Evan writes,
“If we were to concede that fallen man is incapable of comprehending natural law because he is incapable of using reason correctly, then it *necessarily* follows that he is also incapable of comprehending Scripture. It is impossible to access the truth of Scripture without reason and natural revelation.”
Bret responds,
It is indeed impossible for fallen man to access the truth of Scripture, apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Because the Holy Spirit runs along the tracks of God’s Word, elect men are regenerated and so hear the Gospel and believe. The non-elect on the other hand, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, know the truth as truth when they hear it but because they are reprobate they will not admit to themselves that they have heard the truth because they are vessels set apart for destruction and being those vessels they foreswear that they understand.
Evan writes,
Bret responds,
And none of it is of any use for those who hold down the truth in unrighteousness. These types use their comprehension of language to evade comprehending language. This is what it means to “hold down the truth in unrighteousness.” Certainly, we have all discussed matter with others on subject wherein it becomes obvious that they are determined not to understand our point. Indeed, Evan, may even accuse me of being determined to not understand what he believes to be the obvious point that Natural Revelation and Natural Law are mechanisms that can be used in conversion. Evan might say of me, “Bret is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.” And from his errant Natural Revelation/Law perspective he would think himself correct.
Before moving on lets take a look at the claim that fallen reason is, absent of the Spirit’s regenerating work, necessary for spiritual renewal. Scripture teaches that;
“the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” (Romans 8:7)
And;
“The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (I Cor. 2:14)
As far back as St. Augustine it has been routinely embraced that belief precedes understanding and belief is born of the Spirit as He runs along the tracks of the Word.
Evan offers,
Language is handed down from generation to generation; we inherit it from our parents, who inherit it from theirs. Even if we wish to learn some new language as an adult, we fundamentally rely on the knowledge of our native tongue as a springboard to learn that new language, and we rely on the tradition of those who speak (or spake) that other language as inherited from their own ancestors. All propositional truth is accessible/transmissible only through tradition via language.
Bret responds,
Scripture teaches;
“All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” Colossians 1:16-17
I take the “all things” here to be inclusive of language, understanding, and tradition. This is to say that all these find their origin, meaning, and definition in Christ and without presupposing Christ origin, meaning, and definition as words or concepts could not have any meaning. To contend otherwise is another example of climbing up into God’s lap in order to slap Him in the face. We talk about “language, understanding, and tradition,” as if those things had some kind intrinsic reality apart from the God of the Bible. They don’t. So, we presuppose God’s world where “language, understanding, and tradition,” really do have meaning (we climb up into His lap) and then we turn around and say that we don’t need to presuppose God in order to understand “language, understanding, and tradition” (thus slapping Him in the face).
Also, on this score I recognize what Colossians also teaches when speaking of Jesus Christ;
“in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”
Colossians 2:3
I think this Scripture necessitates believing that some of the treasures hidden in Christ are the treasures of “language, meaning, understanding and tradition.” In other words, apart from presupposing Christ, these cannot be considered treasures since in order for them to be counted treasures they must be understood to be hidden in a Jesus Christ who must be presupposed before the treasures are accessible.
Evan writes,
Bret responds,
Natural Revelation is necessary for comprehension of Scripture? Yet, Special Revelation teaches that the natural man is dead in his trespasses and sins. So, Evan’s argument here is that man, dead in his sin and trespasses, is alive enough to access a Natural Revelation that will allow him to walk, in some sense, according to God’s statutes or in some way know true truth?
This is what the Synod of Dordt taught concerning Natural Revelation;
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.
Bret responds,
The change in the form of revelation (general to special) does alter the outcome because man is regenerated and brought into the Kingdom of God. I will concede though that absent the power of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, as the Spirit runs along the tracks of the Word, the change in form of revelation would indeed make no difference. However, the Holy Spirit brings fallen man from death to life so as to hear the Word of God proclaimed that man might be redeemed to now look at all reality through a new set of worldview lenses.
Evan writes,
Bret responds,
No, it is rather the reverse Evan. General Revelation in order to be understood aright rests on Special Revelation. It is indeed crucial to understand this.
AND, the defect is NOT in Natural Revelation but in the dead in sin sinner who is suppressing God’s truth in unrighteousness. To be clear here, the problem is not with the sender of Natural Revelation, or the Natural Revelation sent, but the problem is with the person receiving and suppressing the Natural Revelation.
Evan continues,
Bret responds,
Yes, nature does teach that but that does not mean that fallen man doesn’t twist what nature teaches to his own ends. This was clearly being done because Paul has to deal with the issue. Nature taught about men and long hair and yet there it is as a problem in Corinth.
