“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.
I’m not a Calvinist or Jansenist, the council of Orange of 529 called out the idea or implication of double predestination out a thousand years before either group hit the scene, but Grace is strong and there are many godly Calvinists anyway. That said in reviewing Gisbertus Voetius I can neither find the quote or it’s context and it appears very out of place. He was a very technical man who knew his scholastic theology to the nines so he wouldn’t mean what you’re implying him to mean. Searching the quote turns up only Kant. If the quote is Voetius it’s probably a translation that loses its technical nuance.
If you don’t like the baggage the term common Grace has then it’s just Grace, which is available to all. But terms are important so let’s clarify them.
Faith is an act of intellect determinate to the wills command, it is primarily act of nous (intuitive reason) not logos (deductive reason). That distinction is important and someone like Voet, if he said such a thing as quoted above, would have missed it, but we don’t have that distinction in English so it is very likely to be lost in translation.
Because Faith is a type of reason the whole modern, Kantian, ‘Faith vs Reason’ thing is nonsese on a tautological level.
The object of Faith is simple and everlasting truth (often First Truths), but because humans are not simple Faith may be complex by way of proposition, and that second bit is probably where to you start to disagree with folks like Augustine’s ‘On Freedom of the Will’s or Aquinas’s definitions in Summa?
The complex, deductive aspect of Faith matters when evangelizing to others, ideas like natural law come into play there. Technically this is a facet of ‘gratuitous Grace’, but that’s probably getting to far into the weeds.
Calvinism may be just as wrong as Pelegianism on the issue of free will and grace, but common Grace is correct. Put it this way, without common Grace unbelievers would all be dead. Judgement now and everything on this earth is over. Other branches don’t have a specific term for it and all that just falls under Grace in general, but as far as the doctrine of common Grace goes common Grace is everything that is sustained up to the point of saving grace, common Grace makes the world go round while saving grace makes it better.
On the last thing you really hit a nerve. Are you telling me the writer of Psalm 119 was lying when he said he sought God? Are you telling me the myriad of verses old and new for those who seek God are theoretical fluff only? With scripture it’s an all of scripture view or you’re no better than a JW who takes ‘abstain from blood’ out of it’s historical and surrounding context and makes nonsense cult rules out of it. Scripture does not disagree with me, your pet theology supported by a decontextualized reference does.
Now my view on Grace and Will is informed in such a way that it’s agreeable to most Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Christian sects. Its built on an all of scripture view and supported by the early church. Pelegians and Calvinists represent two extremes of error outlined by the aforementioned Council of Orange.
Sin darkens the noetic faculty. Grace allows enough light for people to make a real decision to accept or reject God and His Grace. Accepting gives Simple Faith. Gratuitous Grace allows us to use argumentation, like arguments from natural law, in the evangelical process, and that complex faith if accepted by the new Christian reduces to simple Faith.
Because the noetic faculty is darkened no one can know God without grace, to say otherwise is Pelegianism. God does not predestine anyone to perdition to say otherwise, well, I’ll quote said Canon ‘We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema’, and by Grace people have a real free choice for or against him.
Resisting grace is saying ‘Yes God allowed you to know good from evil and enough truth that you ought to be convinced, but you said no anyway’ I think just about everyone but Calvinists and Universalists agree that’s how it works. For example St. Paisos had a whole lecture on heaven about how no one will be surprised when they are turned away, because they knew exactly how many clear chances they were given. There are quibbles about how things should be phrased between East and West and Catholic and Protestant but this general formula of Grace and Free Will is just as locked in as other core doctrines like Hypostatic Union or the Trinity. I realize oddballs like oneness Pentecostals and Calvinists and Nestorians exist, but overall the church is united on these topics.
