The gospel = God restores (and glorifies) nature/creation through the death and resurrection of Christ.
When we use the slogan, “grace restores nature,” we need to keep two things in mind:
1. Grace doesn’t just put creation back where it started, but ultimately brings us to the eschatological and glorious end God intended from the beginning. The end is greater than the beginning. Story after story in Scripture bears this out (eg, Joseph in the book of Genesis, Job’s narrative arc, etc.). History is not a line or a circle, but a spiral upwards.
2. The restoration of nature requires death and resurrection. Grace does not restore nature by supplementing it, or by getting added to it, but by killing it and raising it. Only the death and resurrection of Jesus can bring gracious healing to the world. Fallen nature can only be set right in and through Christ.
—
From Oliver O’Donovan’s Resurrection and Moral Order, on how a creation ethic and a kingdom ethic cohere:
“…for the very act of God which ushers in his kingdom is the resurrection of Christ from the dead, the reaffirmation of creation. A kingdom ethics which was set up in opposition to creation could not possibly be interested in the same eschatological kingdom as that which the New Testament proclaims…. A creation ethics, on the other hand, which was set up in opposition to the kingdom, could not possibly be evangelical ethics, since it would fail to take note of the good news that God had acted to bring all that he had made to its fulfillment…
Man’s rebellion has not succeeded in destroying the natural order to which he belongs; but that is something which we could not say with theological authority except on the basis of God’s revelation in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We say that this, that or the other cultural demand or prohibition…. reflects the created order faithfully, but that too is something which we can known only by taking our place within the revelation of that order afforded us in Christ. It is not, as the skeptics and relativists remind us, self-evident what is nature and what is convention.”
This quote has a multitude of applications, in countless directions. For example, it explains why natural law and biblical law need each other, and a true Christian ethic draws from both. A creation ethic finds its fulfillment in the kingdom ethic. But the kingdom ethic is rooted in nature and must not be severed from it.
The gospel does not negate nature and creational structures. Nor does the gospel leave them unchanged. The gospel transforms creation and culture. The gospel restores nature to its proper function and goal. It’s as if the fall derailed the train of creation; the gospel puts the train back on track so it can reach its divinely ordained end in glory.
To add another layer: Grace and creation/nature do not exist in some kind of dualistic relationship. Grace is never extrinsic to nature because creation’s very existence required grace from the start.
Nature is always already graced. Everything is gift (Romans 11:33-36). But for the purposes of this discussion, grace = saving grace, the grace of the gospel. Grace does not get added to a graceless nature, but restores already-graced nature to its proper end.
—
The resurrection affirms and transforms the created order. Thus, the Anabaptist view that “kingdom ethics” has nothing to do with creation is wrong. But an approach to natural law that is cut off from the gospel is also flawed.
—
A theology of nature has to account for passages like Matthew 10:35-36, where the gospel tears apart the “natural” community of the family. Of course, the gospel can also break up nations and disturb the civic peace. Citizens of nations, like members of families, can be divided against one another by differing responses to the gospel. Naturally, all men should trust, thank, and glorify God. When they rebel against him and against his grace, it creates division. That division should not shock us – it’s a fact of life in a fallen world.
Think also of the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 11:19:
“For there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.”
The factions in the church were not good in themselves, obviously. No one wants factions or divisions. But they are inevitable because not everyone obeys God as they should.
Those who prioritize unity over truth (rather than unity in truth) will inevitably end up apostate. Their families and nations may be “united” but will be united in unbelief. They will build Babel instead of the New Jerusalem. If we are afraid of conflict and division, we will end up hopelessly compromised. There is no getting around the fact that the gospel divides.
—
Since discussions of the so-called Federal Vision are heating back up, I figured I’d give a quick, short summary of the key emphases of FV:
1. Creation is gift. This means there is no nature/grace dualism in the Bible and no merit theology in the Bible. Everything is grace. Grace is always already there. There was no covenant merit in the Garden of Eden; even if Adam had obeyed God and received further exaltation, he would have been obligated to say “Thank you” to God. This does not mean we cannot make distinctions, eg, common grace vs redemptive grace. But everything is gift. That’s the starting point.
2. Union with Christ is the gospel. This has implications for how we understand imputation (transfer vs shared verdict), ecclesiology (to get the benefits of the head you must be part of his body), and sacraments (since baptism and the Eucharist have to do with union and communion with Christ), etc. There are no benefits apart from union with the Benefactor. We cannot have any of Christ’s redemptive blessings without having Christ himself. Our whole salvation is contained in him. Of course, we are united to Christ by faith alone.
3. The covenant promises mean the children of Christians are Christian and should be treated accordingly. God says, “I will be a God to you and to your children.” The covenant promise determines our children’s identity, how we educate them, how we discipline them, how we nurture them, how we include them in the life of the church. FV was all about the children.
