David writes to ask how, from a “two kingdoms” perspective one should think about the question of whether the state should sanction homosexual marriage.
The moral law of God has been revealed in creation and re-stated, in the context of the national covenant with Israel. For the purposes of deciding deciding post-theocratic civil questions, the national covenant having been fulfilled by Christ and thus having expired and having been abrogated, it is proper to appeal to the natural revelation of the moral law in creation. A second question is one of public policy that, in this instance, is to be decided by popular ballot (via the proposition system in California) and probably a series of appeals and court cases however the ballot measure comes out.
This post will address the first of these two questions, i.e. the principles on which this question should be decided. I am not commenting directly on the current ballot measure.
Until recently it has always been clear to the Christian church that same-sex (homosexual, now euphemistically referred to as “gay”) relations are contrary to God’s law. Some scholars however, e.g. John Boswell, have argued over the last twenty-five years that earlier periods in church history were more approving of homosexuality than once thought. Boswell’s claims have encountered significant resistance and there is good reason to doubt them.
A second problem is that, so far as I’ve read, in contrast to our own times, most of the ancient Christian writers were not, by contemporary standards, very explicit about homosexual behavior. Doubtless some will attempt to capitalize on the rhetorical restraint of earlier times as a sort of tacit approval of homosexuality. In fact, however, earlier Christian writers were reluctant to “spell out” or to discuss homosexuality explicitly because they regarded as so vile, sinful, and contrary to nature that they they tended simply to quote certain passages as self-evident, e.g. 1 Cor 6:9, as one finds in Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians (ch. 5) and to leave it at that.
Third, though 1 Cor 6:9 is quite explicit in the ESV: ” Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality…” it’s not quite as clear in the older English translations. E.g. the AV seems, in our vulgar age, less pointed regarding homosexuality: “neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind….” Interestingly, Tyndale’s translation of this passage reads, in part, “neither they that do lechery with men” is less pointed than the ESV but more direct than the AV. Did the AV intentionally soften Tyndale’s language or was the language of the AV unequivocal in 1611? Thus, though the ESV is helpfully direct, the more restrained language of earlier periods has, in our time where subtlety in indirect speech is wasted, created some unintentional ambiguity and thus an opening for revisionists to argue that the tradition has been misunderstood.
Robert Gagnon has addressed the biblical teaching on homosexuality at length.
Thence to the question of the teaching of natural law regarding homosexuality. First, the most obvious point. Even if a conception occurs in a laboratory, it requires the contributions of a male and a female. The contributions of the same sex would produce no offspring. Only heterosexual relations can produce offspring. Biologically considered, it homosexuality is a dead end. In that respect, though biologists and other scientists can easily point us to examples of types of homosexuality among other species, among mammals, with respect to procreation, homosexuality is literally fruitless. With respect to the judgment of God on sin, however, it is not fruitless. Paul says as much in Rom 1:24-27:
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
It is interesting, however, that Paul nowhere appeals to the Mosaic civil code to prescribe penalties for such behavior. Perhaps he assumed the view later summarized in the Institutes of the Corpus Iuris Civilis 4.18.4:
In criminal cases public prosecutions take place under various statutes, including the Lex Julia de adulteris, “…which punishes with death (gladio), not only those who violate the marriages of others, but also those who dare to commit acts of vile lust with [other] men (qui cim masculis nefandum libidinem exercere audent).”
Classical culture, however, was not unanimous about how it viewed homosexuality. This is an area of clear contrast between the biblical and pagan views of humanity (anthropology). Greco-Roman culture generally despised effeminate (hence the ambiguity of some of the older translations 1 Cor 6:9) behavior among men, and there were laws on the books restricting and punishing homosexuality but they had been enforced unevenly. The existence of these laws reflect the natural knowledge of the law inscribed on the human conscience. The classical pagan disgust at the confusion of gender roles implied in extreme effeminacy—here we should be careful not to set, e.g. John Wayne as the standard of masculinity—also reflects the creational law against homosexuality. After Constantine, The language and intent of Roman law became progressively clearer concerning homosexuality as a civil matter but appeals to nature and natural revelation occur repeatedly in the Justinian code.