JG wrote,
I’m not a Calvinist or Jansenist, the council of Orange of 529 called out the idea or implication of double predestination out a thousand years before either group hit the scene, but Grace is strong and there are many godly Calvinists anyway. That said in reviewing Gisbertus Voetius I can neither find the quote or it’s context and it appears very out of place. He was a very technical man who knew his scholastic theology to the nines so he wouldn’t mean what you’re implying him to mean. Searching the quote turns up only Kant. If the quote is Voetius it’s probably a translation that loses its technical nuance.
BLMc responds,
1.) If you are not a Calvinist you are an Arminian or you do theology by contradiction which is to say that you are both and neither. Therefore we are not going to agree on just about anything I suspect.
2.) Council of Orange … “Popes and councils do err.”
JG wrote,
If you don’t like the baggage the term common Grace has then it’s just Grace, which is available to all. But terms are important so let’s clarify them.
Bret responds,
Grace is NOT available to all. That is the Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace.
JG wrote,
Faith is an act of intellect determinate to the wills command, it is primarily act of nous (intuitive reason) not logos (deductive reason). That distinction is important and someone like Voet, if he said such a thing as quoted above, would have missed it, but we don’t have that distinction in English so it is very likely to be lost in translation.
Because Faith is a type of reason the whole modern, Kantian, ‘Faith vs Reason’ thing is nonsense on a tautological level.
Bret responds,
Nope … faith is an ontological precondition out of which belief is birthed. Because Babies and the brain impaired can have faith your definition is no good. Faith is a gift given and not a conclusion of a syllogism or of intuition.
The whole idea that faith precedes reason goes way behind Kant. Anselm agreed with Augustine who believed that faith is required for understanding.
JG wrote,
The object of Faith is simple and everlasting truth (often First Truths), but because humans are not simple Faith may be complex by way of proposition, and that second bit is probably where to you start to disagree with folks like Augustine’s ‘On Freedom of the Will’s or Aquinas’s definitions in Summa?
Bret responds,
The object of faith is Christ Crucified.
Right … I’m more inclined to agree with Luther’s “Bondage of the Will,” or J. Edwards “Freed of the Will.”
JG wrote,
The complex, deductive aspect of Faith matters when evangelizing to others, ideas like natural law come into play there. Technically this is a facet of ‘gratuitous Grace’, but that’s probably getting to far into the weeds.
BLMC responds,
Fallen man’s mind is at enmity (warfare) with God for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be (Rmns 8:7). Therefore though fallen man cannot escape Natural Law, Natural Law is no good as an evangelizing tool since fallen man hates God. Neither is it any good for organizing social orders for as the Canons of Dordt teach;
Article 4
:There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge
of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good
order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment. But so far is this light 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 light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted
and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.”
JG wrote,
Calvinism may be just as wrong as Pelegianism on the issue of free will and grace, but common Grace is correct. Put it this way, without common Grace unbelievers would all be dead. Judgement now and everything on this earth is over. Other branches don’t have a specific term for it and all that just falls under Grace in general, but as far as the doctrine of common Grace goes common Grace is everything that is sustained up to the point of saving grace, common Grace makes the world go round while saving grace makes it better.
BLMc replies
No Calvinism is not as wrong as Arminianism on free will and NO Common grace is not correct. Though as I said earlier common graces might if you understand that God’s gracious gifts given to the wicked but only with the purpose of increasing the severity of their eventual judgment since they did not bow to God’s Christ in light of those good gifts. All of this as predestined by God from eternity.
2.) The reprobate are all dead men walking.
I know what common grace is and I’m telling you that it is a myth.
JG wrote,
On the last thing you really hit a nerve. Are you telling me the writer of Psalm 119 was lying when he said he sought God? Are you telling me the myriad of verses old and new for those who seek God are theoretical fluff only? With scripture it’s an all of scripture view or you’re no better than a JW who takes ‘abstain from blood’ out of it’s historical and surrounding context and makes nonsense cult rules out of it. Scripture does not disagree with me, your pet theology supported by a decontextualized reference does.
