Light of Nature

Status
Not open for further replies.

Magma2

Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
 
:judge: 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

:amen: 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.
 
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. :D
 
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)
 
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).
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
"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?
 
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*.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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".
 
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.
 
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:
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?
 
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?
 
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. :D
 
...
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.
 
:amen: 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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top