The Westminster Larger Catechism

Q2. How doth it appear that there is a God?
A. The very light of nature in man, and the works of God, declare plainly that
there is a God;[1] but His Word and Spirit only do sufficiently and effectually
reveal Him unto men for their salvation.[2]

Proofs
[1] Romans 1:19–20; Psalm 19:1–3; Acts 17:28;  [2] 1 Corinthians 2:9–10;
2 Timothy 3:15–17; Isaiah 59:21.

Comments

There is a modern debate between Reformed theologians on how apologetics (the science and art of defending the Christian faith) must be conducted. One camp, known as the Presuppositionalists, traces essentially to the Westminster Theological Seminary theologian, Cornelius Van Til; the other camp, which maintains that theirs is the classical apologetics, has their most vocal spokesmen in John H. Gerstner and R.C. Sproul. Very briefly, it may be said that the classical apologist approaches the unregenerate man as an autonomous thinker (though darkened in his heart), and attempts to prove the existence of God, and so the Christian faith, by using philosophical arguments that centre around “the very light of nature in man, and the works of God.” He does so from “ground-zero,” the consciousness of self-existence. The Presuppositionalist, on the other hand, refuses to go to “ground-zero.” He presupposes the existence of God and the validity of the Christian faith, and that the unregenerate man is simply suppressing the knowledge of these truths. Therefore rather than attempting to prove the existence of God and Christianity, he challenges the presuppositions of the unbeliever to show their irrationality or inadequancy; and then demonstrates the Christian presuppositions to be the only correct and rational option.

These descriptions are, of course, generalisations, but we highlight them because proponents of both camps can often be passionately defensive of their views, and suppose that theirs is the only biblically consistent Reformed view. In such a situation, it would not be surprising to find proponents of both camps pointing to WLC 2 to support the antiquity or creedal validity of their approach.

However, if we study the statement objectively, we will realise that it does not lend itself to either approach. It does teach that natural revelation is sufficient to show that God exists. Therefore it is valid to speak of, for example, the Moral Argument—that man has a sense of morality which cannot be explained apart from the existence of God who created him in His own image (cf. Acts 17:22–23; Rom 2:12–16); or the Cosmological Argument —that the world could not possibly have come out of nothing (cf. Rom 1:19–20); or the Teleological Argument—that the beauty, order and design in nature cannot be explained apart from the existence of God (cf. Ps 19:1–2). However, our catechism does not say that the unregenerate can be convinced. In fact, it insists that without the Word and Spirit, the unregenerate man will never come to faith, because spiritual things are spiritually discerned (1 Cor 2:14).

Perhaps then, it is neither wise nor necessary to restrict ourselves to this or that method. We should rather bear in mind constantly what our catechism teaches us. When there is a necessity to appeal to the light of nature or the work of God, we must not hesitate to do so; but we must never rely solely on it, and we must never give the impression that atheism is not sin. Furthermore, recognising the fact that man by nature knows that God exists because he has the works of the Law written in his heart (Rom 2:14–15), we should have liberty to immediately refer to the Word of God as truth, and the existence of God as fact. In fact, we should give emphasis to the special revelation (the Scripture) of God because only the special revelation (rather than natural revelation) is sufficient for man’s salvation.