The Noetic Affects and Effects

of Sin and Grace

by
Tyler Vela

Submitted to Dr. Kevin Zuber

Moody Bible Institute
In partial fulfillment of requirements for the
Directed Study in Theology

May, 2009

1
 The Noetic Affects and Effects of Sin and Grace

I. Introduction

When most theologians and philosophers think about the relation of sin and the nature

of man with respect to his ability to think and reason, the common way of framing it is

through the category known as the noetic effects of sin, (from the Greek word νοητικός,

for "intellect"). Claims are often made about the preservation or the impairment of one‘s

ability to think rationally before and after the human race was plunged into sin by the fall

of Adam. While this may be a helpful and fruitful way to talk about sin‘s impact on the

mind, it seems to leave a larger, more fundamental question unanswered. One can first

ask, what are the noetic affects of sin that are the root of the noetic effects of sin?

Surprisingly, this question has gone essentially unanswered, even in Reformed and

Calvinistic circles where this issue is frequently in the forefront. To bypass the question

concerning the ontological ramifications of sin, in order to address the epistemological

ones, seems to be a hasty leap to make. Imagine someone being asked to describe some

sort of disease like cancer or AIDS, and rather than stating what the disease is and how it

affects the body, they describe it primarily by its symptoms. This symptomatic

description, while helpful in identifying the presence of the disease, would do little in

identifying the essence of the disease. This seems to be the case with sin and its impact

on the mind and reason of the human race. We must first know what sin is and how it

affects our minds, before we can possibly begin to formulate comprehensive statements

concerning the noetic effects of sin.

This distinction is also vital in understanding the cure to the problem of sin, namely,

grace. If sin is the cancer, then grace is the cure. And yet we cannot begin to describe

2
those who are under grace and manifest its effects, without first addressing what has been

affected in order to create those effects. However, even with this important distinction

now made, which will be pivotal in our understanding of how sin and grace affect us, we

must first answer the question, ―Who are we?‖ Sin and grace do not act upon a vacuum.

They act upon us and we are not blank pages. What is it in us that was lost at the fall, and

is regained in Christ?

II. The Image of God

We read in Genesis 1:26-27,

26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let
them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens
and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that
creeps on the earth." 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of
God he created him; male and female he created them.

In this passage we are told that mankind is created in the image of God. While this

simple fact is clear, the particulars of what it means to be made in the image of God are

not stated for us. Because of this, many theologians have debated what it actually means

to say that humans are created in the God‘s image. There are views that point to the

ability of man to reason, or to have relationships as what it means to be in God‘s image.

Others point to the dominion of man over the earth spoken of at the end of v26 as what

constitutes the image. Even others would point to the fact that God created humans ―male

and female‖ and state that it is only in our unity as a species that we best see the image of

God reflected.

Yet what seems strikingly obvious, but rarely mentioned, is that nothing can be said

about the nature of man without first making reference to God. Even Reformed

Epistemologist Alvin Plantinga holds to this when he states,

3
 If we don‘t know that there is such a person as God, we don‘t know the first
thing (the most important thing) about ourselves, each other and our world.
That is because… the most important truths about us and them, is that we
have been created by the Lord, and utterly depend upon him for our continued
existence.1

Those who look to this passage and others in order to find what composes the image

of God in man, shockingly miss the simple point that it is precisely that we are made in

God’s image. We must ask, with Barth, how could we know man apart from divine

revelation?2 If we attempt to ask ―what is man‖ and respond with an answer that does not

first begin with the existence of God, we have already crippled our ability to define the

nature of man. Regardless of what else the image of God may entail, the root must always

be based on the nature of God. The fact that we are in an image should tell us that there is

something that we are imaging by which we derive our nature. Thus if the image entails

reason, it is because the nature of God is reasonable. If the image entails personality, it is

because the nature of God is personal. If the image entails us doing and thinking all

things in order to bring glory to God, it is because God does all things for His glory. If

the image entails man‘s dominion, it is because God, in his essence, is the absolute

sovereign. If the image entails our relations to others, and indeed, primarily to God

himself, it is because the nature of God is relational; our being is not rooted in some

deistic or pantheistic, impersonal being, but rather on a Trinitarian Being who is

relational with regard to Himself. Everything that the image entails is entirely derivative.