More could be said about liturgy, typology, and other particulars, but these three things are the gist of it, especially against the backdrop of the way Reformed theology is done in America today.
—
The children of Christians are Christian children – not by nature, but by grace. This is the meaning of God’s promise, “I will be a God to you and your offspring after you.”
—
If grace restores nature, paedobaptism and paedocommunion inescapably follow.
—
Christians, especially some Reformed Christians, reject natural law reasoning of any sort because they fear nature will end up “eating” grace. With secularized or autonomous conceptions of nature, this is a valid fear, as Francis Schaeffer showed. But I actually think the problem in our day is the opposite. Grace – a secularized version of grace – has eaten up nature.
In post-Obergefell America, Americans now believe they are free to do anything they want (supposedly without guilt and without consequence) because there is no order or law in the creation. There is no law above us by which we will be measured. There is no
“nature of things” we have to respect, no hard edges to reality that will cut us if we disregard them, and so any laws imposed on how we use our bodies are considered irrational and oppressive. Our culture’s postmodern version of grace – a lawless grace if there ever was one – has eaten up nature and left everything in flux. If ever there were a time for reasserting Paul’s doctrine of nature in Romans 1:18ff, this is it. In fact, reasserting a Pauline doctrine of nature is necessary to proclaiming a Pauline doctrine of grace.
For more:
pastor.trinity-pres.net/essays/obergef…
—
The Great Commission is necessary if the Creation mandate is going to be fulfilled in a fallen world. People must be formed into the image of Christ if they are going to fulfill the original purpose for man as the image of God. Grace restores nature, redemption fulfills the original purpose of creation. Any version of “spirituality” that does not tie back to the Creation Mandate is inadequate biblically.
—
Our national identity crisis is a faith crisis more than anything. Only the Christian faith provides hope for sufficient assimilation and unity. The only alternative to Christian nationalism is continued fragmentation and division.
Grace kills nature and then resurrects nature. Grace must kill the secular disaster America has become so a genuinely Christian America can arise.
America’s only hope is getting shattered by Jesus (cf. his rod of iron in Psalm 2) so he can put us back together in a new and more glorious way.
—
Rebellion against grace is also rebellion against nature and vice versa.
—
Even if nations are considered extensions of kin groups (as opposed to modern nation-states), they are still permeable, contingent, and providential. Old covenant Israel is a great test case because it is not modern, and was much more than a strict kinship group from the beginning (Abraham’s household included many who were not direct blood relatives, they came out of Egypt with a mixed multitude, Israel allowed for immigration and interethnic marriages, Jesus has Gentile ancestors, etc.).
How tightly one has to be related to be considered kin is an open question, but unless we’re going to practice incest, we have to always be open to other kin groups in some sense. A man marries a woman from a different family. Kin groups that tightly insulate themselves end up dysfunctional for precisely this reason. It’s as if God sprinkled interethnic marriages all throughout the OT to destroy fallen man’s kinist inclinations — just like “leave and cleave” is an offense to the hyper-patriarchalists who want the patriarch to control multiple generations.
As Americans, we really have no choice but to acknowledge this reality about the world. It’s an empirical fact. America is not a kin group, but it is a nation. There is no single ancestor from whom all Americans descend. That was true in 1825, 1925, and 2025. I realize that makes these questions far more complex, but we have to deal with the world as God in his providence gives it to us, not as we might like it to be.
—
A few considerations regarding nations, nature, and grace:
First, particular nations are not really “natural” communities, at least not the way the family is. Particular nations are providential, not natural, entities. The USA is not “natural” – it did not exist for most of human history and it came into existence through human action. In that sense, it’s a human construct. The nation of Moab once existed but there are no Moabites in the world today. The existence of Moab was temporal and contingent. So we need to be clear in our terminology. Particular nations are not fixed in the order of things the way, say, male and female sexes are.
Second, take an historical example. In the book of Acts, Paul goes around the Roman Empire preaching the gospel. Everywhere he goes there are riots and upheaval. He was accused of being a seditious traitor. Was Rome right to persecute him since he created “unnatural” division and threatened to subvert Rome? Or was Paul right to preach the gospel, even though it was divisive? Which is more “natural” – Paul preaching to Rome or Rome persecuting Paul? Of course, we know what happened: Rome tried to prioritize its unity and self-preservation over the gospel, but the gospel eventually won anyway.
Third, yes, grace kills nature, but it also resurrects nature. So the preaching of the gospel killed the pagan Roman Empire but it also brought to life Christendom – the Roman Empire in a new and Christianized form. But it took a lot of division and chaos to get there. Such is life in a fallen world.