Late modernity has been nothing if not total war against creational boundaries in the guise of criticism against all artificial restrictions. It’s true that some laws are mere social conventions and can be changed. It’s always fun to look at old laws to see how “antiquated” and irrelevant they seem. For example, there may still be vagrancy laws on the books that require a gentleman to carry a certain amount of cash with him, as proof that he has not homeless. Today, in an age of credit and debit cards, the enforcement of such a law would be arguably unjust. The same cannot be said for the civil enforcement of basic marriage laws and restrictions on sexual behavior. These laws are not rooted in a temporary social convention but in the nature of things.
It is the creational (and biblical) office of the magistrate to assert and protect creational/natural boundaries by promoting civil peace and justice. The magistrate does so by preventing and punishing crimes against persons, nature, and the state. In the context of the Greco-Roman world, the force of Rom 13:4, “he does not bear the sword in vain” was unmistakable. The noun “sword” (μαχαιραν) was a metonymy for the function of the sword in decapitating those sentenced to death. It is the creational function of the state to preserve order and require humans to live within their creational boundaries.
In this respect, it is important for Christians to understand that the civil kingdom is not a covenant of grace but a covenant of works: do this and live. It is not the vocation of the civil magistrate to dispense undeserved favor. The magistrate may show mercy or restraint or clemency but not grace. Mercy is not giving to someone what he deserves. No member of civil society has a “right” to mercy or a “right” to do as he will, without regard to the rest of that society. Because the civil kingdom is a covenant of works, the magistrate is also restrained by the natural law. The magistrate is restrained from telling a citizen how me may or must approach God or how he must think. In the civil kingdom a citizen has certain natural, inalienable rights. The magistrate violates natural law when he deprives a citizen of his life or his natural liberty (freedom from restraint) unjustly. The magistrate’s function is not to create a (Marxist) utopia but to preserve peace in order that citizens may fulfill their vocations before God and man.
One of the areas in which the magistrate has a legitimate interest is the regulation of marriage and the constitution of the family. The family is constituted by marriage as a male and a female and whatever children may issue from that marriage or be adopted into it. It is a creational institution. The state does not create families or marriages but it recognizes and governs them. In the nature of things, the definition of fundamental social institutions such as the family or marriage, which is the beginning of the family, the social and civil recognition of the covenant between persons to live together as a natural family. These natural, creational institutions are fundamental to any society. If marriages and families are defined in homosexual terms, then society itself is redefined and its relations to nature are radically re-defined. This is why the magistrate has an interest in marriage and families generally. If nature or creational boundaries are no longer normative for marriage and family then what norms are there? All social relations devolve to mere convention (will), become arbitrary, and constantly re-defined. When nature is recognized and obeyed, bestiality is illegal because it is contrary to nature. If bestiality is defined as mere convention then it can only be prohibited on the basis of will or convention or in the interests of the animals. What if someone decides or gives plausible arguments that his animal has given consent? What then of pedophilia? Apart from the constraints of nature and natural law, why exactly should civil society forbid it? This is not a “slippery slope” (if this happens, then that will happen) argument. I am merely pointing out questions that already exist (there are advocates of both pedophila and bestiality) and the necessary consequence of denying the existence of nature and natural boundaries. The magistrate has a right and a duty to enforce marriage and divorce laws in order to enforce natural, creational boundaries in the same way he has a duty to protect a society from theft and fraud.
To anticipate an objection, this is not a theocratic argument. It is not the magistrate’s duty to police every sort of violation of natural law and sin. For example, no one but theocrats want the state enforcing obedience to the first table of the law. The magistrate’s natural sphere of concern and authority is in the second table. Civil authorities have a right and duty to arrange a calendar (e.g. public holidays) of working and resting according to the creational pattern, to prevent and punish theft, to prevent and punish murder, and to regulate public sexual morality. Marriage is a form of regulation of sexual morality.