1
Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief. p217. Yet he will later contradict this when he states, contrary to
Calvin and Van Til‘s denial of common ground, ―Could I sensibly claim to know more logic than, say,
Willard van Orman Quine, even if I can‘t do anything but the simplest logic exercises, on the grounds that
at any rate I know something about logic and he, being an unbeliever, knows nothing at all about that
subject or indeed anything else?‖ The confusion for Plantinga may lie in the distinction between real and
formal knowledge which we will discuss later.
2
Berkouwer. Man: The Image of God. p91.

4
 The ―I-Thou‖ paradigm of Brunner is immensely helpful here.3 According to Bruner,

―the human ‗I‘ has its origin in the divine ‗Thou‘.‖4 If anything, the image, which

separates us from the rest of creation, is not that of the ability to reason, but rather that of

self-awareness. This is a similar conclusion drawn by many secular philosophers and

psychologists as well, even though they attempt to make our self-awareness solely

humanistic. But this cannot be the case because it was God who created us to know that

we are distinct from Him, and yet created by Him; the paradigm is ―I-Thou‖ not ―I-It.‖5

Calvin speaks of the sensus divinatatis (hereafter SD) inherent in every human being.

That is to say, every human being has a sense of the divine; every human knows, to some

degree that the triune God exists. For Calvin this is partly because of general revelation,

but primarily the SD is an actual disposition that is placed in the mind of man by the

common grace of God to acknowledge Him.6 The problem that Calvin, and others who

follow after him, must then answer, is how is this SD retained in humanity even after its

fall into sin and death?

While I would not want to deny the existence of the SD, I would differ from Calvin

on its source. It seems that Brunner‘s version of the ―I-Thou‖ paradigm is a more proper

foundation for the universal belief in God. To be made in the image of God means to be

self-aware of our own creaturely nature in relation to and derived from the nature of God

Himself. This requires then, that to think about ourselves is to think about God. This

3
While the ―I-Thou‖ paradigm was made famous by Buber, it is the reformatted form of Brunner that will
be dealt with in this paper. See Hynson, ―Theological Encounter: Brunner and Buber.‖ Journal of
Ecumenical Studies 12 no 3 Sum 1975, p349-366.
4
Hynson, ―Theological Encounter: Brunner and Buber.‖ Journal of Ecumenical Studies 12 no 3 Sum 1975,
p350.
5
―The ‗name‘ of God, used in the Old and New Testaments, suggests that God is a person. God is not an
―It‖ but is our primary ―Thou.‖ Hynson, ―Theological Encounter: Brunner and Buber.‖ Journal of
Ecumenical Studies 12 no 3 Sum 1975, p358.
6
―…God himself…has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead… a sense of deity is inscribed on
every heart.‖ Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion. p9.

5
should not be assumed to say more than it means, as if what is being argued for is some

kind of human divinity indicative of eastern religious thought. Rather, to be self-aware is

to be aware that we are created beings who owe our existence to the Giver of Life. If we

cannot define man without first knowing that God exists and created us, then we cannot

be self-aware without being aware of the God who is. Even after the fall, ―man is, and

always remains, God‘s self-conscious creature.‖7

To this, we must also add that the ―I-Thou‖ paradigm is first and foremost a paradigm

of thought. It would be quite strange to feel the ―I-Thou‖ paradigm. This is not to say the

there will not be an emotional response to its truth or the attempted rejection of it, but it

would be primarily that: an emotional response to a cognitive truth. Wilson states, ―When

law comes to an unregenerate man, he always does two things; he acknowledges it as

true, and he hates it as true.‖8 Self-awareness, and thus awareness of God, is the

preeminent epistemological reality.9

Brunner, along with Barth, also saw the image of God as not only consisting of

attributes, but primarily as a relational standing between man and God. We were made in

covenant with God and remain in covenant with Him for all of eternity. Even our ability

to reason is a product of our covenant relationship to God. Van Til put it this way, ―All

his knowledge is analogical of God. God is the original knower and man is the derivative

re-knower. Man knows in subordination to God; he knows as the covenant keeper.‖10

7
Van Til. The Reformed Pastor and Modern Thought. p8.
8
Wilson, ―Apologetics and the Heart‖ from Antithesis, 1.4 July/Aug. 1990.
9
Van Til claimed, ―For Adam in paradise God-consciousness could not come at the end of a syllogistic
process of reasoning. God consciousness was for him the presupposition of the significance of reasoning on
anything…even when he closed his eyes upon the external world his internal sense would manifest God to
him in his own constitution.‖ Bahnsen. Van Til‘s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis. p222.
10
Bahnsen. Van Til‘s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis. p229. (italics mine). Cf. p239, ―In paradise man‘s
knowledge was self-consciously analogical; man wanted to know the facts of the universe in order to fulfill
his task as covenant-keeper.‖

6
Thus the question becomes not, ―am I in a relationship with God,‖ but ―what kind of

relationship do I have with God?‖ Or, in other words, ―is the God who is near, near in

wrath or in grace?‖ The answer to that question will be based on whether or not the

image of God that we possess is corrupted or restored.