—
To develop my previous point a bit more: I would not grant that Rome acted naturally in persecuting Paul, unless we are using “nature” to describe falleness (per Ephesians 2:3) rather than creational design. Rome was suppressing the truth in unrighteousness by refusing to be open to the Jewish-Christian missionary God sent her. Any nation that fears the gospel will subvert its idols is not living according to nature but rebelling against both nature and grace.
In preaching the gospel, Paul called nations (and families) to their true end, which can only be realized in the New Adam and his new humanity of the church.
—
Nature can only be restored through the death and resurrection of Christ and Christ’s kingdom ethic is not opposed to a proper understanding of nature. This is Colossians 1:15ff – creation and redemption align in Christ, and Christ alone.
Sometimes faithfulness to the gospel does tear natural communities apart, as painful as that is. But natural communities that resist grace are actually being unnatural. Families and nations have to pass through the cross and resurrection to find their true glory.
Why not just be content with the slogan “grace does not destroy nature but perfects it”? Why talk about grace killing and resurrecting nature? I like the slogan “grace perfects nature” – but the very way in which grace perfects nature is through participation in death and resurrection. “No man comes to the Father except for the Son” applies to all of creation. We are crucified the world and the world is crucified to us. That’s the only way forward.
Examples:
Christian marriage is not merely natural, it’s gospel, as Ephesians 5 teaches. Husbands and wives do not merely take their cues from nature, but from Christ and the church. Historically speaking, the gospel revolutionized and transformed marriage as it existed in the ancient world. Christian marriage was a new kind of marriage, shaped not only by the original creation design but also rooted in Christ’s marriage to his bride.
Fathers are to bring their children up in the Lord – we do not merely disciple the child into nature but into life under Christ’s lordship. Natural paideia is not sufficient. And this process of discipleship starts with the death and resurrection of the child in baptism.
The Lord’s Supper takes the fruits of nature and culture, and transfigures them into instruments of the eternal kingdom. The bread and wine of the Eucharist are not merely the products of nature or even culture, but something more – precisely because of the death and resurrection of Jesus. And of course, this Eucharistic way of life we are taught at the table spills over to every “common” meal, when Christians say grace over their meals. Thanksgiving sanctifies every gift God gives us (cf. 1 Tim. 4).
Etc.
Nature has to be killed and resurrected because nature is now fallen and the only way for nature to be restored and perfected is through Christ.
This is the “Christian” aspect of “Christian nationalism.” Nations have to die to their idols and embrace new life in the risen and reigning Christ. Otherwise, we will never have anything more than a nationalism of the flesh – and that will take us back to the darkness of paganism, only this time the demons will come back seven times worse.
True Christian wisdom incorporates all we can glean from creational design, and all the instruction God gives us in his Christocentric Word.
—
Sadly a lot of young men on the alt-right today seem to go brain dead when discussing issues of race, nationality, and identity.
For example, Paul’s generalization about Cretans is trotted out to prove that racial stereotyping is acceptable. But this fails to grasp the obvious fact that Cretans were not a race of their own. Cretans were white (Caucasian). Unless we want to apply Paul’s generalization to all white people, we need to recognize that ethnicity and race are not the same. Whites are not fungible; whites are not interchangeable units. Whites vary widely – in ethnicity, in language, in religion, in worldview, in behavior. So while generalizations are acceptable if they are accurate, we need to be careful how we make them and what level we expect them operate. Scripture generalizes much more about smaller people groups (Pharisees, Cretans, etc.) than larger groups, like races.
Another example: The category of nature gets trotted out at times, but ignored at others, and so it seems purely arbitrary. There is no consistency. It seems many of these discussions are really more about emotional reactivity than careful reasoning. I can sympathize with those who are concerned about what’s happened to our country through unfettered immigration — I am concerned too. I understand the longing for home, and for the love of people and place. But we cannot substitute strong feelings for good arguments.
I have seen Elon Musk get used as an example of someone advocating for “blood and soil” nationalism. Yes, the same Musk who has English roots, was born in South Africa, immigrated to Canada, then became a US citizen about 20 years ago! I appreciate what Musk is doing with DOGE, but he’s about as cosmopolitan as can be. To use him as proponent of “blood and soil” doesn’t make a lot of sense. He is a kind of nationalist, and he rightly wants a secure border, but we need to be precise.
This quotation from Geerhardus Vos has been used to justify reinstituting some form of racial segregation, so let’s analyze it:
“Nationalism, within proper limits, has the divine sanction; an imperialism that would, in the interest of one people, obliterate all lines of distinction is everywhere condemned as contrary to the divine will. Later prophecy raises its voice against the attempt at world-power, and that not only, as is sometimes assumed, because it threatens Israel, but for the far more principal reason, that the whole idea is pagan and immoral…Under the providence of God each race or nation has a positive purpose to serve, fulfillment of which depends on relative seclusion from others.”
