Sunday, June 1, 2008

Two Kingdoms: Natural Law


If you have been following the blog, you are aware that we are having a discussion on natural law. In this post I have two very meager, yet needed, aims. First, I want to set forth a good working definition of natural law and second, I want to look at a passage, from Scripture, that teaches natural law.

Natural law can be easily defined as a set of ethical rules or laws that are impressed in every person. Notice that this law is impressed "in" every person and not "on" every person. This distinction is important because it illustrates how people gain access to this law--it is in them. This definition will work for almost all forms of an ethical natural law theory. However, since God is the creator, this definition needs to be a bit more specific. It needs to include the origin or source of this ethical code. Thus, the definition we will be using for natural law is a set of ethical rules or laws that are impressed in every person by their Creator. So there is no ambiguity, by the term "their Creator" I mean the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. This is the only Creator that exists. However, natural law does not reveal specifics about God. Nature (creation) itself reveals that God exists, but this is not the same thing as natural law. Natural law has to do specifically with the ethical sphere of man, and it is not intended to prove or show that God exists. Though Paul goes to great lengths in Romans 1 to demonstrate that all people know God exists, he does not use natural law as his reasoning; rather he uses nature (the created world) to prove that all men know God exists.

With this working definition of natural law, it is important to set forth a biblical case for this view. It is one thing to define a view, it is quite another to demonstrate that a view is taught in the Scripture. The locus classicus for proving that man has a ethical law within him is Romans 2:14-15.
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.
In commenting on verse 15 Calvin argues for natural law.

Who show the work of the law written, etc.; that is, they prove that there is imprinted on their hearts a discrimination and judgment by which they distinguish between what is just and unjust, between what is honest and dishonest. He means not that it was so engraven on their will, that they sought and diligently pursued it, but that they were so mastered by the power of truth, that they could not disapprove of it. For why did they institute religious rites, except that they were convinced that God ought to be worshipped? Why were they ashamed of adultery and theft, except that they deemed them evils?

Without reason then is the power of the will deduced from this passage, as though Paul had said, that the keeping of the law is within our power; for he speaks not of the power to fulfill the law, but of the knowledge of it. Nor is the word heart to be taken for the seat of the affections, but only for the understanding, as it is found in Deuteronomy 29:4, “The Lord hath not given thee a heart to understand;” and in Luke 24:25,“O foolish men, and slow in heart to believe.”

Nor can we conclude from this passage, that there is in men a full knowledge of the law, but that there are only some seeds of what is right implanted in their nature, evidenced by such acts as these — All the Gentiles alike instituted religious rites, they made laws to punish adultery, and theft, and murder, they commended good faith in bargains and contracts. They have thus indeed proved, that God ought to be worshipped, that adultery, and theft, and murder are evils, that honesty is commendable. It is not to our purpose to inquire what sort of God they imagined him to be, or how many gods they devised; it is enough to know, that they thought that there is a God, and that honor and worship are due to him. It matters not whether they permitted the coveting of another man’s wife, or of his possessions, or of any thing which was his, — whether they connived at wrath and hatred; inasmuch as it was not right for them to covet what they knew to be evil when done.
Further, as to leave no ambiguity as to what natural law does and does not do, Calvin remarks about natural law in the Institutes 2.8.1.

Now that inward law, which we have above described as written, even engraved, upon the hearts of all, in a sense asserts the very same things that are to be learned from the two Tablets. For our conscience does not allow us to sleep a perpetual insensible sleep without being an inner witness and monitor of what we owe God, without holding before us the difference between good and evil and thus accusing us when we fail in our duty. But man is so shrouded in the darkness of errors that he hardly begins to grasp through this natural law what worship is acceptable to God. Surely he is very far removed from a true estimate of it. Besides this, he is so puffed up with haughtiness and ambition and is blinded by self-love, that he is as yet unable to look upon himself and, as it were, to descend within himself, that he may humble and abase himself and confess his own miserable condition. Accordingly (because it is necessary both for our dullness and for our arrogance), the Lord has provided us with a written law to give us a clearer witness of what was too obscure in the natural law, shake off our listlessness, and strike more vigorously our mind and memory.
Calvin is here, as well as in his commentary, expounding what Paul stated in Romans 2, namely, that man does indeed have a moral/ethical law written on his heart. He also argues that men know this law and are held accountable to it. However, Calvin does find a weakness in natural law. He thinks it cannot give us a clear picture or way to worship God. But as Gregory Johnson points out in his article Natural Law and Positive Law in Calvin's Thought, "while the Fall has left man unable to clearly discern the natural law in all of its fullness, the Fall has not left man blinded with respect to horizontal, earthly matters...Thus, Calvin distinguished between inability in 'heavenly things' and substantial ability in 'earthly things.'"

