Light of Nature

[MW]

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

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

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Magma2]

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

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

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

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

 

[crhoades]

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

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

58 58. Edwards, “Christian Knowledge: Or, the Importance and Advantage of a Thorough Knowledge of Divine Truth,” in Works; 2.158. Spelling, capitalization, and italics are original.