It’s a binary choice. Either the civil authority has a right and interest in enforcing natural law relative to marriage and sexual morality or he does not. Even the advocates of homosexual marriage generally favor some form of civil regulation of marriage and sexual expression. For example, they generally admit that the state should not permit adults to marry children (because children cannot grant consent). They generally concede that the the state should not permit humans to “marry” or have sexual relations with non-human creatures, if only on the grounds that the latter constitutes cruelty to animals or because animals cannot give consent.
Thus, this isn’t really a discussion about whether the state should regulate sexual behavior or even marriage but to what extent and on what grounds. I argue that the state should regulate marriage on the basis of natural, creational law and that those who advocate pushing back the boundaries of marriage to include homosexual marriage are advocating the recognition of the violation of natural, creational law recognized in the West by pagans and Christians for two thousand years.
Thus, the argument against homosexual marriage is not a “theocratic” argument, but an argument from the nature of things grounded in natural revelation, in the most fundamental observations about how human beings relate to one another, about what it is to be human, about what it is to be a civil society, about what a family is, and ultimately, that there really is such a thing as nature or creation itself that limits the choices of sovereign, ostensibly autonomous late modern humans.
Update 9 Dec 08, Mollie Hemmingway responds to a recent Newsweek story on a related topic.
I checked out the etymology once of the word “gay”. It wasn’t exactly what many people within reformed churches make it out to be. “Happy” is the general usage (with obvious sexual implications), and I will concede that the term is in its usage a euphemism. Its etymology though seems in the order of describing a person disposed to wanton lustful acts.
“Did the AV intentionally soften Tyndale’s language or was the language of the AV unequivocal in 1611?”
Hoho. Methinks the translators might have wanted to stay alive.
Thank you for this clear-headed discussion, Dr. Clark. The church has generated a lot of heat, and very little light on this; I appreciate what you have said here.
Bravo, Dr. Clark! Truly *Reformational* ….
Ron,
Don’t worry, the DeVos’s here in Grand Rapids are doing their level best to make up for their Blackwater debacles by writing fat checks to anti-lawmakers in CA and FL (gay marriage isn’t on Michigan’s ballot this year). I know it’s a really small step to re-instituting OT laws, but soft theonomy is better than nothing, right?
Scott,
What are your thoughts on the efforts of Misty Irons?
Great question, Z (Re: Mrs. Irons)
Yes, I do not expect perfection in the sanctification of the culture any more than I expect perfection in my own personal sanctification. But I do expect direction in both, and that toward conformity to God’s Word.
Ron,
If that’s true then theonomy isn’t helping you any better than Keswickianism is helping the revivalists with regard to personal sanctification or solo scriptura is helping the Biblicists conform to God’s word. I know you all are sincere, but sincerity doesn’t make up for misguidance.
Z, given the ambiguity of Natural Law theory, who is more likely to be misguided? The one who appeals to Natural Law, or the one who appeals to the clear revelation in God’s Word?
Ron,
Good question insofar as it helps highlight the (problematic) psychology of theonomy; it helps affirm my suspicions about what may really be at work here beyond just bad hermeneutics. Pardon the impiety, but I call it “breaking the God-glass” (i.e. “Eek! The homosexuals are coming to get married! Quick, pull out your Bibles! Whatever you do don’t appeal to the creation we all share, we might lose the day!”)
Theonomists seem to fear something going wrong or the vulnerability of a bad read on the creational order. What is not taken into account, however, is how this happens and how we all (including theonomists) live with it every day. One’s own eyes, feet or mind—indeed, conscience—lets him down every day. But those are God-created tools we are given by which to navigate the world. Just because they are fallible, even highly fallible, is no reason to despise them and look to substitutes in the vain hope that the tensions will be solved. I realize you’re no Clark fan, but I am convinced that the psychology of theonomy is a function of the QIRC and serves as a measure of not only our deeply seated insecurities but the equally vain efforts to make the world shake out the way we think it should and solve inherent tensions. Theonomy is a way of being relevant: While Osteen appeals to chintzier felt needs, theonomy appeals to those of a more staid and sober streak who want their felt needs of statecraft met.