Evan offers,
Bret responds,
Yes, God sends but man bastardizes.
Evan offers,
Bret responds,
Yes, Natural Revelation is perspicuous. However, fallen man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. Fallen man does “clearly perceive” what is inescapable but “clearly perceiving” something does not mean that that which is clearly perceived is owned by the dead in sin, sinner as being clearly perceived. The reality of God is the most obvious fact in the cosmos (this is what Romans 1:20 is speaking of) but the fact that the reality of God is the most clearly perceived fact in existence does not mean that man does not suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
Evan writes,
Bret responds,
Yes, fallen men engage in wanton rebellion. That is what fallen men do. Fallen man knows, but he insists that he doesn’t know. That dynamic doesn’t change until special Revelation comes to him as accompanied by the Holy Spirit to make fallen man own his fallenness because the Spirit has released man from His work of suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.
Evan writes,
Bret responds,
I never denied he can know. I keep saying repeatedly that the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth forth His handiwork. Perhaps, I have somehow not been clear. If so that is my fault, I’m sure. The Christ hater does know or understand God’s law, but that unbeliever suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. General Revelation cannot be a stepping stone to Special Revelation because, as Evan notes above, man is in rebellion — more than that fallen man is dead in his trespasses and sins. So, fallen man knows but furiously denies he knows at the same time. When fallen men do allow a little Christian capital into their worldview it is only to the end of making project of their denial of God more convincing. For example, sodomites may well contend for marriage. Marriage is a General Revelation item. Sodomites might accept that General Revelation teaches marriage. As such they have snuck Christian capital into their Christ hating worldview, but only with the purpose of slapping God in the face by suggesting that marriage can apply to sodomites.
Evan writes,
But he can still be confronted with revelation and reason that contradict his rationalization, even if he ultimately spurns correction because he is unregenerate. This is the case whether that law is expressed through natural or special revelation.
Bret responds,
Evan, keeps missing the fact that Special Revelation, like General Revelation, can indeed be tossed aside until the Holy Spirit accompanies Special Revelation in regeneration. In order for man to own general revelation as general revelation with its wonderous purpose of exalting Christ, Evan cannot marvel when I say “Fallen man must be born again.” Until then any usage of Natural Revelation is a poaching that is done in order to deny God.
Evan writes,
Bret responds,
Right … and because that is true, fallen man cannot read Natural Revelation aright. Because that is true, in order for general Revelation to find its full meaning it must presuppose Special Revelation.
Evan writes quoting from my favorite author,
Bret responds,
Yeah, it does. See above conversation.
Evan writes,
Bret responds,
How conscious of any reality is the dead in sin, sinner? Is the dead in sin, sinner dead or not? And if he is dead what does he really know of himself? Does he know himself such as the early 20th century phrenologists taught? Does he know himself consistent with Freudian theories? Does he know himself consistent with Darwin’s theories? Marx’s theories?
Sure, man is self-conscious but that self-consciousness does not translate into man knowing who he is or even what he is?
Fallen man is God’s fingerprint (Imago Dei) who spends all his time trying to “Un-fingerprint” himself. Given that reality does fallen man really know himself? I see a boatload of people in this culture who, by one means or another, are doing all they can to de-image themselves of any trace of the Imago Dei.
Not seeing a whole lot of people being conscious of themselves, it is a far easier argument to make that they are not conscious to God.
Evan writes,
Bret responds,
This is not true as I have demonstrated above.
Evan writes,
Bret responds,
This is true.
Evan ends with,
Bret ends with,
Yes, Revelation is a unified whole. A unified whole, wherein man is suppressing in unrighteousness.
Evan starts of with…
“If we were to concede that fallen man is incapable of comprehending natural law because he is incapable of using reason correctly, then it *necessarily* follows that he is also incapable of comprehending Scripture. It is impossible to access the truth of Scripture without reason and natural revelation.”
Fallen man is fully capable of comprehending Natural Law and using his reason correctly. It’s just that he will not. It’s an act of his will. God shows him something through nature. Fallen man says that it means something other that and posits something which is more amenable to his will. God says “ok, let me spell it out for you…” and thus we have special revelation. Fallen man then says… “am I my brother’s keeper?” or “who is my neighbor” or “the men of Sodom were judged for inhospitality” or “Paul was speaking in the culture of his time when he said those things about women”. Now the fallen will of man comes into full view. Man simply WILL NOT honor and obey his Maker.
Thus we are to use the Word, and particularly the Moral Law, to confront fallen sinners about their rebellion and need to surrender to the Savior and Lord. This is what theologians call “the first use of the Law”.
Read Romans 7:13 in a translation of your choice until you understand what the apostle is saying.