherford's Catechism:



 Andrew, you may also be interested in these by Mr. Samuel:

Christ Dying: “Sinning against the light of nature and the known will of God, as Idolatry and the principles of your own Religion, true and known to be so, brings delivering up to judiciall blindnesse, Rom. 1.21."

Survey Spiritual Antichrist: “There is assurance by reason of the meer light of nature and works of this Creation, that there is a God, and that hee rewardeth them that seeke him.”

Free Disputation: “The sunthresis, the conserving power of the soul, is that faculty or power, in which are hidden and laid up the moral principles of right and wrong, known by the light of nature, and so is a part of a natural conscience.”


----------



## crhoades

It's hard to keep up with everything...Has Psalm 19 been mentioned yet?

ESV *Psalm 19:1* _To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. _
The *heavens declare the glory of God*, and *the sky above proclaims his handiwork*. 
*2 Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.* 
3 There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. 
4 Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, 
5 which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy. 
6 Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them, and there is nothing hidden from its heat. 

Of course vs. 7 ff. talk about the law of the Lord which I take to be Torah or In other words,, special revelation. 

So I bring this up as it is considered the light of nature in its best sense. And for what it's worth I did do a search on this thread and one of the divines did reference it so I should be within the bounds.

Thoughts? Or if already discussed on another thread point the way.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

armourbearer said:


> Andrew, you may also be interested in these by Mr. Samuel:
> 
> Christ Dying: “Sinning against the light of nature and the known will of God, as Idolatry and the principles of your own Religion, true and known to be so, brings delivering up to judiciall blindnesse, Rom. 1.21."
> 
> Survey Spiritual Antichrist: “There is assurance by reason of the meer light of nature and works of this Creation, that there is a God, and that hee rewardeth them that seeke him.”
> 
> Free Disputation: “The sunthresis, the conserving power of the soul, is that faculty or power, in which are hidden and laid up the moral principles of right and wrong, known by the light of nature, and so is a part of a natural conscience.”



Excellent -- thanks very much! 

Another quote to add to the hopper comes from Matthew Henry. It comes from his commentary (Matthew 1.23), rather than his exposition of the Shorter Catechism, but it is a good pithy summation of Westminster theology as it relates to the "light of nature," it seems to me:



> By the light of nature, we see God as a God above us; by the light of the law, we see him as a God against us; but by the light of the gospel, we see him as Immanuel, God with us, in our own nature, and (which is more) in our interest. Herein the Redeemer commended his love.


----------



## MW

> By the light of nature, we see God as a God above us; by the light of the law, we see him as a God against us; but by the light of the gospel, we see him as Immanuel, God with us, in our own nature, and (which is more) in our interest. Herein the Redeemer commended his love.



That is definitely a keeper!


----------



## staythecourse

*I have to bow out*

I realize I stand outside the bounds of the debate's restraints in my understanding so far.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

crhoades said:


> It's hard to keep up with everything...Has Psalm 19 been mentioned yet?
> 
> ESV *Psalm 19:1* _To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. _
> The *heavens declare the glory of God*, and *the sky above proclaims his handiwork*.
> *2 Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.*
> 3 There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.
> 4 Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun,
> 5 which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.
> 6 Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them, and there is nothing hidden from its heat.
> 
> Of course vs. 7 ff. talk about the law of the Lord which I take to be Torah or In other words,, special revelation.
> 
> So I bring this up as it is considered the light of nature in its best sense. And for what it's worth I did do a search on this thread and one of the divines did reference it so I should be within the bounds.
> 
> Thoughts? Or if already discussed on another thread point the way.



English Annotations (primarily a production of Westminster divines -- see here for further clarification) on Psalm 19.1-4 (by Meric Casabon):



> Vers. 1. Gen. I.6. Rom. 1.20. They shew to man, as in a table, Gods greatnesse and goodnesse, that he may praise God.
> 
> V. 2. The continuall succeeding of day and night, doth declare Gods power and providence.
> 
> V. 3. The heavens are a schoolmaster to all nations, be they never so barbarous: or, though they have no power to speak, yet by them is Gods might and glory proclaimed to any ordinary understanding, Rom. 1.20,21.
> 
> V. 4. The heavens are as a line of great capitall letters, to shew unto us Gods glory, Isai. 28.10.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

English Annotations on Rom. 1.18 (by Daniel Featley, Westminster Divine):



> _the truth]_ By truth, he meaneth all the light which is left in man since the fall; especially those common notions of God, his nature, power and will, imprinted in man by nature; as also the knowledge of morall good and evill.