But take a stroll down to the local precinct and read the laws on the books. Chances are you’ll find plenty with which to disagree. Is the answer really to abuse the Bible, which, per Jesus himself, is all about him and not a way to construct society?
Ron,
How do you reconcile your skepticism toward natural law (and implicitly natural revelation) with the Reformed tradition? The older Reformed writers were virtually unanimous (and I only say “virtually” in case there’s some writer of whom I’m not aware) that the natural law is sufficiently perspicuous that the magistrate can form a civil code from it. It is perspicuous because it is revealed and we are constituted to be the recipients of revelation and further, the law is ot only objectively available in creation but in the human conscience. This is Paul’s teaching.
You call natural law ambiguous, but the Reformed tradition is unambiguous that the state of Israel with its judicial laws has expired. The judicial law has been abrogated. The natural law is the general equity. Relative to civil law, it’s the 2nd table.
I realize that you do find this satisfactory, but doesn’t that suggest that you should re-evaluate your standard? By What Standard? Indeed! The revealed Word teaches us that there is creational revelation of the moral will of God. Your skepticism then implicitly challenges Rom 1-2.
Zrim,
As little as I recall what Misty actually wrote, I’m hesitant to say. I recall thinking that she didn’t account for natural law/revelation. This has been my general criticism of some of Meredith’s later formulations re the Sabbath and the like. The decalogue isn’t just Sinaitic, but rather it is a republication, mutatis mutandis, of the natural, creational law. If I recall correctly that Misty was arguing for homosexual marriage then I would reply that she’s arguing for a violation of creational law. I think my view is neither theonomic/theocratic nor that of Misty Irons.
Of course the real question is whether or not the Magisterial Reformers mean the same thing by Natural Law as John Locke and the Post-Enlightenment era (cf: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc…) mean by Natural Law. I would venture to say they do not.
Benjamin,
No, they did not. David VanDrunen and others have argued that. I’ve argued that in an essay I did some years ago and now available online, “Calvin and the Lex Naturalis.”
I make no challenge to Romans 1-3. I agree there is a Law within us, but that selfsame Law has been in mankind from the beginning, even before the Fall. But God saw fit to give a specific, written Law none the less. Since He did this before the Fall, the necessity of Special Revelation for the life of man in the creation is normative (unless we believe God acted superfluously in giving said Law). How much more does fallen man need the Word of God for every good work?
If we do not need God’s written Word in the public sphere, and appeals to Natural Law suffice for public ethics, why have any written laws or contracts whatsoever? Couldn’t the state policeman simply pull over drivers who were driving in an unsafe manner, and write them a citation for however much his appeal to Natural Law dictated to him at the time? Who needs vehicle code? If natural law is so clear and an appeal to natural law is sufficient for ethics in the public sphere, why write it down into formal legislation? Could it be that there might be some folks who have competing appeals to natural law?
A few more questions in summary: How are competing appeals to Natural Law resolved (like my appeal above and your appeal that Scripture is unnecessary in the public sphere)? When faced with such competing appeals, how does one know who is making a legitimate appeal and who is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness? It all seems very subjective and arbitrary. Who gets to be the arbiter of Natural Law? The nine gods of DC?
Ron, How are competing appeals to Scripture resolved? When faced with such competing appeals, how does one know who is making a legitimate appeal and who is supressing the truth in unrighteousness. It all seems very subjective and arbitrary. Who gets to be the arbiter of Special Revelation? The nine gods of DC?
See, I agree that competing claims to both Scripture and proper-function reasoning can be resolved. Certainly you can’t demonstrate your resolution with 100% Cartesian certainty, indubitable premises that all rational men are bound to accept by simple reflection, and that applies to both exegesis and argument analysis.