Further, it needs to be pointed out that this moral law that is in every person is given by creation. In other words, it is created in them; they are made that way. This is in contrast to the idea that they gain a sense of right and wrong strictly from the Bible. Paul makes this point when he says, "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires." This is not to say that we do not need the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible explains and expands on the law God gave us at our creation. It also informs us what duty we are to give God--how we are to worship him and glorify him.

Natural law, as defined as
a set of ethical rules or laws that are impressed in every person by their Creator, is taught in Romans 2 and attested as a teaching within Reformed Orthodoxy. This view of natural law should not be seen as sub-Reformed or pseudo-Roman Catholic. On the contrary, since the Reformers held to Sola Scriptura they taught, along with Paul, that every human has a sense of right and wrong written on their heart and they can be held accountable to following this law because they know it.

39 comments:

  1. I have to go to work now, but will play later. A few questions, is your view of natural law here from Hugo Grotius (natural law is true even if God is not) or medieval (natural law participates in the divine law--Aquinas)? If the latter, does that negate any supposed neutrality on the natural law theorist's part?

    I will explain more of that later. Oh, and I am not a strict theonomist so that is not the perspective from which I come.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Paul goes to great lengths in Romans 1 to demonstrate that all people know God exists, he does not use natural law as his reasoning; rather he uses nature (the created world) to prove that all men know God exists.

    That depends on your interpretation of the text. Romans 1:20 says:

    For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

    The phrase "in the things that have been made" is the translation of one Greek word - poiema. It is used only one other time in the New Testament, also by Paul, in Ephesians 2:10, where he uses it specifically to refer to man. Thus Romans 1:20 can be understood to say: "...have been clearly perceived... by man.

    KJV translates it:
    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

    Furthermore, Paul goes on to describe detailed violations of ethical law, clearly referring to "horizontal" relations in Romans 1.

    From what I have read, Calvin and Luther were not consistent and systematic in their understanding of natural law, and much has been written about it from all sides.

    This line from Calvin seems to contradict your division between knowledge of God and natural law:

    For why did they institute religious rites, except that they were convinced that God ought to be worshipped?... it is enough to know, that they thought that there is a God, and that honor and worship are due to him.

    Here Calvin is saying that Romans 2 refers to the revelation that God exists, which you said it does not.

    This is in contrast to the idea that they gain a sense of right and wrong strictly from the Bible.

    If you are referring to me, I never said that. I simply said, like Calvin, that "the Lord has provided us with a written law to give us a clearer witness of what was too obscure in the natural law." Thus we should not ignore it, but use it for its intended purpose (clarifying innate general revelation).

    The only reason you separate knowledge of God and natural law is because the Bible clearly teaches that the general revelation that gives us knowledge of God is suppressed by fallen man. However, your separation between between the two is lacking. Romans 1 and 2 do not make the distinction that you need them to make. Simply quoting one commentator on Calvin doesn't settle the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry, I didn't clarify as much as I should have. I believe Romans 1 refers to the same innate revelation as Romans 2. I believe they are both innate propositional revelations.

    ReplyDelete
  4. “This is in contrast to the idea that they gain a sense of right and wrong strictly from the Bible.

    If you are referring to me, I never said that. I simply said, like Calvin, that ‘the Lord has provided us with a written law to give us a clearer witness of what was too obscure in the natural law.’ Thus we should not ignore it, but use it for its intended purpose (clarifying innate general revelation).”

    How do you clarify, “Don’t lie”? It has always struck me that the moral law is painfully clear as-is. The Israelites shook in their sandals not because they were being told something they didn’t already know by nature, but because of Who was saying it and why. Does anyone really think that loving one’s neighbor more than oneself wasn’t understood until either Moses or Jesus descended? Liberalism is a foot in such views.
    Calvin distinguishes between the earthly and heavenly uses of the law.