Rom. 1.19:



> _manifest in them]_ Or, _to them._ That is, in the inwards of their mind or conscience; or else in them, that is, among, them; namely, their wise and learned ones, who did leave a number of cleare and judicious Essayes and Sentences hereof in their writings, although they did contrary to the same.
> 
> _hath shewed]_ Partly by the light of nature in their consciences, partly by the consideration of the creature of God, whereby his attributes are evidently notified, and after a sort tasted and felt, Psal. 34.8. Psalm. 19.2. Psal. 148.4,5,6. Act. 14.17. Act. 17.27.



Rom. 1.20:



> _without excuse]_ The Apostles meaning is not, that God gave them that knowledge to that end and purpose to make them unexcusable: for they might catch even at that for an excuse: neither doth he intimate that they being led by that divine light of nature might thereby come into favour with God, but that their own reason did condemn them of wickednesse both against God and men: Or, he so farre revealed the truth unto them that they cannot be excused, _viz._ before the righteous judgment of God, as they had not known that which either they did, or might have known.


----------



## crhoades

Calvin on Psalm 19:2

*



2. Day unto day uttereth speech. Philosophers, who have more penetration into those matters than others, understand how the stars are arranged in such beautiful order, that notwithstanding their immense number there is no confusion; but to the ignorant and unlettered, the continual succession of days is a more undoubted proof of the providence of God. David, therefore, having spoken of the heavens, does not here descend from them to other parts of the world; but, from an effect more sensible and nearer our apprehension, he confirms what he has just now said, namely, that the glory of God not only shines, but also resounds in the heavens. The words may be variously expounded, but the different expositions which have been given of them make little difference as to the sense. Some explain them thus, that no day passes in which God does not show some signal evidence of his power. Others are of opinion that they denote the augmentations of instruction and knowledge, - that every succeeding day contributes something new in proof of the existence and perfections of God. Others view them as meaning that the days and nights talk together, and reason concerning the glory of their Creator’, but this is a somewhat forced interpretation. David, I have no doubt, here teaches, from the established alternations of days and nights, that the course and revolutions of the sun, and moon, and stars, are regulated by the marvellous wisdom of God. Whether we translate the words Day after day, or one day to another day, is of little consequence; for all that David means is the beautiful arrangement of time which the succession of days and nights effects. If, indeed, we were as attentive as we ought to be, even one day would suffice to bear testimony to us of the glory of God, and even one night would be sufficient to perform to us the same office. But when we see the sun and the moon performing their daily revolutions, — the sun by day appearing over our heads, and the moon succeeding in its turns — the sun ascending by degrees, while at the same time he approaches nearer us, — and afterwards bending his course so as to depart from us by little and little; — and when we see that by this means the length of the days and nights is regulated, and that the variation of their length is arranged according to a law so uniform, as invariably to recur at the same points of time in every successive year, we have in this a much brighter testimony to the glory of God. David, therefore, with the highest reason, declares, that although God should not speak a single word to men, yet the orderly and useful succession of days and nights eloquently proclaims the glory of God, and that there is now left to men no pretext for ignorance; for since the days and nights perform towards us so well and so carefully the office of teachers, we may acquire, if we are duly attentive, a sufficient amount of knowledge under their tuition.http://www.puritanboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=264655#_ftn1

Click to expand...

*


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I love reading Calvin. What an incredible saint he was. So profound and poetic at the same time.

I was actually thinking yesterday as I was reading the Institutes: "Well, at least one good thing came from France."