III. Noetic Affects and Effects of Sin

Now that we have discussed what the image of God is, we can begin to look at the

noetic affects of sin upon it. Frequently the affects of sin upon the image of God are used

only to explain to physical illness and death. For all else we simply skip by the affects to

talk about the effects such as moral and ethical failure, the inability to trust God, and the

corruption of our ability to reason, which is most fully expressed in our rejection of Jesus

Christ (Immanuel: God with us). But if the image of God is primarily the self-awareness

within the ―I-Thou‖ paradigm, then the affects of sin upon that state are disastrous. This

paradigm is precisely what is destroyed. When Eve was tempted by the serpent in the

garden, and when Adam later ate of the fruit, they did not perform simple acts of

rebellion. The temptation ―you will be like God‖ (Gen. 3:5) was not a statement that

humans would actually become deities, but rather that they would become autonomous,

―knowing good and evil‖ on their own without reference to God. Rather than accepting

God at His word, Eve stood in judgment over it and attempted to understand it with

reference to herself: the creature attempted to stand in judgment over her Creator.11

Rather than holding to the ―I-Thou‖ paradigm of her being, she plugged the ears of her

soul and like a small child ignoring her parents shouted repeatedly, ―I! I! I!‖ In turning

11
―In other words, are the accused qualified to give judgments about the existence of the judge?‖ Wilson,
―Apologetics and the Heart‖ from Antithesis, 1.4 July/Aug. 1990. The see this further illustrated, think of
the absurdity that the world witnessed when Saddam Hussein attempted to deny the courts authority to
judge and punish him while he was being tried.

7
away from God, Adam and Eve, and their entire race after them, were actually attempting

to commit ontological suicide. If what makes us human is that we are created in the

image of God, then to deny God is to deny the very thing makes us human. Sin seeks to

destroy and in our case, we willing participate in the attempt to annihilate ourselves.

Thus, sin brings death.

Now we can see that sin does not destroy our ability to reason or to have

relationships, but rather, removes the very foundation for them and thus distorts our

ability to apply them to the glory of God. This is commonly called the wider and the

narrower senses of the image of God; the wider being the actual faculties such as reason

and emotion, and the narrower being the proper use of those faculties to bring glory and

honor to God. Yet we must also assert that there is one more level that precedes these two

senses of the image: God. Since it is the nature of God that is the defining aspect of our

own nature, then to deny God‘s existence is to deny the very basis and justification for

the use of those faculties which accompany it. J. Budziszewski states it like this:

Visualize a man opening up the access panels of his mind and pulling out all
the components that have God's image stamped on them. The problem is that
they all have God's image stamped on them, so the man can never stop. No
matter how much he pulls out, there's still more to pull.12

Thus for a person to use their reason, they must use it inconsistently. They must use their

God given reason in order to reason away God.13 They lose the basis for their ability to

reason, to appreciate beauty, to empathize, to self-express, and even to exist in creation.

When we live autonomously and seek to explain anything without reference to God, we

undercut our faculties and eliminate their foundation, which is in the nature of God.

12
Budziszewski. ―Escape From Nihilism‖ http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9801/budziszewski.html
13
This is precisely what was intended in Van Til‘s illustration of a child needing to sit on her father‘s lap in
order to slap her father‘s face.

8
Edwards put it this way, ―A man that sets himself to reason without divine light is like a

man that goes in the dark into a garden full of the most beautiful plants, and most artfully

ordered, and compares things together by going from one thing to another to feel of them

all, to perceive their beauty.‖14 Thus we can say that the noetic affect of sin is the

distortion of the mind which was once firmly rooted in the ―I-Thou‖ relationship and

sought to understand and do all things with reference to God the Father, the Son, and the

Holy Spirit, into a mind that blindly screams ―I!‖ and seeks to do all things with reference

to the trinity of Me, Myself, and I.