    It seems to me there are two ways to have a low view of the law. One is a high opinion and the other low. The low opinion/low view says we get our sense of right and wrong strictly from the Bible. The high opinion/low view says we have it written on our hearts but need to get it clarified from the Bible. This has a parallel in the ways in which some view the natures of and relationships between the Bible and the confessions. Some solo scriptura-ists are “strict Biblicists” and some are not-so-strict. Then there are sola scriptura-ists, who maintain an infallible view of the Bible and a high view of the confessions. This high view is often mistaken for an infallible one on the part of whatever degree of solo-scriptura-ist (from “paper popes” to “nice, helpful but not good enough to be binding”).

    Zrim

    ReplyDelete
  5. Should the magistrate enforce the so-called "natural law?"

    ReplyDelete
  6. Zrim,

    Loving one's neighbor as oneself is understood differently by liberals and by Bible believing Christians, as Machen makes clear in "Christianity and Liberalism". "Loving one's neighbor" requires explanation and clarification, which the 10 commandments provide.

    I assume you are claiming to be within Reformed theology in the statements you make. If so, can you please provide a reference to a Reformed theologian who does not believe the moral law was written in stone to clarify it?

    I assume you believe then that the only reason God wrote the moral law in stone was to display His glory by causing the Israelites to "shake in their sandals"?

    I have no idea what you're talking about in your last paragraph or why its relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  7. “I assume you are claiming to be within Reformed theology in the statements you make. If so, can you please provide a reference to a Reformed theologian who does not believe the moral law was written in stone to clarify it?... I assume you believe then that the only reason God wrote the moral law in stone was to display His glory by causing the Israelites to ‘shake in their sandals’?”

    The moral law at Sinai was a re-publishing of the CoW in the garden: do this and live, don’t and die. That’s pretty standard Reformed orthodoxy. I guess insofar as it was a re-publishing one could say it was to clarify the need of reconciliation of sinners to God…but it sounds like you mean what my oldest means when she pulls her sister’s hair and gets chided for it: “What? Was that wrong? I guess I need it clarified.” Uh-huh, right.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steve,

    None of my comments in the original post were intended at anyone in particular, especially not you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Brandon,

    (read the following in a playful/funny way)

    I will answer all of your questions about this post, when you answer my questions from the post on transformationalism.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Crap. I was a little confused because I did reply to you. I just went back and looked and my comment directed towards you is not there. It either got deleted, or it slipped through the cracks. I'll try to re-type it and post it again. Sorry about that.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Your definition of natural law is pretty broad. You basically just say that it's an ethical law that God imprints on every person's heart. But that tells us almost nothing. There's no way anyone could ever possibly use it as a framework. Is there any way you can be more specific about exactly what the natural law is, other than something that God imprints on your heart?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I kind of agree with the heretical one. While your view of natural law meets the ethical criteria of universality (applies to all, etc), it fails the criteria of specificity. On one hand this is inevitable. No such code can do that. But saying it is written on the heart doesn't tell us much.

    There is a way out of this dilemma. Reformed thought identifies natural law with the decalogue. But here we have a problem. If the civil magistrate is to apply the natural law (which is the point of it, even *Modern Reformation* would agree with that), and given the natural law = decalogue, wouldn't you be applying the Ten Commandments onto society?

    So in the long run, isn't natural law rhetoric simply a front for theocracy?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Heretic and Jacob,

    My goal for the post was set out quite clearly. I wanted to give a working definition of natural law and show that it is biblical (and Reformed). I did not (on purpose) deal with the content of natural law. To give the content would be a much harder and deeper task. Further, it is a waste of time to talk about the "stuff" of natural law if you cannot agree on what natural law is and that it exists. For this post, let us stay on this topic and if he come to some sort of agreement, then a post on the content of natural law will be in order. One step at a time.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I understand the necessity of doing prolegomena.  If you can prove natural law, that's just cheeky.  However, as any good ethicist knows, you can't ignore the nature of content.  I guess for the most part I can agree with your definition(s).  I have always been unclear on why the "natural law = decalogue" is preferable to the medievals "natural law = application of the eternal divine law."  Oh well.  Calvin quotes are okay, but he used natural law to defend a quasi-theocracy so if his system is adopted, there will be tensions later on, especially if natural law is used as an apologetics. 

    ReplyDelete
  15. Josh,

    Blogging is hard.