Several things stand out here. First, Geerhardus Vos’ family immigrated from the Netherlands to Michigan in the 1890s. Before Michigan became largely white and Dutch, it was 100% Amerindian. If seclusion is the principle, Europeans should have stayed in Europe and left the Amerindians alone. If nations are supposed to remain secluded and empires are always bad, then America should not exist and no one from the Netherlands should be in this part of the world. The Dutch already have a country. On Vos’ principle of seclusion, they should have stayed put. If nations are supposed to stay secluded, what are the Dutch doing in the middle of North America? Don’t they belong back in the Netherlands?
Consider Vos’ principles: nations should stay secluded and empire is bad. The very existence of America violates both of those principles – and arguably the immigration of the Vos family to Michigan did as well. It’s all too convenient, and a bit suspicious, to insist on ethnic seclusion after one has immigrated to a better country.
The reality is that America is the product of nations NOT staying secluded. America is the product of exploration and empire. Explorers like Columbus definitely did not believe in some principle of seclusion. And they were not just in search of trade routes. Columbus did what he did for the glory of God and the good of an empire. He was motivated not by merely by natural principles, but largely by a desire to spread the kingdom of God and fulfill the Great Commission. Empire provided an avenue to do that. The original European settlers in America were not seclusionists. They not only interacted extensively with Amerindians, they intermarried with them. They also intermixed with other white Europeans that came here – again, violating a principle of seclusion. The English, Irish, Scottish, Spanish, German, French, etc. intermixed in America in ways that could never happen in Europe. America was something genuinely new, not just a continuation of Europe in a different location. An American is not just a transplanted European.
Whatever Vos might have meant, or how he might have justified his own family’s refusal to stay put, I think Vos’ comments are too vague to really apply to the problems regarding race, identity, and nationalism we are trying to solve today. No natural principle alone can solve it.
I would warn strongly against trying to define American identity on strictly natural principles. You can only make sense of America if you connect her history, heritage, and peoplehood to the gospel of the kingdom.
Both nationalism and imperialism can find divine sanction within proper limits. The same God who established nations ordained empires (cf. Daniel’s theology of empire). Godless, secular empires, like godless globalism, might try to erase all national distinctions, but this has not been the case with all forms of empire (e.g., the British Empire did not work this way). Colonialism was not all bad — indeed much of it made the world a much better place. Empires, like nations, can be good or evil, and there’s no question God used many imperial regimes for good in his Providence (including the British and American empires). But it’s hard to know exactly what Vos would approve of — “relative seclusion” is quite vague.
When we look more closely Vos on these issues, the picture gets more complicated. It turns out that he believed that the unity of the human race would be the ideal, and that in an unfallen world, there would have been no national distinctions, nor will there be national distinctions in the eschaton (so he’s opposite of Stephen Wolfe on those issues): “It is true that in the abstract the unity of the race, unbroken by national distinctions, is the ideal. Had sin not entered, this would undoubtedly have been the actual state of things, as it will become so in the final eschatological dispensation [cp. Gal. 3:28]. But for the present intervening period this is not the will of God.”
—
With the resurgence of interest in nature and natural law, it’s important to make several things clear. Most importantly, we need to see that appeals to nature or a natural principle require argument. It’s not enough to say that something is “natural,” one must demonstrate why and how. People can come to very different conclusions about what is “natural” just like they can come to different conclusions about what is biblical. You have to exegete nature just as you exegete Scripture. You cannot take for granted the very thing you are supposed to prove.
Take a test case: Some argue that nations natural, in the same way the family is natural. Even in an unfallen world, as the human race grew, it would have naturally divided into various ethnicities or nations, each relatively secluded from the others, developing its own culture, language, etc. Others argue that the natural state of humanity is unity since we all descend from one man. For example Geerhardus Vos wrote, “the unity of the race, unbroken by national distinctions, is the ideal. Had sin not entered, this would undoubtedly have been the actual state of things, as it will become so in the final eschatological dispensation.” For Vos, the existence of nations is a providential concession/adaptation to post-fall conditions. Vos says that the relative seclusion of nations is necessary now, but it was not so in the beginning and will not be so in the end.
My point here is not to pick a side in the debate over whether or not nations are “natural.” It’s just to point out that making arguments from nature is often at least as difficult as making arguments from Scripture (indeed, usually more difficult) and just as Christians can disagree over what the Bible teaches, so we should expect to have to deal with differences over what nature teaches. Don’t just cite “nature.” Show how nature teaches what you claim it teaches.
TPC Pastor's Page 