General Revelation, Empiricism and The Ugley Vicar on Sexual Reproduction

John Richardson

If skepticism means that man can have no knowledge, then an appeal to revelation, with its subordination of ethics to theology, is not skepticism. But everything else is.  -- Gordon H. Clark

Over at The Ugley Vicar blog, John Richardson tries to convince the unregenerate that nature proves them wrong.  Good luck, brother!

Why is it that Christians think that general revelation, nature, and empiricism will defeat the liberals at their own irrational game?  Rationalism has not nor ever will convince the unregenerate man of the truth. (Romans 1:18-32).  In fact, rationalism inevitably leads straight to irrationalism, Kantian philosophy, and dialectical theology.   It really boils down to the fact that inductive arguments can never substantiate or prove universal axioms like, "Thou shalt not commit adultery."  (Exodus 20:14 KJV). 

Just as we cannot prove the Trinity from nature, so it is impossible to prove that transgenderism, homosexuality, or monogamous marriage is sinful from nature, empirical science, or any other source based in rationalism, reason, or empiricism.  As Gordon H. Clark pointed out, you cannot inductively prove universals or axioms.  Unless we begin with Scripture as the first axiom, the result is always skepticism, unbelief, and irrationalism.  All truth is propositional in form and without propositions knowledge is impossible.  That's why Scripture alone is the beginning axiom for all knowledge, including knowledge about gender, sexuality, and morality. 

If reason could change the minds of the liberals surely it would have worked by now?  On the other hand, maybe we ought to try Scripture?  (2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Timothy 2:15; 2 Peter 1:19-21).

In regards to natural theology, Gordon H. Clark criticizes the Thomist view:

Natural Theology

That true religion is preceded by or in some way founded on the activity of natural reason is an idea that has been and continues to be widely prevalent. The proper procedure is pictured as beginning with a proof of the existence of God. When the unbeliever is convinced by an argument drawn from nature, then he may next be shown the antecedent probability of a special revelation, and finally the reasonableness of the Scriptures.

Gordon H. Clark. Religion, Reason and Revelation (Kindle Locations 806-810). The Trinity Foundation.

But does this procedure work?  That's a good question.   According to Dr. Clark, the answer is an emphatic no:

. . . No ethical standard formulated through empirical observation, no, not even a previous command of God himself, suffices for the repudiation of God’s next command.

This, however, does not mean that we are left with moral skepticism, as Dr. Carnell claims. We are left with the definite commands of God. We have his complete preceptive will in the Scriptures. Of course, if skepticism means that man without a supernatural revelation cannot establish the norms of morality, so be it. The analyses of the earlier sections are supposed to have clinched that conclusion. Neither Utilitarianism, nor Kant, nor Dewey can anticipate God’s standards of rectitude. But the failure of non-revelational ethics does not leave man without a knowledge of right and wrong. If skepticism means that man can have no knowledge, then an appeal to revelation, with its subordination of ethics to theology, is not skepticism. But everything else is.

Gordon H. Clark. Religion, Reason and Revelation (Kindle Locations 4316-4324). The Trinity Foundation.

There really is only one way to prove that transgenderism, homosexuality, and other sexual perversions are morally wrong.  The dialectical theologians, Van Tilians, neo-orthodox, and evidentialists do not like this answer.   But the answer is the same nevertheless.  Homosexuality is morally wrong because God says so in the plenary-verbally inspired words of Holy Scripture.  The moral law makes propositional truth statements that flatly contradict homosexuality.  And other issues like the transgender propositions of the liberals can be logically refuted by the Scripture easily.  Scripture is given in propositions than can be systematically organized into theological outlines of theology.

 `You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22 NKJ)
 `If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13 NKJ)
 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27  Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. (Romans 1:26-27 NKJ)
 And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." (Genesis 19:5 NKJ)
  Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NKJ)

While natural revelation leaves men without excuse, only special revelation can give the knowledge that God commands men and women not to commit acts of sexual immorality.  (Romans 1:18-21; Romans 3:20; 7:7; 8:7).

To read Richardson's article click here:  The Ugley Vicar:  Further Thoughts on Sexuality and Gender