    I was responding to something Brandon had said, not to anything in your original post.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Brandon,

    In the first post you made, I do not really understand what you are getting at. In my post I was merely pointing out that natural law does not produce the belief of God in any deep sense. However, I firmly hold that all men know that God exists because of the created world (Romans 1).

    ReplyDelete
  17. As I understand it, the purpose of your post was to show that:

    A) General revelation exists in two forms/mediums

    B) Knowledge of God, His existence, etc are communicated to man via nature (trees, the sky, mountains, etc)

    C) Knowledge of God's commands (His laws) are communicated directly via innate revelation

    D) Revelation via nature is suppressed by sinful man.

    E) Innate revelation is not suppressed by sinful man.

    F) Romans 1 only refers to revelation via nature, and does not refer to natural law

    G) Romans 2 only refers to innate revelation, not via nature

    H) Knowledge of God is suppressed

    I) Ethical knowledge of God's law is not suppressed


    I disagree with A, and thus the rest. I believe the innate revelation that reveals God's law also reveals knowledge of God. I believe Romans 1 refers to the same revelation as Romans 2. Therefore knowledge of God's law is suppressed as is knowledge of God Himself.

    Let me know if I misunderstood you on any point.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Brandon,

    Although I did not use the term "revelation" to refer to natural law (I am not sure if it is the best term for natural law), I would agree with you on lines A-D. However, I disagree with you on line E. I have no problem saying that men suppress natural law. However, this does not in any way mean they do not know the content of natural law. In order for men to suppress the truth of natural law, they must first know the truth of natural law. In the same way God will hold all mean accountable for knowing he exists (via general revelation, Romans 1), he will hold men accountable to his moral law based on natural law. The point I want to stress is that men know what is right and wrong based on natural law and can rightly be held accountable, by God and other men, to its standards.

    In your conclusion you state that you do not agree that God's revelation comes in two forms. Could you please explain then why in Romans 2 the knowledge of the law is said to be written on mens hearts and the context of Romans 2 is ethical. Either of these aspects are brought up in Romans 1. Further, I have no problem saying that General revelation is "one" revelation that is communicated in two different ways, creation and natural law. However, I still want to hold fast to the fact that men know the moral law by nature (it is created in them) and they are accountable to live by its standard.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think both "vertical" and "horizontal" revelation is written on the hearts of men. I do not think we learn about God from looking at trees.

    I certainly agree that men can be held accountable to the moral law because it is revealed to them, like I said, that's the whole point. It condemns.

    Where I disagree is when you then say it is a valid basis for determining a list of governing principles.

    Can man rightly know how to worship God apart from special revelation? If not, why not? (And to clarify, I mean, could a Native American 700 years ago, who never heard special revelation, fully understand who God is and how we are to respond to Him?)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Brandon,

    I understand that you do not think that "we learn about God from looking at trees." However, Paul does think this. "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the
    things that have been made. So they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).

    Paul tells us that God's eternal power and divine nature are "clearly perceived" by "the things that have been made." This includes, but is not limited to, trees. I am not sure how Paul could make the point I am making any clearer.

    As to you second question, we cannot worship God rightly without the Bible. In other words, the Bible is of the utmost importance in telling us how to worship God. With that said, I fail to see the relevance of this to your discussion of natural law. Help me see the connection please. All I want to say is that natural law is sufficient to give men a right and true sense of right and wrong, in the secular sphere.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Discussions of "secular" are misleading and historically new. For most of human history, whether pagan or biblical, there was no such thing as the secular.

    When you get to the Patristics and Medievals, they did use the "secular," but they used it in a temporal sphere (the time between advents). Only when we get to the Christ-hating Enlightenment do we start to use it in a "spatial" sphere (e.g., the area of life that doesn't belong to King Jesus).

    I am all for using "secular," provided we use it in its historic and Christian use. I might do a blog post to show how ancient cultures' cities were inherently religious.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Josh,

    Please re-read my first post in regards to Romans 1.

    we cannot worship God rightly without the Bible.

    Why not? (I will show the relevance)

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jacob,

    I would be interested to read your post. I think Robbins' book "Christ and Civilization" does a great job of showing this.