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Thomas Goodwin on Ephesians 1.19-20:



> First of all; there are in every man's understanding seeds of truth; not only of truth to understand things of this world, but there are seeds of truth to understand the Godhead, to understand many pieces of the law of God. This you have plain by two scriptures, which I will not stand long upon, for you all know them. The one is Rom. ii. 14, 15. 'The Gentiles,' saith he, 'which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law; these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts in the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another.' This is by nature, you see; that he plainly expresseth; that is, it is from a man's birth. I will not say it is from nature, for it is said to be a thing written, I believe it is by the finger of God put in, for man hath lost all light. But this is in every man's nature more or less, here is one principle whereby he knoweth many things of the law. Then here is another principle in Rom. i. 17 - 19, and so on. He saith, there is a truth which was withheld by all the Gentiles in unrighteousness; so he saith at the 18th verse. What truth was that? It was a glimmering light that there was a God; 'Because,' saith he, 'that which may be known of God is manifest in them;' this was not from nature, though it was by nature, for he saith, ' God hath shewed it unto them.' It was God put it in, over and above what was the due of corrupt nature; yet there it is, and it is, you see, in all men's hearts.
> 
> Now, as there are in every man's heart seeds and principles of reason, which by education and living in the world may be improved; a man may be exceeding wise, and yet wise only so far as those principles will go and be stretched, he shall be wise in his generation : so bring this light of conscience which a man hath by nature, bring it to the word of God to be improved, it will be mightily enlarged; and yet still all the light that is added to it by the word will be but of the same kind; it will not rise to grace, to a new principle, it is but enlarging the old. As for example, take the Jews; the Apostle in Rom. ii., after he had shewed in ver. 14 what the light of nature is, in the 17th verse he saith, 'Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, an instructor of the foolish, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.'
> 
> Here you see that if the light of nature be brought to the law of God, it is mightily improved. A man by nature hath some light that there is a God, let that light be brought to the law and he will be confident; he hath some light by nature about duties belonging to God, bring that light to the law and he will have a form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. So that those seeds of knowledge that are in the mind of a man by nature, of God and of the law, being brought to the law and lighted at that torch, his light is greater, but yet still it is of the same kind, there is but an improvement of the principles of nature. - There is one.
> 
> In the second place, there is in man a natural devotion to a deity; that is more. The heathens had it; they all would worship some god or other; though this was their fault, that when they knew God they glorified him not as God; so the Apostle saith, Rom. i. 21. You shall find in Acts xin. 50, that there were devout women which the Jews stirred up against Paul and Barnabas. They had a devotion in them. There is a natural devotion in men; now bring that to the law, to the word of God, and it will come both to know the true God, and to have a reverence of the true God too. All this is by nature, nature improved.
> 
> Well, in the third place, here is a seed of light in the heart of every sinner, that he deserveth eternal death for his sin, and that, this God will punish him. There is this light too, naturally, in every man's heart. Rom. i. 32, he speaks of the Gentiles there plainly; 'Who knowing,' saith he, 'the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death,' worthy of eternal death, for it is the judgment of God; where by 'judgment,' is evident he meaneth that part of the law whereby God is revealed as a judge inflicting punishment; the next words interpret it, 'they which do such things are worthy of death.' And so, chap. ii. 1, 2, it is evident that he goeth on to speak of the the sentence of God in punishing sinners. And so Aristotle useth the word in the 5th book of his Ethics; and in Rev. xv. 4 it is so used, speaking of the vials that were to be poured out; 'Thy judgments,' saith he - it is the same word - ' are made manifest.'
> 
> Now, a man having that natural light in him, that there is such a God as is angry when he sinneth, and will punish him; bring this man to the law, to the word of God, then what followeth l Rom. ii. 1, 'We are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things;' speaking of the Jews. A man that cometh to be enlightened by the word hath this natural principle mightily strengthened, confirmed, and enlarged.
> 
> Then again, in the fourth place, if a man come once to see his sin, it is a natural for him to think of a mediator; to use somebody to intercede for him to God. There is that principle in nature. For that I will give you but a scripture or two. I instance in all that the heathens did; the heathens, the wisest of them, they acknowledged that there was but one God, but they said there were many that were lower gods, mediators; they were their notion that Mr Mead did much enlarge. The scripture I will give you is 1 Cor. vin. 5, 'Though there be that are called gods, as there be gods many and lords many, yet to us there is but one God, and one Lord Jesus Christ.' They had many gods, or indeed rather one great God, and they called all other gods but as mediators to this great God. This was by nature; they could not tell how to go to God without lesser gods, which were their mediators, for so they called their lords. Therefore Simon Magus, you shall find, desired Peter to pray for him; and Pharaoh entreated Moses to intercede for him. And it was usual amongst the heathens to offer sacrifices to these lower gods, to mediate for them with the great God.
> 
> Well, in the fifth place, there is in every man's will and affections a natural desire of happiness, of a greater good than what this world hath; for it resteth not in anything in this world, it is like a bee that goeth from one flower to another, which sheweth that it cannot be satisfied with anything that is here. There are all these principles in nature that is corrupt, and so you see the principles; which was the first thing I undertook to shew you.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

