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.

Why do Christians believe the Bible?

We start with a number of basic beliefs. We believe that it is possible to know things truly. That there is order and consequence in the universe. That it is possible to build a rational construct and that these things are so because that's the way God made them. That God not only exists but that he has entered into a relationship with his creation and with man in particular.

We are taught that truth is established in the mouth of two or three witnesses. So here are my two:
As we study the Bible we discover there are some things that are so obvious we call them common sense. The sun rises each morning and sets each evening (not the other way around and the time it is "up" depends on your location on the earth's surface). Then we discover there are conditional statements which can be checked such as Proverbs 22:15 - "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; the rod of correction will remove it far from him." The course of our society over the past 40 years indicates the truth of this one. And finally there are statements we need to take on trust - especially those dealing with our final destination. So, my first witness - Bible study and investigation of its claims - demonstrates the Bible is to be trusted.
Next a comparison between the Bible and the religious writings of other religions shows the restraint of the Bible. Unlike those writings, its claims can be tested by history and science. Luke's writings, his Gospel and the Book of the Acts of the Apostles abound in historical detail which can and have been checked. And, in every case where Luke's history can be checked it has been confirmed. Checking the details of the fall of Jerusalem against the prophecies of Jesus in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 demonstrate how accurate were the words of the Christ. And that's before we enter the study of archaeology and how it confirms the Old Testament. My second witness, the study of the external data referred to in the Bible, demonstrates the Bible is to be trusted.
Then, for the Christian, it is possible to know the author. This usually starts as one of those conditional statements which can be investigated. As we search out the truth of the Bible's statements we can sometimes be surprised by the author himself. When that happens we understand the Bible more clearly than we ever did before and, in fact, even wonder why we didn't see it was sin which stopped us from truly knowing God. Then we understand the Bible as a letter written to all men and to us in particular and we believe it. My third witness also attests to the trustworthiness of the Bible.

So, from without and within, the Bible demonstrates it is to be trusted. Why do Christians believe the Bible? Because life and study demonstrate it is to be trusted.

Reformed and Evangelistic

There are two blog sites I ran into today that I think deal with the issue of the doctrines of Reformed Theology and the apparent conflict with the Great Commission. Calvinicm is often claimed to be an atmosphere in which evangelistic fervor cannot live.

The first of these sites found here is for the ministry of one Voddie Baucham Jr, the pastor of Grace Family Baptist Church in Texas. A lot of what he says is just plain common sense - like this quotation which says (among other things) that we should not have to check everything a man says about everything before we are prepared to quote him. If what he says here, for example, is to the point and accurate - well and good - after all we might have to throw out a lot of good people if we sieve them through (say) racist sunglasses.

The second site here led to another, the former home page of the Cork Free Presbyterian Church and the original article. It seemed to me that, for those of my readers who are interested in following up on some of the issues we discuss here, Colin Maxwell's Evangelism issues could well provide some food for thought.

Enjoy the reading :)

Evangelism and the Law of God

A few days ago this article appeared on the Arminian Today blog site. It is an excellent explanation of the importance of using the Law of God in the process of evangelism. Much of today's "evangelism" follows the procedure laid out at the head of the article and the "pray a prayer" step never seems to include any time to allow the Holy Spirit to convict the person of sin.

Reading this article could go a long way to explaining why we have so many "Christians" who live as if they belonged to a club (like Rotary with less obligations). This is an encouraging sign that there are those who are not of the Reformed camp who see the necessity of preaching the Law if people are to be born again. What's that you say? There are Reformed congregations who use the steps outlined at the beginning of the article? Surely not!!

Maybe this article should "stir us to jealousy" to whom God has granted the "oracles of God, and the Law ..."

The Purpose of Man - Part III

The Shorter Catechism says, not only that we must glorify God, but that it is our purpose to enjoy him forever. This reminds us that Christianity is not just a matter of duty - we ought to obey God and keep his commandments - but it is also a relationship. It is this relationship which helps us understand why God is as interested in our attitudes as he is our actions. In fact, most often it is the attitude which has the key role in assessing what we do.

Take this passage in Proverbs. "A proud look and a haughty heart and the lamp of the wicked is sin." An alternate reading of the text has "the plowing of the wicked" for "the lamp ..." Now we can understand the proud look being sin and the haughty heart. But while we might find it more difficult to class the plowing of the wicked as sin, how can we do the same with the lamp of the wicked? A lamp is surely neutral. It does neither good nor evil. Surely the fact that it is owned by a wicked person is not enough to class it as evil?

In this we show we have forgotten the role of relationship. The importance of the saying rests not on the word "lamp" but on the phrase "lamp of the wicked." It is not the lamp but what the person uses it for. A good man uses his lamp to light the way so he can act for the benefit of his neighbors. A wicked man uses his lamp so he can act for the detriment of his neighbors. God reminds us that intent is all important by calling such a lamp sin.

