Dr. R. Scott Clark Endorses "Natural Law": Natural Law, the Two Kingdoms, and Homosexual Marriage | The Heidelblog

Has the moral law of God been revealed in creation?  That is the assertion of Dr. R. Scott Clark:

The moral law of God has been revealed in creation and re-stated, in the context of the national covenant with Israel.  Natural Law, the Two Kingdoms, and Homosexual Marriage | The Heidelblog

But where, pray tell, is this in Scripture or the Reformed confessions?   There is no such thing as natural revelation of God's moral law.  The moral law is a matter of special revelation given to Adam in spoken words, which words we only know about from the special revelation of God's written Scriptures.  The divine image and likeness has been rendered totally corrupt such that even if man originally had the moral law written in his heart, it would not render him capable of understanding it or obeying it.  Paul's argument in Romans 1-3 is that no one keeps the moral law.  The idea that the civic realm can reasonably understand that gay marriage is against God's moral law as revealed in nature and "creation" is unjustified.  It is Scripture alone that reveals homosexuality to be a violation of nature, original creation, and God's moral law.  And even here the reprobate mind is unable to believe it (Romans 8:7).

Saying that natural law is sufficient to convince men in the civil realm that homosexuality is sinful is preposterous at best (Romans 1:18-21).  Special revelation alone is sufficient to reveal God's moral law to mankind (Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7).

92. What did God at first reveal unto man as the rule of his obedience?

Answer: The rule of obedience revealed to Adam in the estate of innocence, and to all mankind in him, besides a special command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the moral law.¹

See also: WCF 19.1 | WSC 40

---

¹ Gen. 1:26,27; Rom. 2:14,15; Rom. 10:5; Gen. 2:17

93. What is the moral law?

Answer: The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body,¹ and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man:² promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it.³

---

¹ Deut. 5:1-3,31,33; Luke 10:26,27; Gal. 3:10; 1 Thess 5:23

² Luke 1:75; Acts 24:16

³ Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:10,12

Addendum:

Here is the crux of the issue. By insisting that God's knowledge is qualitatively different from that of man and that “his knowledge and our knowledge” do not “coincide at any single point,” the Complaint is advancing a theory of a two-fold truth; while Dr. Clark holds that the nature of truth is one, that if man knows any item of truth, both God and man know that same identical item, and that on this item God's knowledge and man's knowledge coincide. According to the Complaint man can never know even one item of truth God knows; man can know only an “analogical” truth, and this analogical truth is not the same truth that God knows, for the truth that God knows is “qualitatively” different, and God cannot reveal it to man because man is a creature. To repeat: the truth that God knows and the truth that man knows are never the same truth, for they do not “coincide at any single point.” God's knowledge therefore would be incomprehensible to man for the specific reason that God could not reveal any particular fact about it without destroying the “Creator-creature relationship.”  (The Answer:  On God's Incomprehensibility).

Cf.  Lee Irons on Natural Law 2K

Calvin's Commentary on Romans 1:20

So that they are inexcusable. It hence clearly appears what the consequence is of having this evidence — that men cannot allege anything before God’s tribunal for the purpose of showing that they are not justly condemned. Yet let this difference be remembered, that the manifestation of God, by which he makes his glory known in his creation, is, with regard to the light itself, sufficiently clear; but that on account of our blindness, it is not found to be sufficient. We are not however so blind, that we can plead our ignorance as an excuse for our perverseness. We conceive that there is a Deity; and then we conclude, that whoever he may be, he ought to be worshipped: but our reason here fails, because it cannot ascertain who or what sort of being God is. Hence the Apostle in Hebrews 11:3, ascribes to faith the light by which man can gain real knowledge from the work of creation, and not without reason; for we are prevented by our blindness, so that we reach not to the end in view; we yet see so far, that we cannot pretend any excuse. Both these things are strikingly set forth by Paul in Acts 14:16-17, when he says, that the Lord in past times left the nations in their ignorance, and yet that he left them not without witness (amarturon,) since he gave them rain and fertility from heaven. But this knowledge of God, which avails only to take away excuse, differs greatly from that which brings salvation, which Christ mentions in John 17:3, and in which we are to glory, as Jeremiah teaches us, Jeremiah 9:24

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.v.vi.html

As you can see, Calvin would not have seen Matthew 5:43-48 as "common grace" to any degree whatsoever. Instead, Calvin does not see this goodness of God toward the reprobate as an act of love, because it brings even greater condemnation and leaves them without excuse. The blessings of God demonstrate to the wicked that He is good, while they are wicked and unthankful. It has absolutely nothing to do with "common grace."