Paul addresses this in Colossians 1:21 when he states that because of our sin we

were ―once alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds.‖ It is important to note that it

is only after this noetic hostility that Paul states that we do evil deeds as well. Our

immorality and wicked deeds are not the primary grounds for our separation from God,

as some would say, but rather the hostile mind that is behind them. Jesus said that, ―out of

the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks,‖ (Mt. 12:34). Paul in 1 Timothy 1:10,

having listed a plethora of evil deeds, does not contrast wickedness with goodness, but

rather says that wickedness is ―contrary to sound doctrine.‖ That is, evil is not only

antithetical to good, but also to truth. Thus Paul can say of those who do not believe, ―by

their unrighteousness [they] suppress the truth‖ (Rom. 1:18). These people clearly know

God: ―For what can be known about God is plain to them‖ (v18), his divine attributes

have been ―clearly perceived…in the things that have been made‖ (v20), ―they knew

God‖ (v21), and ―they know God‘s decree‖ (v32). What is destroyed by the fall is not

knowledge or our ability to reason, but rather our ability to reason about all things with

reference to God and to rightly align ourselves under what we know to be so, because we
14
Olipint, ―Jonathan Edwards: Reformed Apologist,‖ in Westminster Theological Journal 57 (1995), p179.

9
seek to suppress the truth to maintain our own autonomy. It is because of this slide into

autonomy that they ―became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were

darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools…‖ (v21-22). The unbeliever is not

stupid, but foolish. We have a glimpse into this in the testimony of J. Budziszewski who

recounts his move from philosophical nihilism to a Christian theism.

When some people flee from God they rob and kill. When others flee from
God they do a lot of drugs and have a lot of sex. When I fled from God I
didn't do any of those things; my way of fleeing was to get stupid. Though
it always comes as a surprise to intellectuals, there are some forms of
stupidity that one must be highly intelligent and educated to commit. God
keeps them in his arsenal to pull down mulish pride, and I discovered them
all.15

We now have no need to construe man as a faulty receiver of revelation in order to

account for the noetic effects of sin.16 When theologians attempt to claim that sin affected

our faculty of reason and thus we have become faulty receivers for the revelation of God

in nature, they create more problems than they solve.17 While it is true that we no longer

receive rightly the declaration of God‘s eternal attributes in nature, it is not due to broken

equipment, but rather faulty software.

The unbeliever can reason that 1+1=2, that an apple is not a bird, that green is not a

shape, and can correctly apply the laws of logic and inference. They can design buildings,

do complex mathematics, and, ethically speaking, be good parents, devoted husbands,

and dutiful children. Westphal adds a helpful insight on this point, ―correct beliefs can be

15
Budziszewski. ―Escape From Nihilism‖ http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9801/budziszewski.html
16
―Man‘s receiving apparatus functions wrongly.‖ Dowey, The Knowledge of God in Calvin‘s Theology.
p73.
17
Reid asks a pertinent question here, ―Why, sir, should I believe my faculty of reason more than that
perception? –they came both out of the same shop, and were made by the same artist; and if he puts one
piece of false ware into my hands, what would hinder him from putting another?‖ Plantinga, Warranted
Christian Belief. p221. Cf. the context of Westphal‘s statement ―creation does a full day‘s work while the
fall is only asked to put in a cameo appearance.‖ Moroney, The Noetic Effects of Sin. p78.

10
as useful in suppressing the truth as incorrect ones.‖18 So the problem is not that they

cannot reason, but that they do or think everything without reference to God and thus the

doctrine of total inability: they can do nothing pleasing to God while still in their sin

because nothing is done to the glory of God. They have what Van Til called formal

knowledge; that is, they have the appearance but not the substance. We have seen a prime

example of this in our discussion concerning the image of God in man. To say that the

image consists of man‘s ability to reason is, in fact, formally correct. And yet it is, at the

very least, an inadequate understanding because it denies the first thing that must be

known about man before any definition of man can be made: God made him. To say that