If I understand where this thread is, we are garnering material on what the Westminster Divines meant by light of nature at WCF 1.1 and elsewhere. Here is a bit from two Westminster Divines who co-authored a book published right before the Assembly began work on chapter one of the Confession of Faith. Daniel Cawdrey and Herbert Palmer, _Sabbatum redivivum, or, The Christian Sabbath vindicated, in a full discourse concerning the Sabbath, and the Lord's Day_ (London: 1645; 1652) 9–11. The first part published in 1645 is noted by Thomason as available on May 1, 1645 when he obtained his copy (he obtained the subsequent parts in 1652 on November 30th of that year). The Westminster Assembly began working on chapter one of the Confession of Faith from May 12, 1645 and had proceeded through the first five sections by July 11th (Benjamin B. Warfield, “The Westminster Doctrine of Holy Scripture” in _The Westminster Assembly and its Work_ (P&R, 1959; Rpt. SWRB, 1991) 157. [original margin headings or notes in bold]
* XIV. Morall Laws divided into Naturall and Positive.*​And of these we say further, and clearly, (though we have given intimations of it already) That they are of two kindes; _Morall-Natruall, _ and _Morall-Positive._ Which agreeing in _Perpetuity,_ (as far as we have already shewed) doe differ in their _distinct Properties; _ as will appeare by their severall Descriptions, to which we now proceed in their order.​And first, a _Law Morall-Naturall, _we think, may thus properly be exprest: [_A _Law of _Things necessary to be done or forborne, toward _God _or _Man, _our selves, or others: which the Nature of Man now (though corrupted) either doth acknowledge, or may at least be convinced of to be such, (even without the Scripture) from Arguments drawn from those Principles which are in the hearts of all men generally even now._] So that he must contradict some of those Principles, which yeelds not to those Lawes, specially when he is rationally urged with them. Or more briefly thus: [_A Law of _Nature_ is a Law, which may be proved not only _just,_ but _necessary, _by Principles drawn from the light of Nature, which all Reasonable men have still in their hearts._]​…​* XVIII. Degrees of Morall Naturall Laws.*​Therefore also for a further clearing of these _Lawes_ of _Nature,_ we adde, [_That they are not all of equall evidence or clearenesse, but admit of Degrees._] And so they may be further distinguished: ​* 1. Principles.*​1. There are some _Principles of Nature: _of which the Great _Schoolman_ thus writes: [“_Although in themselves the Precepts of the Law of Nature are many; yet may they all be reduced to this one; _Good is to be prosecuted, Evill is to be avoided.] ​*Aquin. 2.2 94. art. 2.c.*​* 2. Conclusions.*​2. Some are _Conclusions_ necessarily resulting from that _Principle_ by way of _Demonstration._ Which _Conclusions,_ as they arise at the first or second hand, or the like, may further be distinguished into _immediate, _or _mediate. _​* Immediate.*​The _immediate Conclusions _are only two: The first, [_Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, _&c.] And the second, [_Thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thy selfe._] _On these two Commandements, _saith our Saviour, _hang all the Law and the Prophets. Mat. _22.​* 2. Mediate.*​The _mediate Conclusions _are such, as doe also arise from the former _Principle,_ but by the _interposition _of the _two former_ Conclusions. And of this kinde are _confessedly _some, even _most_ of the Commandements of the Decalogue, if not all. But of this more anon.​* XIX. Character of Laws Moral-Naturall.*​The summe then of this Discourse of _Naturally-Morall Lawes, _is, That their proper Character is, [_To be in themselves not only just and convenient, but even _necessary,_ in the _Nature of the Laws themselves: _for all reasonable creatures, such as Mankind, are “universally and perpetually to stand obliged unto, toward GOD, themselves, and one another: and which very Nature, though _corrupted_, may be forced to confesse such._]​