    A condensed version of it can be read here:
    Christ and Civilization

    ReplyDelete
  24. Brandon,

    I re-read your comment. There are a few problems with your use of the Greek. First, in Romans 1:20 the Greek word is plural and in Ephesians 2:10 it is singular. This is why most English translations translate this word "things made" in Romans 1. This word is a noun derived from a verb poieo, which means “to do” or “to make.” Further, in Romans the word is in the dative and the word in Ephesians is in the nominative, thus both words are functioning differently in the sentence.

    Second, the word poiema means "what is made." People are made thus this word can and is used to refer to men. But it is not limited to men. This word is used around 30 times in the Septuagint. In almost ever instance it is used to translate the Hebrew word maaseh, which never means “men” but means “deeds” or “work done.”

    Third, we have such a small sample of Paul's use of poiema that it is difficult to use one verse to over ride the other (which is what you are doing). If Paul used this word 10 times and 9 of them meant men, it is a good chance the tenth one means men. Further, why not say that Ephesians 2:10 means the creation because of Romans 1:20? The answer, the context. In the context of Romans 1 Paul is speaking broadly about the creation. In our text Paul says that they have know this, "from the creation of the world." Also in verse 19 Paul says that God has "shown it to them." For you understanding to be right, Paul would need to say God showed it in them.

    Forth, I could not find one commentary that agreed with you on this point. This is not conclusive, but it is unsafe to be out on a small branch by yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Josh,

    Thanks for the comments on the Greek, it is helpful. And I agree, I don't think that the language requires the interpretation I offered, but I do think it is a valid interpretation.

    In the context of Romans 1 Paul is speaking broadly about the creation.

    Is there anything other than poiema in v20 that leads you to this conclusion? I see him talking specifically about the hearts of men (v17, 18, 21, 24, etc), not creation broadly. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean.

    In our text Paul says that they have know this, "from the creation of the world."

    I believe this is referring to time. My ESV and NASB both translate it "since the creation of the world"

    Also in verse 19 Paul says that God has "shown it to them." For you understanding to be right, Paul would need to say God showed it in them.

    I don't think so. We are talking about abstract things. I don't think showing it to them verses showing it in them makes a difference. Further, v19 also says that which is known about God "is manifest IN them" KJV, "is evident WITHIN them" NASB.

    NASB in full says "because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them." This certainly doesn't say anything against the interpretation I have offered.

    You will have to clarify for me since I have not studied Greek, but how would the Greek look different for "shown it TO them" and "shown it IN them"? From what I can tell, what we are talking about is the Greek word "autos"?

    1 - I don't see any of your comments regarding the Greek showing that my interpretation is wrong, only that it *could* mean something different than in Ephesians 2.

    2 - again, I'm not saying that it has to refer to men, only that it can

    3 - I don't think the text has to refer to nature (trees, etc)

    4 - I appreciate the warning

    So in conclusion, I don't see any reason to believe my interpretation is not valid. I am not saying its the only valid interpretation at this point. IMO we would need to compare with other Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Brandon,

    You asked, "Is there anything other than poiema in v20 that leads you to this conclusion?"

    I answered this in the post, "from the creation of the world." You are right that Paul has in mind time here, but the time of what? Before the creation. This is cosmic. This is all of creation. In the Greek poiesin is right after the Greek work kosmon ("world" in the English). Paul is linking this two words. He is saying that the things made (Greek poiesin) is the world (Greek kosmos).

    You are right about what Greek word is used in verse 19. In this particular verse the word is in the dative. The main use of the dative is the indirect object of the verb. In this case the verb is "shown" or "revealed." Thus God revealed it to (indirect object) them. The main why for by to say "in" them would be to use the Greek preposition en, which means "in." No English translation translates this verse "in them."

    You missed the first point I made (or at least you did not comment on it). It is by far the strongest point I have. In Romans 1 the word in question is plural. If Paul wanted to refer to mankind he would use a singular, as he did in Ephesians 2:10.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I would be interested to look at the Septuagint uses in regards to plural/singular. I don't see a problem with it being plural. Like you said, the limited instances of its use limit the conclusions that can be drawn. Just because Paul uses it elsewhere in the singular to refer to men I don't think would necessitate that its plural cannot also refer to men. In Ephesians 2, Paul is referring to us in Christ, as His body, as one thing, thus it would make sense to refer to it in the singular. But my Greek ignorance really inhibits me from making any arguments here.