2+2=4 without reference to God (either explicitly or implicitly) is formally correct and

yet does not acknowledge the first thing that must be known about that very basic

equation: that it is true because of whom God is. All of creation was created by God and

thus it is ―in him we live and move and have our being‖ (Acts 17:28). Yet to do science,

mathematics, logic, art, eat, sleep, make love, or feed the poor, without reference to God

is like a broken clock. It has the appearance of the correct time twice a day, and yet even

at its best, it is still a broken clock that is not a trustworthy means to tell time. It takes a

properly functioning clock, that does not only formally show the right time, to be a

trustworthy means of telling time.19

Yet we can still ask why someone would want to suppress the truth about God if it is

so glorious? First we should say that it begins from their conception. We are born already

18
Merold Westphal, "Taking St. Paul Seriously: Sin as an Epistemological Category." p218.
19
Here even the Ligonier‘s are in agreement: ―It would appear that both [believer and unbeliever] enjoy
universal understanding of the daffodil… [but] The believer acknowledges the significance of that daffodil,
not as a cosmic accident, but as something that in itself bears witness to the majesty and beauty of the
Creator God. This the unbeliever does not acknowledge, positing, instead, a completely opposite and
antithetical understanding of the daffodil‘s significance.‖ Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God. pp235-
236.

11
denying that existence of the ―Thou,‖ in order to be autonomous standards of truth,

beauty, and morality unto ourselves. However, as we get older, we become exceedingly

more proficient at it. Here Plantinga gives a helpful insight:

Perhaps I am tormented by guilt before God, or perhaps by my desire to live a

way of which, as I see it, God disapproves; then I may be inclined (with
Tillich)to think of God as an impersonal abstract object (―the ground of
being‖) rather than as a living person who judges me. Or I may come to think
of him as unconcerned with the day-to-day behavior of his creatures. Or I may
come to think of him, not as a holy God who hates sin, but more like an
indulgent grandparent who smiles at the childish peccadilloes of her
grandchildren.20

We commonly think that sin is something we do, but as we have seen, it originates in

the mind. Sin is not principally in our behavior, although this is where the clearest

examples are to be found. Rather, sin is primarily a function of our thoughts. Genesis 6:5

is crucial for our understanding on this point: ―The LORD saw that the wickedness of

man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only

evil continually.‖ The Lord‘s evaluation of prediluvian humanity was not an indictment

upon the wickedness of their actions, (though we could assume that they were acting

wickedly), but rather it was their noetic activity (the ―intentions of the thoughts‖) that

was viewed as wicked.21 So if our spiritual inability and death originates in the mind,

then so must our regeneration and conversion.22

IV. Noetic Affects and Effects of Grace

We saw previously that our sin is not only an affront to the holiness of God, but is

also an attempt at self-annihilation. Thankfully for us, ―the essence of man (his relation to

20
Plantinga. Warranted Christian Belief. p215.
21
Zemek. ―Aiming the Mind Grace Theological Journal, 5.2 (1984) p216.
22
―The sanctifying process is concerned primarily with attitudes of mind rather than actions. This is
supplemented by the view that right action will follow right thought.‖ Guthrie, NT Theology. p662

12
God) is not annihilated by ungodliness – due to God.‖23 It is by God‘s grace that we do

not, at any given moment, blink out of existence. According to Van Til, ―since

[humanity] could not cut itself loose form God metaphysically and since God, for the

purpose of realizing his plan of redemption, rudea [lump] or scintillae [spark] of the

knowledge of God and of the universe remain in him.‖24 So now that we know what was

lost, we are in a better position to know what is, by grace, restored.

What is needed to repair the fallen condition of the soul requires nothing less than the

provision of the Great Physician:25 ―I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit

within you‖ (Ezek. 36:26). In the New Testament, we are told that in Christ, the image of

God in us is renewed. But more than that, we are told that what God conforms us to is not

Adam, but to ―the image of His Son‖ (Rom. 8:29). Thus Barth declares that our

anthropology must be based on our Christology.26 So let us first begin by looking at

Christ in the image of God.

We are told that Christ is ―the image of the invisible God‖ (Col. 1:15), he is the

―exact imprint of [God‘s] nature‖ (Heb. 1:3), and even more frankly, that he is ―the image

of God‖ (2 Cor. 4:4). Christ was the true Adam who did not act autonomously and thus

plunge the species into death, but rather was the only man to do all things to the glory of

God, thought all things with reference to God, and looked to God in all things as the

source of truth, justice, beauty, and good. From the day of his birth to the day of his death

on the cross, Jesus perfectly lived within the ―I-Thou‖ paradigm without slipping into

autonomy. We see that even the Divine Christ sought to understand all things with

23
Berkouwer. Man: The Image of God. p93.
24
Van Til, The Defense of the Faith. p49.
25
Zemek. ―Aiming the Mind‖ from Grace Theological Journal, 5.2 (1984) p206.
26
Berkouwer. Man: The Image of God. p89.

