Nature’s Case for God: A Brief Biblical Argument, by John M. Frame. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2018. 124 pp. $11.99.
The heavens declare the glory of God. How we hear that heavenly declaration—and what we learn from it—is where the controversy begins.
In this slim book, John Frame offers what he calls a biblical natural theology. “While this book is a natural theology, it does not try to push Scripture to the side. Rather, it seeks to understand nature in a biblical way” (9). Frame rejects any notion that natural revelation alone is sufficient for salvation. With that important guardrail placed, Frame seeks to explore the way in which God’s revelation in nature leaves the unbeliever without excuse (Rom 1:20).
The nine brief chapters that follow are divided into two sections: “The Witness of the Created World” and “The Witness of Human Nature.” The first section focuses on the aspects of the created world that allow us to know God’s “invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature” (Rom 1:20).
He arranges these in a logical progression. He begins with the revelation of God’s greatness, seen in the scale of creation both expansive and infinitesimal. He then argues that to make sense of the complexity of the created world, this Greatness must be a Oneness. He mirrors here Paul’s argument in Acts 17, in which Paul insists that the God who created all things is not served in the manner of the gods of polytheism.
He next argues that nature reveals God’s wisdom. To be sure, God’s wisdom is more clearly seen in his plan of redemption (as Frame argues). But Frame contends that the groaning of creation points to a telos for all things. Through the lens of Scripture, the discord of the world is evidence of a future redemption and therefore of God’s wisdom. But as Frame writes, “All this means that if you are blind to redemption, you won’t see the wisdom of the created world. You’ll see only a field of blind evolution, what Tennyson called ‘nature, red in tooth and claw’” (47). If God’s wisdom is not seen in nature apart from redemption, and it is only seen in the groaning of nature to be unbroken, in what sense is it nature (rather than special revelation) that is revealing God’s wisdom? This is difficult and speaks to the biblicalness of Frame’s project.
He argues next that nature displays God’s goodness. This is seen in his provision in nature (Acts 14:17). But it is also demonstrated in the fittingness of mathematical truth and the attractiveness of loving people. Frame wants to argue that this goodness suggests our eventual accountability to God, though the particulars of that judgment also seem to rely on special revelation.
Finally, Frame argues that the created world ought to convince us of the nearness of God: that “he is actually not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27).
In the second main section of the book, Frame turns his attention from the created world to the revelation of God in the conscience of man. He suggests that we learn from the conscience in four different states: seared, accusing, awakened, and good.
Frame cites “the bully, the criminal, and the tyrant” (79) as examples of the seared conscience. His argument is that our instinctive revulsion at these characters demonstrates our dependence on a transcendental morality. Indeed, even those with a seared conscience retain some moral intuitions themselves. These moral intuitions are seen more clearly in the accusing conscience, one that points to us the ways in which we fall short of the moral standards we know.
Frame’s chapter on the awakened conscience is particularly insightful. Here, he draws our attention to the conscience of the believer, asking what we learn about God from this aspect of his image in us. Our consciences are not a final authority, but the conscience itself requires training and submits to a higher authority. Finally, the good conscience is one belonging to one who is right with God. He writes, “(1) A good conscience shows that our actions please God, so it reveals God’s character. (2) A good conscience shows what God has done within us…, for we cannot achieve a good conscience by our own efforts” (102).
The concluding epilogue consists of four letters Frame wrote addressing questions regarding natural law.
Frame is correct that nature is best read through the lenses provided by Scripture. Consider again his reading of the brokenness of this world. The “neutral” reading of the unnecessary pain and brutality of creation is either that God is indifferent, incompetent, or malicious. Only with reference to special revelation can we see that the curse is itself not a “natural” part of the world.
Such an explicitly biblicistic approach to natural revelation obviously raises questions about its apologetic usefulness. One’s system of apologetics will have considerable bearing on the answer to those questions. To the degree that the apologist is convinced that he is obligated to forego appeals to special revelation in his apologetic, Frame’s book will have little appeal. But for those who are even somewhat sympathetic to Van Til’s apologetic, Frame has produced a useful little tool, one that will give the apologist a few more arguments at his disposal.
