Natural Theology and Common Grace

First let me provide a couple of definitions:
"Natural theology ... is that part of the philosophy of religion dealing with describing the nature of the gods, or, in monotheism, arguing for or against attributes or non-attributes of God, and especially the existence of God, purely philosophically, that is, without recourse to any special or supposedly supernatural revelation." - Wikipedia
And by Common Grace I mean: "Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore can not be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may is without warrant of the Word of God." - Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter X section IV

From the above definitions it is apparent that this subject has to do with what the natural man can deduce about God from their use of natural reason. What does God reveal about himself in nature? There has been a debate about this matter for a number of years and a contrast is often made between those of the old school (sometimes erroneously referred to as the Princeton School) and those of the Kuyperian school. I was reading a good explanation of a semi-related conflict and became impressed with the way the author, Dave Strain, dealt with the different responses. Read the interview and the comments here.

One of the things which led to this blog subject was the way Dave Strain used the idea of common grace. He pointed out, which the Bible does, that the natural man (that's the person who has not been regenerated) does actually know something of God even though he denies either that fact or the content of what the Bible says he knows. I had been accustomed to hearing Common Grace used to describe God's dealing with the unrepentant and the wicked. That he restrains (n pun intended) their behavior so they are not as wicked as they could be. It was natural theology (I was taught) which talks about what the natural man can know about God from creation.

Yet, thinking about it, there is the idea of grace involved. God did not have to reveal himself as clearly to fallen man as he does - yet he does just that. And, insofar as it does not lead to faith (in the natural man) it carries the idea of his "common operation" from the idea I had been taught. So, that God provides the basis of natural theology by his common grace shows how the two ideas can be linked.

This led to further thinking. One complaint against the view of evangelism which is advocated on these pages is - if we deny there is a common interpretation of the world, how can we talk to unbelievers with any hope of providing a reasonable basis for faith? Surely the natural man can develop a natural theology that demonstrates God exists (as witness the older form of philosophical "proofs" for the existence of God). It would seem it was just such a common interpretation (according to this view) that the Apostle Paul appealed to when he spoke on Mar's Hill (in Athens) Acts 17:16-34. But was it really?

It is our contention that Paul was using a common ground (they truly knew the real God of the Bible - even though they didn't acknowledge him as God). He spoke of the altar to an "unknown God" declaring it was him that he (Paul) would explain. He did not use natural theology to prove his existence (which the Athenians would certainly have appreciated) but declared to them the characteristics of the God of the Bible. By this procedure he avoided having to "prove" the hypothetical God was the actual God who exists. Paul rested his case on the common ground of God's revelation in nature. He then used the poets' statements to show that (even incomplete though they were) it was enough to condemn their idolatry which would be judged by Jesus Christ.

Paul used this procedure, I believe, because he knew the problem is not understanding who God is - nature declares his divine power and Godhood so clearly all are without excuse - it's sin. To become embroiled in myriad definitions and the possible debates about validity of argument was to waste time and likely to no purpose. All philosophical arguments like these can be tied up endlessly in counterarguments. Instead, Paul did exactly what we should be doing he used the common ground and developed his argument to show they were inconsistent in the sinful practice of idolatry (the thing that had exercised him since he had arrived in the city). He then warned them that such idolatry would lead to their condemnation because God had now given notice he would judge the world by Jesus Christ.

Natural theology? No. An awareness of common grace and the ability to use it (as shown in the truth behind the words of the Greek poets) to provide the reasoning the Holy Spirit uses to convict of sin. This is a extended example of a simple thing. It carries weight because - Paul really was well versed in the Greek culture, he knew his Scriptures absolutely thoroughly, he knew his Lord and he was absolutely sincere in his desire to save people from their sins. Ultimately, even for Paul, it was the Holy Spirit who made it fruitful.