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Nathaniel Culverwell, _An Elegant and Learned Discourse of the Light of Nature_ (1652) (dedicated to Anthony Tuckney, Westminster Divine, and received the imprimatur of Edmund Calamy the Elder, Westminster Divine)


----------



## Magma2

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:



> . . . remember there was no presuppositionalism back then, nor were there too many prominent atheists either, so they would not articulate things the way we would today in our modern context.



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?


----------



## Magma2

SemperFideles said:


> 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. 



Magma2 said:


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


----------



## Theogenes

Draught Horse said:


> 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

NaphtaliPress said:


> 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

Magma2 said:


> 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

armourbearer said:


> 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

staythecourse said:


> "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

Magma2 said:


> 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.




Magma2 said:


> 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

Magma2 said:


> 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

armourbearer said:


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


Exactly.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> ...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

Civbert said:


> 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

Civbert said:


> 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

Civbert said:


> 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

SemperFideles said:


> 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

armourbearer said:


> 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

Civbert said:


> 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

armourbearer said:


> 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

Magma2 said:


> 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

Puritan Sailor said:


> 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

SemperFideles said:


> 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

Puritan Sailor said:


> 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

Magma2 said:


> 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

SemperFideles said:


> 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.


----------



## MW

Anthony Burgess (John 17, p. 163) shows the validity of the causative argument for proving the existence of God, whilst at the same time showing that this knowledge is insufficient to salvation.



> We come to know God by the Creatures; All that consider the world aright must needs argue some divine hand made it: The Apostle Rom. 1. instanceth in this also: Men by reason and science may argue from the effect to the cause, we see one man did not make himself, but he had a Father, and so that Father, a Father, and because there cannot be an infinite progresse we must stay at one first cause, only you must know this Knowledge by the world is insufficient to salvation; Therefore it's a pernicious assertion of Venator the Remonstrant, that the Heathens they had the Light as it were of the Starres, The Jews of the Moon, The Christians of the Sunne, and all might be saved by their respective Lights.



If the divines are to be understood correctly they must be read within the framework of their own thought, which drew a clear distinction between natural and spiritual knowledge. For which, one should refer to the two earlier quotations from Burgess and Twisse.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Magma2 said:


> 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 Causes would be just as much Aristotle's God as he/it would be yours and mine.


I don't necessarily disagree with you but none of the Confessional writers are arguing that this is what they mean by LON.



> 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.


Again, I think you're conflating too much here. Notice the quote above about Calvin. The fault is not the revelation that God is giving in nature but the man who is suppressing it. I didn't hide the quote I produced from Calvin about the nature of Revelation in Romans 1:18-21. Again, he's not making the same hard lines and conflating terms the same way you are which is why I can't fully agree with you. Calvin talks about the revelation being true but men shutting their eyes to it. I will grant that he talks about actual knowledge of God is only attainable through special revelation but you keep insisting it is incompatible with what preceded. The Confession admits the same thing. Revelation in man insists that there is a God from the things seen but he suppresses it. If one insists that special revelation is necessary for man to know anything of God then it removes the culpability of those to whom only general revelation is revealed. Special revelation, however, penetrates and illumines the heart of the suppressors and graciously allows the redeemed to stop suppressing what God has been revealing to them that they knew all along. I loved the example, for instance, where the commentator points out the Paul uses nature as an example why the Corinthians should understand why what they're doing is shameful before God. 



