“For Christ did not come into the world to teach precepts about (civic) morals, which man already knew by reason, but to forgive sins, in order that he may give the Holy Spirit to those who believe in him.”
Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560)
Commentary on Aristotle’s Ethics
Voetius shows that reason comes after faith because reason makes inferences from one proposition to the next, and therefore reasoning cannot get started unless there is already a proposition to reason from. This includes any reasoning about any area of life since any reasoning about all areas of life is a reasoning that is faith conditioned. Once reasoning about Jurisprudence or Education or Art or Politics is a reasoning that comes after some faith commitment. So, this teaches us that Melancthon was just in error.
Now Francis Turretin, who would share Melanchthon’s Aristotelian premises offers;
“If various wicked laws obtained among the heathen, repugnant to the natural law (such as those sanctioning idolatry, human sacrifices, permitting theft, rapine, homicide, incest), they do not prove that no light of reason was granted to men by nature… Rather they prove only that men with *leisure ill employed* have wickedly abused the conceded light and, by struggling against and striving with all their might to extinguish it, were given over to a reprobate mind.”
Turretin
IET 11.1.19
I don’t disagree that Natural Law was against the wicked laws among the heathen. Neither do I disagree that the heathen have wickedly abused the conceded light. What I do disagree with, as pushed by Natural Law afficiandandos, is that the heathen ever do not struggle against and strive with all their might to extinguish what Natural Law teaches. Now in different non-Christian social orders will fluctuate in their opposition to what Natural Law teaches due to the waxing and waning of the salt and light influence of Christianity. However, as the antithesis works itself out ever more consistently Natural Law is interpreted as as to teach the very opposite of what it does indeed teach when read through the lenses of special revelation.
The reality that Natural law is a myth, as an independent tool by which to organize social orders did not hit until the 20th century in the West because prior to that Christendom was largely presupposed. When Christendom is no longer presupposed Turretins can’t and won’t get traction no matter how much they bleat about “the light of reason.”
Voetius has confused Grace and Faith. It is only by Grace that mankind can know any thing or understand any truth. To accept something on faith is an act of the noetic faculty, that is to say it is an act of human reason. Humans noetic faculties are tainted by sin, so only by the Grace of God can we have true faith or any other kind of true reason.
Common Grace allows non Christians access to natural law. How far that takes them is exactly how far they allow the Grace of God to work on them, but there are seekers among the unevangelized, like the Magi who knew to look forward to Christ or like Plato who knew the Greek idols were no gods.
As to your later part, we ALL struggle to extinguish natural law, we ALL fight against the Grace of God. If you can honestly say you don’t then I have no doubt you will be taken up and not see death.
But I will say with certainty that Grace can give a man enough light of reason to build faith on if that’s how that man is wired to work. By the Grace of God I’ve been used to explain such reasons to men and see them come to the light of Christ. And natural law is a rational tool in my kit to evangelize when I’m explaining to someone what Christianity is about and we we have the moral rules we do.
I’d wager your beef isn’t with the idea of natural law so much as it being used in place of Grace, or someone more or less claiming that we don’t need Grace first because Natural Law points to Christ?
Sorry … I don’t buy the doctrine of common grace though I’m glad to admit common graceS.
Of course I would insist that it is you who is confused and not Voetius.
“How far they allow they allows the grace of God to work on them” (?)
Do you hear yourself? The Remonstrants or Arminians couldn’t say it any better. Man is dead dead dead. Dead people don’t allow any grace to work on them because they are dead.
Scripture disagrees with you about “seekers,” inasmuch as we read “there are none who seek after God.”
We just disagree on some pretty fundamental areas here Grey.
Are you Reformed… Calvinistic? Or are you some other branch?
Nope… my beef is with Natural Law and the doctrine of common grace.