Light of Nature

[Puritan Sailor]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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:

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 supersede.

(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]

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]

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]

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

 

[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?