hughbiquitous

With all the attention J.P. Moreland’s ETS paper is directing at issues of natural theology and the proper sort of commitment to the Bible, I’m looking for some boundaries on these questions.

Ten years ago, Michael Horton wrote on Calvin’s take on the limits of natural theology and concludes that unbelievers are not bereft of reason or truth; God’s common grace should not be discounted in these matters. But it is only when the Holy Spirit "notarizes" revealed truth in the heart of unbelievers that there is power to save:

Calvin also insists that [knowledge of God implanted in the conscience] is legal rather than evangelical in character. This is crucial especially for Reformed believers today, when this distinction seems to be fading. Everyone knows God, but as Creator, Law-Giver, and Judge. "There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity [sensus Divinitatis]." Calvin argues that there is a great deal of common ground in creation for agreement on general principles of morality, justice, beauty, and even truth. One does not require special revelation in order to create a reasonably just society, a beautiful work of art, or even a common sense of morality based on the law written on the conscience (2.2.15). Surely, Christians and non-Christians could agree on many issues related to the common good. And, we can infer (given his positive evaluation of many of the advances of philosophy in secular matters) that Calvin would approve of appealing to philosophical arguments in apologetics…

Calvin finds the inscripturated Word to be the only rock in a whirlpool of subjective opinion. "Hence the Scriptures obtain full authority among believers only when men regard them as having sprung from heaven, as if there the living words of God were heard" (1.7.1). The Word and the Spirit belong together, and thus Calvin moves to the role of the Spirit’s witness, "stronger than all proof." Credibility in doctrine depends on our full confidence in God’s Word. The prophets invoke God’s name for their writings with great care and purpose. Again, the central concern for Calvin is pastoral; he seeks to care for those whose consciences would vacillate and find no comfort. We must rise above human reasoning, judgments and conjectures and this can only be done when the Holy Spirit joins the Word as its "notary public." This is no capitulation to fideism in the face of poor arguments, an evasion of the critical questions…

We have some common ground with unbelievers. In nature, there is some revelation about God. But nature can only tell us that he is a Judge; it does not tell us of his fatherly kindness in the provision of Christ. Nature provides legal knowledge of God, but only Scripture reveals the Gospel, the evangelical knowledge of Christ.

Over a decade ago, Greg Koukl wrote the paper I wish J.P. Moreland had given last week.

Back in 1993, Greg wrote Is Biblical Counseling Biblical? Insight from Scripture and Classical Readings to the Current Anathematizing of Psychology. While its primary thrust is addressing some excesses of the Biblical Counseling movement (which may no longer be characteristic of what’s going on there; I confess ignorance), Greg makes a solid, biblical argument that defeats the narrow "Bible-only" view of sola scriptura that Dr. Moreland was addressing. He goes on to offer some absolutely brilliant things about the right use of natural theology in a solidly Reformed tradition.

While I encourage you to read the whole thing, I’ll highlight three key ingredients.

1. Reformers all the way back to Calvin recognized the value of man’s wisdom, depraved though it is. Quoting Calvin:

Therefore, in reading profane authors, the admirable light of truth displayed in them should remind us, that the human mind, however much fallen and perverted from its original integrity, is still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from its Creator… How then can we deny that truth must have beamed on those ancient lawgivers who arranged civil order and discipline with so much equity? Shall we say that the philosophers, in their exquisite researches and skillful description of nature, were blind?… Nay, we cannot read the ancients on these subjects without the highest admiration; an admiration which their excellence will not allow us to withhold… Therefore, since it is manifest that men whom the Scriptures term natural, are so acute and clear-sighted in the investigation of inferior things, their example should teach us how many gifts the Lord has left in possession of human nature, not withstanding of its having been despoiled of the true good.

2. Writing off all human virtue as sin is unbiblical. "Something is wrong with any assessment of human behavior that forces us to label all human virtue — love, kindness, mercy, patience, gentleness — as sin simply because none are expressed perfectly. This conclusion is not a biblical one," Koukl says.

3. The Formula of Concord, which dealt with certain errors among Lutherans following Luther’s death, addressed the nature of depravity with care and precision. Koukl puts it this way:

Concord makes a distinction that is lost on much of modern evangelicalism: man does not have a sinful nature, strictly speaking, but a nature that is corrupted by sin. This comports with Augustine’s view that evil is a privation of good and not a thing in itself. As such, the fall doesn’t create in man an ontologically new nature… but merely robs his human nature of its original righteousness.

These are weighty topics that need to be assessed carefully. Greg Koukl did a superlative job surveying the biblical data and the wisdom of the ages to make the very important point that sola scriptura does not entail an abandonment of truth found outside the Bible.