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


Only with the qualifiers heretofore made. He is very clear to me too. He does not turn the light of nature into opinion. Now where I think we might be missing each other potentially is that you keep believing the WCF or anyone else is insisting that men can come to full knowledge of God through the light of nature. How you could conclude this from the writing of the section on the surface is quite odd but it seems like your objections keep coming forward that way. Actual knowledge in this case is knowledge that is illumined, the mind of man is no longer suppressing it. Maybe you're missing the point that the knowledge we have from natural revelation is *real* knowledge and the WCF admits it's inadequate for full knowledge of God.



> 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.


Well you're either curious or you don't care. I don't think there's any latitude to claim that everything we call *knowledge" comes from the Scriptures alone based on the WCF. I also believe that this notion is rejected by the framers of the WCF and, even while he acknowledged full knowledge required Scripture, Calvin is very critical of deprecating the gifts of God and even finds it impious to do so.

One last time, Sean, try to understand this and don't conflate all terms into extremes:


armourbearer said:


> Anthony Burgess (John 17, p. 163) shows the validity of the causative argument for proving the existence of God, whilst at the same time showing that this knowledge is insufficient to salvation.
> 
> If the divines are to be understood correctly they must be read within the framework of their own thought, which drew a clear distinction between natural and spiritual knowledge. For which, one should refer to the two earlier quotations from Burgess and Twisse.


This is where everything keeps falling apart for some. If, _a priori_, you define knowledge according to an un-Confessional scheme then it is terribly hard to understand the Confession itself in its two (not one) categories of knowledge. Those who aren't so committed to this system are probably scratching their heads at this point trying to figure out how it is that this can be said so many different times and so many different ways and still have it repeated back as if its empericism or Thomism or evidentialism. It is just odd that I have to argue that the Confession is worthy of consideration when using terms when we're all supposedly Confessional Presbyterians.

I think a first step in being "Confessional" Christians would be to acknowledge what it means and what it meant to be that so we have some unity of the faith with the saints of old. I *do* care about being Confessional and if I'm not confessional then I'm careful about it. This board's rules put the burden of proof upon the unconfessional and not the other way around.

If we're going to be insistent upon what amounts to a personal opinion of the Scriptures then we need to treat it in the Churches as such. Confessional subscriptions carry with them some sanction because people take vows to uphold them. Pastors are under no vows to uphold an opinion and liberty of conscience would prohibit a Church Officer to present such an opinion as doctrine. It certainly cannot attain to something I should be troubling the Church with.

Thus, if one doesn't care about the Confessionalism of a teaching that they hold then they have no business criticizing others for holding to a Confessional position especially when both parties are in the same Confessing Church.


----------



## Magma2

SemperFideles said:


> Thus, if one doesn't care about the Confessionalism of a teaching that they hold then they have no business criticizing others for holding to a Confessional position especially when both parties are in the same Confessing Church.



This is a clarification, not intended to keep the debate going.

My not caring had to do with the notion that God can be validly demonstrated from observation and reason. I stated I am not convinced at all that this is the position of the Confession or that it was the unanimous position of the Divines themselves, although I agree Burgess is one such Divine. 

I think the use of the LoN per the Confession can accommodate Robert Reymond as it does R.C. Sproul. However, if the idea of LoN can ONLY be thought of in terms of the validity of the cosmological argument then I wouldn't care what the Confession says because it would be in error for the cosmological argument is false and that is something all Christians should be happy about.


----------



## crhoades

This doesn't add to the discussion concerning the Divines usage of Light of Nature but I thought it would be useful to include this quote for posterity's sake. Jonathan Edwards:



> Indeed there is what is called natural religion. There are many truths concerning God, and our duty to him, which are evident by the light of nature. But christian divinity properly so called, is not evident by the light of nature; it depends on revelation. Such are our circumstances now in our fallen state, that nothing which it is needful for us to know concerning God, is manifest by the light of nature, in the manner in which it is necessary to know it…it cannot be said, that we come to the knowledge of any part of christian truth by the light of nature. It is only the work of God, contained in the Old and New Testament, which teaches us christian divinity.58http://www.puritanboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=265105#_ftn2
> 
> 58 58. Edwards, “Christian Knowledge: Or, the Importance and Advantage of a Thorough Knowledge of Divine Truth,” in Works; 2.158. Spelling, capitalization, and italics are original.


----------

