Nature and Grace Redivivus
Dr. R. Scott Clark from the Heidelblog commented on re: Rehabilitating Theonomy:
This is an interesting and significant discussion for which we’re all grateful.
At the end of your post you say, however, that grace both restores and “perfects” nature.
Did you mean to say the latter?
Didn’t the Reformation reject that notion? Why does nature, per se, need perfecting? Do you mean to embrace all that phrase entails?
It seems to me that the Reformed confessions were at pains to deny that very notion. Adam was created in “righteousness and true holiness.” What’s to perfect?
He anticipated a consummation upon completion of the probation, but this was a change in status relative to God not a perfection of nature, was it not?
R. Scott Clark
Thanks Scott. The short answer is that I agree with what you are saying. I use the language of Thomas but I equivicate on the meaning. I understand Thomas to be referring to being while I am suggesting eschatology status.
I do not think I am being inconsistant with the Reformed tradition in using the language this way. This question came up a couple of months ago when the inestimable DGH objected to the language. Click here for that discussion complete with references to Rutherford, Bavinck, and others.