Evan Gerber wrote,
McAtee Bret It’s not just opinions though—there is, objectively, content in natural revelation, with moral implications, over which we disagree.
Bret responds,
True … but the unbeliever is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness and so to suggest that he can enter in the discussion about the moral implications of objective NL is just contrary to Scripture. Scripture teaches in Rmns. 8:7 that the carnal mind is at enmity to God’s law. It cannot submit.
So, it is just opinions for the fallen man. To deny that is to deny total depravity. And for the Christian it is just an exchange of opinions on what NL is objectively teaching since there is no “thus saith the Lord in NL.” In order to read Natural Revelation aright one must first presuppose Special Revelation.
EG wrote,
I think this is obvious even from the comprehensibility of Scripture itself. Without natural revelation, Scripture we would be unable to comprehend Scripture. Further, without tradition—because that is what all language is—we would have no way access the Truth of Scripture.
BLM replies,
Our comprehending Scripture as God intends is dependent upon reading it via the proper presuppositions. After all, the JW’s read Scripture and still get it wrong. So… while we must be able to read to understand Scripture reading doesn’t guarantee that we will understand Scripture. So, even the reading of Scripture depends upon proper presuppositions which can only be given by God in regeneration. Special Revelation still precedes General Revelation.
Indeed, even the “we” doing the reading cannot know who we are without presupposing God. So, whether it is the reader or the one doing the reading any progress is dependent upon having God centered presuppositions.
EG writes,
In order to argue against NL, I think you have to affirm *just* enough natural revelation to make Scripture comprehensible, but somehow make a distinction between what is necessary to understand Scripture and all other natural revelation. I just don’t believe this distinction is warranted.
Bret responds,
See above. I think it is warranted. You have not yet plumped the depths of the fall.
EG writes,
[Side note: If this is just a semantic disagreement over the term “Natural Law,” I’m happy to use “Natural Revelation” instead. I am not contending that NL exists “independent” of God, nor is that my understanding from reading Aquinas.]
BLM responds,
Aquinas teaches that fallen man can read NL aright since in Thomism man’s intellect is not completely fallen.
Might I recommend that you read Francis Schaeffer’s “Escape From Reason?”