13
reference to God when he said, ―even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I

alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me‖ (John 8:16). ―Into the solitariness of

the ‗Thou-less I‘ God has stepped as ‗Thou,‘… the monologue of existence…has become

the dialogue of existence: now there is unconditional fellowship.‖27 So when God

regenerates us, when he restores us to the natural ―I-Thou‖ relationship to himself, what

occurs in us? What are the affects of grace?

First, we should continue to see this largely taking place not in the emotions or in the

realm of personal mystical experience. We should not even see this as having its genesis

in the moral life of the believer, although this will be seen as an effect of grace. It is

astonishing to see that repeatedly in the New Testament when we are exhorted to put on

the new self or to be transformed, the emphasis is almost exclusively on the mind. When

we are ―taught in [Jesus],‖ we are ―renewed in the spirit of [our] minds‖ (Eph. 4:21, 23);

the natural man cannot accept the things of God because they are spiritually discerned,

but the believer can because ―we have the mind of Christ‖ (1 Cor. 2:16); and Paul urges

us ―not to be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind‖

(Rom. 12:2). This can be seen quite clearly in Philippians 4:8-9:

8
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just,
whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any
excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
9
What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice
these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

Paul does not tell the Philippians to primarily act truthfully, honorably, justly, etc. but

rather to think about true, honorable, just, pure, lovely things. It is in our thoughts that the

God of peace is with us. Only after our mind is transformed in one area, will the

27
Hynson, ―Theological Encounter: Brunner and Buber.‖ Journal of Ecumenical Studies 12 no 3 Sum
1975, p358.

14
corresponding actions be as well. Calvin put it this way, ―For how can the idea of God

enter your mind without instantly giving rise to the thought, that since you are his

workmanship, you are bound, by the very law of creation, to submit to his authority? That

your life is due to him? That whatever you do ought to have reference to him?‖28

Another prominent place in the New Testament that we see this truth is in Colossians

1:21. We saw this verse before but are now prepared to draw out another aspect of what

Paul was saying. Notice here that Paul says that we ―once were alienated from God and

hostile in mind, doing evil deeds.‖ The enthymic premise in Paul‘s argument is that we

are no longer alienated from God and hostile in mind because we have been reconciled to

God. The mind must be the first point of renewal when a person comes to a saving

knowledge of Christ because it is the faculty that is used in order to live under the ―I-

Thou‖ paradigm. If God did not first transform the mind, but rather kept us from lusting

or being greedy for gain, we would immediately fall back into condemnation because we

would instantly seek self-annihilation through autonomy. Instead, the Lord affirms in us

that ―the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge‖ (Prov. 1:7). Here we agree with

Anselm who wrote that the image of God in him ―is so effaced and worn away by my

faults, it is so obscured by the smoke of my sins, that it cannot do what it was made to do

(think of God and love God), unless Thou renew and reform it.‖29

Thus it is proper to speak primarily of the noetic affects of grace. Renewal, first and

foremost, occurs in the mind. Once this renewal has occurred, it is then, and only then

28
Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion. p8.
29
Moroney, The Noetic Effects of Sin. p126. Here it cannot be overstated that this is only possible by the
work of the Holy Spirit apart from our striving. Due to our sin and the rejection of God‘s existence, (either
in thought or practice) we are unable to come to a right knowledge of God apart from illumination. I am
reminded of Søren Kierkegaard who ―lamented that becoming aware of our own sin is like trying to see our
own eyeballs.‖ Moroney, The Noetic Effects of Sin. p81.

15
that we can act in accordance with the nature of God. It is only from the affects of grace

that we can come to a full understanding of the effects of grace. It is only when God

renews our minds and moves us from a poor relationship with Him where He is near in

wrath, to a good relationship with Him, where He is near in grace, that we can believe on

Jesus Christ, abstain from sins of the flesh, and love our neighbors as ourselves.