    --

    Would you say that Romans 1:32 refers to ethics/"natural law" or to specifics about God?

    Do you think that the knowledge Paul refers to in 1:32 is the same or different than the knowledge he refers to in verse 18?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Brandon,
    I wouldn't waste key moves in the debate trying to refute "natural law." One can still posit a version of natural law (and there are many) without adopting a secular paradigm.

    John Milbank has powerfully refuted modern understandings of "secular" while still holding to a view of natural law.

    ReplyDelete
  29. (and there are many)
    That's the problem as I see it.

    I'm looking forward to the next step when we actually talk about working out natural law. But I am enjoying this discussion of Romans 1 because I've been looking for criticism of the view I set forth.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Brandon,

    I only have a moment to respond. I will do a full answer in the morning. In the mean time, I would like to know if this view of Romans 1 is your own or did you get it from Clark? At the end of the day if it is right, it is right, but I am simply curios because I have done a lot of digging and I do not see your understanding anywhere and that makes me wonder where it came from. Thanks. And for the record, I am really enjoying our conversation and I value your thoughts and insights.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'm not much of an original thinker. I got it from a passing reference Robbins made to poiema in a lecture, but I haven't seen it fully expounded anywhere.

    I did read a few things tonight that might slightly alter my view, but I will wait for your thoughts first.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Brandon,

    I am a huge fan of being "in line" with the giants of the faith. For me, it is a big deal that no commentators hold the view that you are setting forth. You can disagree and that is fine. But as Reformed Christians we put a high value on tradition, not ultimate value mind you, but high value. This point needs to be kept in mind. It seems that Robins is letting a theological bias color his understanding of this text. If a few commentators took the passage your way and a few my way, it would be a world of difference, but there is not a one that I can find that takes it your way.

    Now to the exegesis of the text. The first remark I want to make is that exegesis is done on building a case for a curtain reading or understanding of the text. The interpretation I gave for the text needs to be understood in its totality. That is, all the reasons I gave need to stand together in a cumulative case. Thus, you may be able to dodge one rock as it comes at you, but you cannot dodge the whole avalanche (metaphor).

    Second, it is one thing to give reasons why my understanding may not be the case (this is what you have done), but it is quite another to give positive reasons from the context for your case. In other words, to show my reasons are false is not to make your case. Further, the only positive reasons you have give, as far as I can tell, is the cross reference to Ephesians 2:10. I am be wrong, my memory is not the best, but I have not seen any reasons from the context of Romans 1 why your understanding is the preferred reading for this text.

    Third, you have yet to deal with the fact that poiesin is in apposition (next to) kosmos. This seems to be good reason to take poiesin (the things created) to be referring to kosmos (the world) and not mankind.

    Fourth, I want to answer your questions. Without an in-depth study of verse 32, I think it is referring to an ethical standard. But I am unclear who the "they" are. Is it Jews or Gentiles or all mankind? Also, I think in verse 18 Paul is making a comment about the suppression of the knowledge of God. That is, Paul is saying the natural man will not believe in God left in his natural state. Rather, he will suppress the truth he knows about God existence.

    I hope this helps.

    ReplyDelete
  33. My main contention is the separation of "horizontal" and "vertical" general revelation. I see them as one. I'm not positive that argument rests on the translation of poiema, though it makes sense to me.

    My understanding that Romans 1 refers to innate revelation comes from the context. Verses 16-17 are talking about the hearts of men. Verse 18 continues this line of thought (For). As the different translations show, verse 19 clearly fits with my understanding. The rest of Romans 1 continues talking about the hearts of men. Verse 32 continues this whole line of thought and it is clearly referring to whoever Paul is talking about in v18-31. I have always understood Romans 1 to be referring to all of mankind. Verse 16, which begins Paul's line of thought, mentions Jews and Greeks.

    Paul continues with the same line of thought in chapter 2 (Therefore). He then talks about condemnation for this suppression and rebellion. He continues the same line of thought in v12 (For), and in this context we reach v15. I don't see any reason to break up Paul's thought and say he is now talking about something completely different in v15. It's somewhat the converse of what he argued in Romans 1. There he said they know what is right, but they rebel against it. Here he says the flip side, that they know what is right, and that is evident, because occasionally they do it.