Bret responds,
Clearly you do not know how to handle Scripture aright. The Scripture teaches explicitly “There are none who seek after God.” This is the teaching of Scripture. Now to be sure when we find men seeking after God it is only because God has laid his irresistible grace upon them to that end. But if God does not draw men (John 6:44) men will not seek Him out. So, any seeking by man that is done is only done by the God who seeks out His elect. The reprobate NEVER seek after God.
God is not wooing, via common grace, for all men to come to Him or to seek Him out as if men have a choice in the matter. To read grace that way is to do violence to the text of Scripture, particularly to the biblical meaning of the word draw. The Greek word used in John 6:44 for God’s drawing of men is “elko”. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines it to mean to compel by irresistible superiority. Linguistically and lexicographically, the word means “to compel.” To compel is a much more forceful concept that to woo. To see this more clearly, let us look for a moment at two other passages in the New Testament where the same Greek word is used. In James 2:6 we read: “But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts?” Guess which word in this passage is the same Greek word that elsewhere is translated by the English word draw. It is the word drag. Let us now substitute the word woo in the text. It would then read: “Do not the rich oppress you and woo you into the courts?” The same word occurs in Acts 16:19. “But when her masters was that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to the authorities.” Again, try substituting the word woo for the word drag. Paul and Silas were not seized and then wooed into the marketplace.”
So you are mangling Scripture with your common grace doctrine and your insistence that the reprobate seek after God. They most certainly do not. Any seeking after God we see in the Scripture is merely God’s means of seeking out His elect.
JG wrote,
Now my view on Grace and Will is informed in such a way that it’s agreeable to most Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Christian sects. Its built on an all of scripture view and supported by the early church. Pelegians and Calvinists represent two extremes of error outlined by the aforementioned Council of Orange.
Bret responds,
Your view of grace and will are unbiblical and would find most Catholics saluting it and more EO saluting it and probably even most Protestant sects as Protestantism is now largely Arminian but your view is an extreme that does not represent God’s Word.
Look, if you see Calvinism as an extreme (and you clearly do) you’re really not going to like being around here because I am a Biblical Christian… which is just another way of saying I am a Calvinist.
JG wrote
Sin darkens the noetic faculty. Grace allows enough light for people to make a real decision to accept or reject God and His Grace. Accepting gives Simple Faith. Gratuitous Grace allows us to use argumentation, like arguments from natural law, in the evangelical process, and that complex faith if accepted by the new Christian reduces to simple Faith.
Bret responds,
The Bible teaches not that we live darkened lives but that we are DEAD in our sins and trespasses. We need more than a flashlight turned out (your common grace being our flashlight here) we need to be raised from the dead and then forced to see. You do not yet comprehend the sinfulness of sin and because of that you do not realize the graciousness of grace.
JG wrote
Because the noetic faculty is darkened no one can know God without grace, to say otherwise is Pelegianism. God does not predestine anyone to perdition to say otherwise, well, I’ll quote said Canon ‘We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema’, and by Grace people have a real free choice for or against him.
Bret responds
Should I cut and paste all of Romans 9? … You know … the whole vessels built for destruction part?
Your quote only proves that councils can and do err.
JG wrote,
Resisting grace is saying ‘Yes God allowed you to know good from evil and enough truth that you ought to be convinced, but you said no anyway’ I think just about everyone but Calvinists and Universalists agree that’s how it works. For example St. Paisos had a whole lecture on heaven about how no one will be surprised when they are turned away, because they knew exactly how many clear chances they were given. There are quibbles about how things should be phrased between East and West and Catholic and Protestant but this general formula of Grace and Free Will is just as locked in as other core doctrines like Hypostatic Union or the Trinity. I realize oddballs like oneness Pentecostals and Calvinists and Nestorians exist, but overall the church is united on these topics.
BLMC replies
LOL
You go right on believing that.
Look … if you want to stick around, that would be great because it would give me the opportunity to demonstrate to people who to refute lunatic non Christian views.