Or, since I assume you think God’s existence is clear (Rom. 1), why write books where the arguments are written down? Why write them out formally. Is the teaching of the Trinity clear? Why have books on it? Or, upon reading this do you se that it’s a non-sequitur to argue: x is clear, therefore we don’t need to write down x.
I mean, are you saying thta it wasn’t clear to the Israelites that they shouldn’t steal and murder, they were struggling to fit this concept into their every day lives, and so it had to be written down? That just seems absurd.
I am also unlcear what you mean by “the necessity of Special revelation for the life of man.” I agree with what the confession says here, or what II Tim. 3 says, but your claim is a bit ambiguous.
Are you saying that I need special revelation to adjudicate wich logics – classical or non-classical – is the correct one? Is God an Aristotelian, Fregeian, or Priestian? Which verse tells me that paraconistent logic is faulty, or that the principle of logical explosian is valid?
Or, perhaps you would say we don’t need to go to Scripture for that. But then, you now appear so arbitrary, which is something you staunchly forbid in others; and that is arbitrary.
If “x is clear, therefore we don’t need to write down x” is a non-sequitur, then why didn’t you answer the question and give a reason why we “write x down?” The points in scripture you mention may be more or less clear to any given individual, so the extra-biblical writings on those topics may be more or less elucidating to any given individual. But if it were clear to everyone, the writing of a book would be superfluous and unprofitable.
I don’t think anyone here disagrees as to what constitutes crime, Paul. But what about punishment? How are the two distinguished? Is it possible for the Civil Magistrate to legislate a punishment that is actually criminal in and of itself? What standard is used to determine whether or not this is the case? Natural Law? Please demonstrate.
And concerning competing scriptural appeals: Of course there are and they would be resolved the same way competing appeals to NL would be resolved. But the starting point is much clearer in special revelation than it is in general revelation, specifically with regard to penology.
By “the necessity of Special revelation for the life of man”, I mean, “the necessity of Special revelation for the life of man.” God does nothing in vain. He gave Adam a Law for pre-fall life in the garden. Therefore Special Revelation was necessary for pre-fall life. How much more necessary is it for post-fall life when we are prone to suppress the truth in unrighteousness?
The confession says that the general equity of the judicial laws still applies (WCF XIX.IV). Electrocution is generally equivalent to stoning. But not doing anything is not generally equivalent to stoning.
It seems to me that the best NL argument for civil penology is that the civil magistrate is *not obligated* to institute biblical law, but he is at liberty to make an effort to do so if it pleases him. It this correct? If not, it would seem that any understanding of NL is available to the civil magistrate save those that find themselves in Holy Scripture.
Ron, then you’ve answered your question since no one is saying that the laws are clear to *all*, there’s infants, mentally disabled, etc.
Of course it is “possible” that a civil magistrate could legislate a law that is criminal in and of itself. But then on that standard, it’s possible that a “theonomist” civil magistrate could legislate a criminal punishment.
Apparently, according to you, “logic” isn’t “necessary for life,” and with that damning admission, I bid you adieu.
You bid me adieu? Sure you do. And without addressing the central question.
Sure a “theonomist” civil magistrate *could* legislate a criminal punishment, but not if he is following the general equity of the judicial law(unless you think that would be criminal contra WCF XIX.IV).
The central question is the necessity of special revelation. You haven’t addressed this. Why did God reveal Himself in special revelation if natural revelation is sufficient for life in the creation? Does God really act so superfluously?
Ron, apparently I can reason however I want to since norms of reason are out the window. So, natural law is the case because ice cream cones don’t have bones. As odd as it seems, Ron thinks proper reasoning isn’t essential for “life in creation.” But apparently Ron looks both ways when he crosses the street since he’s here posting. Even Ron knows that it’s either the bus or him, but not both of them!
Sure, a NL legislate *could* legistlate a criminal punishment, but not if he’s following Natural Law. Ron just can’t see how all his arguments can be used against him. That’s ’cause, as is the problem with a lot presuppositionalists these days, Ron is only good at asking “the other guy” questions. Bet you wish those Bahnsen tapes covered how to handle it when the shoe’s on the other foot!