V. Conclusion

As we have seen, that the existence of God is the primary epistemological category

for understanding not only the nature of man, but also the affects and effects of sin and

grace upon humanity. What was lost at the fall was not our ability to reason, but our

ability to reason, or do anything at all to the glory of God, because we now seek to be an

authority unto ourselves without reference to God. In doing so we eliminate the very

thing that must be known in order to say anything of value: God is. Thus the only cure for

our condition is that God would condescend and be made like us, take on the image of

God and redeem our minds back to Himself by grace. We have seen that the fall

primarily occurred in the mind, and that our regeneration begins there as well. Hopefully

this paper will be the impetus into further study into the Scriptures regarding the noetic

affects and effects of sin and grace.

16
 Bibliography

1. Bahnsen, Greg. ―False Antithesis: A Critique of the Notion of Antithesis in Francis

Schaeffer‘s Apologetic,‖ Antithesis 1.3 May/June (1990).
2. ____________, ―The Crucial Concept of Self-Deception in Presuppositional
Apologetics,‖ Westminster Theological Journal LVII (1995) pp1-31.
3. ____________, Van Til‘s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R
Publishing, 1998.
4. Berkouwer, G.C. Man: The Image of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962.
5. Budziszewski. ―Escape From Nihilism,‖
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9801/budziszewski.html
6. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, 2008.
7. Clark, Gordon H. The Biblical Doctrine of Man. Jefferson, MD. The Trinity
Foundation, 1984.
8. Dowey, Edward. The Knowledge of God in the Theology of Calvin. Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1994.
9. Edwards, Jonathan. Sermon: Man’s Natural Blindness in the Things of Religion,
1739.
10. Ernest, James D. ―The Patristic Inheritance in Calvin‘s Understanding of Sin as an
Obstacle to Theological Knowledge,‖ Reformation & Revival Journal 13.4 Fall
(2004) pp94-109.
11. Frame, John. Apologetics to the Glory of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing,
1994.
12. ___________, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R
Publishing, 1987.
13. Fuller, Daniel P. ―The Spirit‘s Role in Biblical Interpretation,‖ in Scripture, Tradition,
and Interpretation ed. W. Ward Gasque and Willaim Sanford LaSor; Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1979.
14. Grabill, Stephen J. ―Natural Law and the Noetic Effects of Sin: The Faculty of
Reason in Francis Turretin‘s Theological Anthropology,‖ Westminster Theological
Journal 67 (2005) pp261-279.
15. Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Theology. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press,
1981.
16. Helm, Paul. ―John Calvin, the sensus divinatatis, and the noetic effects of sin,‖
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 43 (1998) pp87-107.
17. Hoitenga, Dewey J. ―The Noetic Effects of Sin: A Review Article,‖ in Calvin
Theological Journal 38, (2003). pp68-102.
18. Hynson, ―Theological Encounter: Brunner and Buber.‖ Journal of Ecumenical
Studies 12 no 3 Sum 1975, pp349-366.
19. Moroney, Stephen K. The Noetic Effects of Sin: A Historical and Contemporary
Exploration of How Sin Affects Our Thinking. Lanham, MD. Lexington Books,
1999.
20. Oliphint, K. Scott. ―Jonathan Edwards: Reformed Apologist‖, Westminster
Theological Journal 57 (1995) pp165-186.
21. ______________, Reasons for Faith. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2006.

17
22. Plantinga, Alvin. Warranted Christian Belief. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press, 2000.
23. Snoeberger, Mark A. ―Noetic Sin, Neutrality, And Contexualization: How Culture
Receives the Gospel,‖ Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 9 (2004) pp345-378.
24. Stott, John R.W. The Message of Romans. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press,
1994.
25. Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith. Phillipsburgs, NJ: P&R Publishing,
1980.
26. ________________, The Reformed Pastor and Modern Thought. Phillipsburgs, NJ:
P&R Publishing, 1971.
27. Wenham, Gordon. Genesis 1-15. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1987.
28. Westphal, Merold. "Taking St. Paul Seriously: Sin as an Epistemological Category,"
in Christian Philosophy. ed. T. P. Flint; Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame
Press, 1990
29. Wilson, Douglas. ―Apologetics and the Heart,‖ Antithesis 1.4 July/Aug. (1990)
30. Wingard Jr., John C. ―Sin and Skepticism about the Trustworthiness of Our Cognitive
Endowment,‖ in Philosophia Christi 6.2 (2004). pp249-262.
31. Zemek Jr., George J. ―Aiming the Mind Grace Theological Journal, 5.2 (1984)
pp205-227.

18