    Just so I'm clear, do you think that verse 32 and verse 18 are referring to different revelations (or however you want to describe it)? One vertical and the other horizontal? If so, where do you get that understanding from the context of v18-32? (And verse 18 is referring to more than just the bare existence of God. It is referring to His wrath, which is more specific)

    With regards to poiesin being next to kosmos, I can't really say anything because I haven't studied Greek and I don't know if it makes a difference if words are next to each other.

    The following is from Charles Hodge's commentary on Romans:

    In them however here more properly means, in their minds. "In ipsorum animis," says Beza... It is not of a mere external revelation of which the apostle is speaking, but of that evidence of the being and perfections of God which every man has in the constitution of his own nature, and in the virtue of which he is competent to apprehend the manifestations of God in his works...

    For God hath revealed it to them viz. the knowledge of himself. This knowledge is a revelation; it is the manifestation of God in his works, and in the constitution of our nature.


    Hodge on Romans (Google Books)

    He argues that this revelation is innate and that God's work in creation is clearly understood as His work because of this prior innate knowledge. Thus the evidence of creation condemns because they know who made it.

    There are also interesting comments on pages 76-80 in Pillar New Testament Commentary: Romans (Google Books

    ReplyDelete
  34. Brandon,

    I agree completely with this, "Romans 1 refers to innate revelation," if by "innate" you mean from birth, and not if you mean on the inside.

    How do you get that verses 16 and 17 are "about the hearts of men." Romans 1:16-17, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, 'The righteous shall live by faith.'" The "in it" of verse 17 is referring to the Gospel and not the hearts of men.

    It is not at all "clear" that verse 19 fits into your understanding. In fact the end of verse 19 ("God has shown it to them") militates against your understanding. It seems to be declaring that God showed it to them, as in it was outside of them and God set it before their eyes.

    I see no clear reference to the hearts of men as a source of revelation in chapter 1. Please show me this in the text.

    I do not like this veridical/horizontal distinction you are bringing to the text. I would say that chapter 1 is primarily dealing with the knowledge of God's existence (eternal power and deity) and chapter 2 is primarily dealing with knowledge of God's moral law (written on the hearts of men).

    ReplyDelete
  35. By innate I mean the same thing that Hodge means:
    in the constitution of his own nature

    I use it in the sense of the 3rd definition offered from Meriam Webster:
    originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather than from experience

    I don't know why you are obssessing over the word "in". I think it is distracting you. I think that v16-17 are talking about the hearts of men because faith is an act or condition of the heart. I am not saying that Paul says "Hey, I'm going to start talking about innate revelation in men's hearts next" I am simply saying that it is in line with the flow of his thought regarding what man knows/believes in his heart/mind/soul.

    It seems to be declaring that God showed it to them, as in it was outside of them and God set it before their eyes.

    Just so I am clear, are you saying that what Paul is talking about here is something that men physically see with their eyeballs, and that seeing it, they know who God is, then suppress that knowledge and are thus condemned?

    I see no clear reference to the hearts of men as a source of revelation in chapter 1. Please show me this in the text.

    As we all know, Paul did not divide his letters into chapter and verse. I think 2:15 further clarifies what Paul has been talking about since 1:18 (and mentioned specifically in 1:32).

    I do not like this veridical/horizontal distinction you are bringing to the text.

    Neither do I, but you're the one that put it on the table when you quoted Gregory Johnson in your original post. And it is the basis of your definition of natural law. I am using it here, not by approval, but to try and understand how you divide the text.

    So once again, because you were not specific in your last reply, are you saying that Romans 1:32 is referring to knowledge of God's invisible attributes and that it is not referring to "ethical rules or laws"?

    ReplyDelete
  36. So Josh, are you going to get to the content part of the analysis later, or are you just gonna stop at a broad definition that pretty much everyone in this room is gonna agree with you on? Maybe you could start a new topic for the content portion of the analysis. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the LAW part of the natural law, and not just the NATURAL part of the natural law.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Brandon,

    Remind me where we were?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Josh,

    We were talking about what innate means and if the revelation of Romans 1 is innate or not.

    We were also talking about the vertical/horizontal division of revelation that you introduced.

    And then I asked you, "are you saying that what Paul is talking about here is something that men physically see with their eyeballs, and that seeing it, they know who God is, then suppress that knowledge and are thus condemned?"

    ReplyDelete

Before posting please read our Comment Policy here.

Think hard about this: the world is watching!