So saying we turn to consider the purpose of man. If our intent is to glorify God; if we seek to honor him in all we do and think; if we become downhearted when our "best-laid plans gang oft aglee" (as Robert Burns put it) and we - once again - show we have not overcome sin in our lives; then we can take comfort in the promise that it will not always be so. Even as we struggle to overcome our sin, so also the, whole creation groans and trevails awaiting the revelation of the Sons of God, says the Apostle. So there will come a day when we put off our mortal body with the corruption of the flesh and put on a perfect body, having been made into the very likeness of Christ himself.

In the garden of Eden, Adam walked with God every day. His was the communion of a perfectly good creature, made in the image of God, with his Creator. On the final day we will have that restored and more because we will (along with everyone else who has put their trust in Christ) also know him as our Redeemer and our King. We will enjoy his fellowship as those who love him and are assured (in a way that Adam never knew) that he loves us. There is no greater joy on earth than that between two people who have loved and had that love strengthened by the things they have suffered together. How much more the love we share with Christ who, though he was perfect, suffered on our behalf, in order that he might present us spotless before his father.

We will be able to gaze on his face, hear his beloved voice speaking and, above all rejoice that the whole world gives him the same honor as the very angels in heaven. We will know that no more will we cause him pain as he sees us fail to achieve what we long to do in his honor but will rejoice with us that sin has finally been defeated in our lives. How wonderful just to say: The good that I would, that I do and know that there is no evil to even resist - that is almost too wonderful to contemplate!!

Pray that this hint of what will be makes us long to serve him and do so without any of the sin that still clings to us. May we know the joy of being able to do as we long to now. The Catechism only gives us a glimpse of the joy that awaits us when finally we stand in his presence and hear: "Come the blessed of my father ..." the invitation to be with him and enjoy his presence forever. No wonder John ends his vision with "Even so, Lord Jesus, come quickly."

The Purpose of Man: Part II

The second part of this blog about the catechism answer to the question: "What is the chief end (or purpose) of man?" is " ... to glorify God ..."

I was reading an article today about the need for heroes. The writer, Jon Foreman, said he had found a hero in John M. Perkins. He is, as we are told: "a man who devoted his life to those around him in simple and profound ways. He was quick to forgive, quick to utilize resources to help those in need. He has been a tireless civil rights worker who has endured beatings, harassments, and even prison for what he believes. With the help of his wife, Vera Mae, and a few others, he founded a health center, leadership development program, thrift store, low-income housing development and training center in his hometown of Mendenhall, Mississippi. His is a story of reconciliation, of forgiveness, of patience. He endured the suffering, holding on to a cause greater than himself."

It's great that Jon Foreman considers such a man a hero. So many others require more flashy evidence. Then came the quotation (emphasis added) that made me think about this subject: "His is a story that reminds me of a goodness beneath the system. Though Perkins was a devout Christian, he was quick to point out that this goodness is bigger than stale religion. Mr. Perkins once said that 'many congregations do nothing but outsource justice.'"

Suppose Mr Perkins' quotation is only partly accurate, then this is a telling indictment of the way many Christians view their beliefs. That someone can, with any legitimacy, label a congregation's Christianity as "stale religion" and see their work as "outsourcing justice" is a shame to us all. Has the Church really reached the point where our faith does not remind us of why we are here? Has her teaching really deteriorated to the point that some can imagine "outsourcing justice" is what it means to glorify God? And what about the idea that there can be a version of Christianity which is no longer fresh? All these questions may only be the result of one man's inability to find a local Church which is truly Christian but they do remind us that the task of evangelizing the nation is still a long way from complete.

Mr Perkins is an encouragement to believe the are some who take their role of glorifying God seriously and a reminder that we need to do much more than talk about serving God and our fellow man. We need to remember that our savior spent his whole life doing good as well as teaching. I remember talking about justification by faith to someone recently. They were hot to remind me that we are saved by faith alone and even quoted the Bible correctly to prove it. The problem I had with their presentation (and which led to a further discussion) was that there did not seem to be any need for us to "show our faith by our works," as James so beautifully puts it.

If, as the catechism puts it our main purpose in life is to glorify God, then we need to show it by more than just theological acumen. Perhaps a part of the problem is that so many of us are used to seeing Christianity in terms of its message and attacks on its theology. In such a context it can become easy to forget that Christianity is a life based on a particular relationship which has practical implications. There was a reason Jesus taught his disciples as they moved around Israel - he wanted them to learn to both do and teach as he did.

I read what Jon had to say about Mr Perkins and thought how important it would have been for young men (especially - but young women as well) to have learned to do what he was doing and to learn the Christian reasons why he acted as he did. Then I got to wondering why that same principle (based on what Jesus did) wouldn't work in today's Churches. I couldn't think of a single reason ... as long as it wasn't all taught by a minister/pastor.

There are a few advantages - young Christians would learn that there is no area of life which is not affected by the way we honor Christ; they would learn there are things each and every one of us can do to honor God in our lives, they would learn that doctrine and life are complementary parts of the same life, they would see that doctrine informs our actions, they would even learn that God loves us in spite of our failings. Hmmm Oh, and did I mention that Mr Perkins would eventually be considered "just another Christian" as I am sure he would want it to be.

The Purpose of Man - part I

"The chief end of man," says an old catechism, "is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever." Yet atheists and agnostics abound and every man seeks his own pleasure. So, as those who are called to "make disciples of all nations and to teach them to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded," we have a bit of a problem. Now what is really fascinating about the modern world (and the problem it presents us with) is that it used to be the Christians who were considered to be atheists. They had no representations of their God in their places of worship or in their homes. Now it is those we might have formerly called pagans and idolaters who are the real atheists.

That, being the case, perhaps we should define what we mean by the two terms above. An atheist, for our purposes, is someone who denies that there is any supernatural being who created the world, who has spoken to man in the Bible and to whom mankind is supposed to owe allegiance. If you checked the dictionary definition you will see that all I did was make the word God more specific. There's a reason for that which we'll come to below. There are at least two types of atheist, the practical atheist who is really an agnostic but lives as if he is an atheist and the theoretical atheist. One who has arrived at his conclusions by his reason and is prepared to defend his beliefs by logical debate is a theoretical atheist. The practical atheist is often likely to retreat to an agnostic position if pushed.

An Agnostic is one who either is not prepared to be committed to any belief in, is sure we can ever know for certain whether or believes it is impossible to know if the God of the Bible exists. That's using the phrase "God of the Bible" as shorthand for the same definition we used for him above. By the definition we can see there are about three types of agnostic. The first is indifferent to the whole debate often because he can see no use in belief or disbelief in God. The second believes that since God is supposed to be a spirit and we have no proven way of measuring or interacting with spirits we can never know for certain whether God exists, it remains a matter of conjecture. The last believes it is impossible to create any test the will prove the existence of any type of being we might call God it is a waste of time and effort to find out if God exists.

There do exist a number of ways to "prove" (read "demonstrate") the existence of God. So, when you read of scientists who have discovered wonderful things about the way the universe operates and attempt to persuade an atheist or agnostic their view is flawed, you are using one of these "classical proofs for God's existence," usually the cosmological argument. See the proofs outlined here and here. In all these proofs the best that can be expected is proof that a "God" exists. It is then necessary to show that such a God is, in reality, the God of the Bible. Even then it may not persuade the hearer.

One is reminded of the ancient philosophical paradoxes of Zeno where an aspect of reality is used to describe a situation and other aspects (which are also important) are ignored. The atheist or agnostic usually argues rationally from a set of premises which are incomplete. If you prefer a non-philosophical view it's a little like learning physics. I remember learning about the motion of an bullet in flight and being told to ignore gravity and air friction in my calculations. The problem is (as anyone knows) we can never ignore gravity while we are on the earth and the air does resist the passage of anything through it. So why ignore them? Surely all aspects of reality are important and we can only ignore them at our peril. We were told "because they are constant" - which is mostly true and was insignificant in the problems we were given. When it comes to the existence of God ignoring some aspects of reality can have eternal consequences.

So, how can we hope to make a reasonable (please note the word "reasonable") "defence of the faith" when dealing with atheists and agnostics? The Bible gives us some important details we need to remember about mankind. Romans chapter 1 tells us that the hidden things of God are clearly seen in creation, being understood by those that are made - even his eternal power and Godhood. God's purpose in this is so that they are without excuse because, recognizing God in creation they ought to worship and glorify him - but they don't. That means there will be flaws in the atheist and agnostic points of view which we can use to show they are inconsistent and must, therefore, be trying to hide from the reality of God which they know.

It's like catching a liar. It's much easier if you know the truth and test their statements by that truth. You can imagine this will require knowing your Bible really well and knowing your society and science well also. This is part of the reason why reformation and literacy go hand-in-hand. We become students of the Word (the Bible) and the word (language and how it relates to reality) when we become Christians just because we take the Great Commission seriously.

What has this to do with our opening statement? The chief end (or purpose) of man is to glorify God so it is our responsibility to call on all men everywhere to do so. If as Paul says they really know that is true then we have an ally in the conscience which is constantly excusing or accusing them. It is possible to use reasoning to help even the theoretical atheist see their flaws in logic but we should not expect to convince them of their errors. As sinners they will attempt to continue in denial unless God (our second ally) intervenes. And he does. He tells us he has chosen to use the foolishness of preaching (speaking up on God's behalf) to save those that believe. Paul presented a strong case for worshiping the true God before the crowd on Mars Hill in Athens. And the general response was he was a babbler, unimportant and possibly ignorant. Yet, even in Athens and as a result of that presentation there were some that believed.

We are responsible to glorify God in our speaking and leave the rest to him. The wonderful thing is that, if we do, we will see his working and this leads to joy as sinners come to know him and joy which will last until forever.