Ron, I’m a bit worried about you given your last question. God revealed himself in Special revelation to give us the gospel. To give us *saving* knowledge. Indeed, when you read the NT and it talks about the knowledge we have from Special Revelation, the focus is on knowing more about our justification et al, but I wouldn’t expect a federal visionist to read over those parts all that carefully. Apparently you think God gave us special revelation as some kind of “7 keys to success” booklet so that we could “have our best life now.”
Really, Ron, why is the Bible needed to adjudicate one area of normativity and not another? If it is the case that we *should* reason properly, and God will hold us responsible for *all* of our thoughts, then I want to know whether clasical or non-classical logic is the case, darnet! The Bible is needed as a handbook for one field of normativity and not another. Really Ron, “Does God act so superfluously?”
By the way, Ron, what’s the *punishment* for violating the speed limit and how can you be sure it’s not a “criminal punishment.”?
At any rate, if the Bible teaches NL, then you’re pretty much out of luck.
As far as the whole “punishment” thing goes…
Notice the punishments in Ezra. 7Artaxerxes says should be imposed if anyone violate shis edict. After reading the letter from Xerxes, Ezra *praises* the king for these kinds of *punishments*:
“Whoever does not obey the law of your God and the law of the king must surely be punished by death, banishment, confiscation of property, or imprisonment.”
Wow, banishment, legalized theft, and jail!!
Maybe Ezra was just glad-handing?
And with that I bid you adieu…
R. Scott Clark writes:
I don’t get it. At least not fully. Natural revelation, as we all observe it here in California, especially if you go to Hillcrest, seems to reveal that some people relate to each other in a way that we ‘bigots’ would call filthy, perverted, and abominable. The most fundamental observations of the human state that hasn’t been touched by Christianity, is one of murder, sexual immorality, idolatry, etc. (Jim Elliot comes to mind). I believe we used to call this ‘fundamental observation’ “barbaric.” Which leads me to my next question.
Didn’t the very word ‘civilized’ come from the idea that a people group had been Christianized to some extent? Hence the barbarians from the North and the Christians in the South.
Next set of questions:
Would R. Scott Clark say that the “Natural Law” that humans can/do discover (NOT from the scriptures) ever contradict God’s moral law? (assuming they discovered it correctly)
Would R. Scott Clark say that the “Mosaic Law” ever contradicted God’s moral law?
(These are yes/no questions, so should be pretty easy. I am not saying don’t elaborate, but that answering really shouldn’t require the tactic of linking to a lengthy article somewhere)
Kazooless
Another area of questioning…
R. Scott Clark states:
And also in a comment:
So, in an ideal world, I personally want the state to enforce obedience to the first table of the law. But I always thought myself to be a ‘theonomist.’ Are you saying here that I am actually a theocrat? Or maybe in view of the second quote I provide here, you’re saying that a theonomist is a type or subset of theocrat? Is that right?
Kazooless
Last set of questions for the night:
On the premise that all should do good and avoid evil,
How does one go from, I see that ‘x’ is ‘y.’ (Man marry’s woman is the case)
then
‘y’ produces ‘z.’ (The case produces children)
Therefore ‘z’ is ‘good.’
I know that there are lots to add in there, like this family unit brings up stable children that will then grow up and start the cycle over again, and all sorts of ‘observations.’ But why can we give the label of ‘good’ or ‘evil’ to any of these ‘observations’ or ‘results?’
Furthermore, even if one were to stipulate, that “yup, this traditional family thing is good,” I don’t see why that means “untraditional family is evil.” Couldn’t we observe that two ‘married’ sodomites can provide the same ‘results’ that the traditional family provides and then call it ‘good?’
I hope these are good questions.
Good Night.
kazooless
Paul exhibits his minimalistic view of scripture in the statement,
Apparently you haven’t read the Bible or the Confession. Three words for you. EVERY GOOD WORK.
If Paul thinks the Bible reveals to us saving knowledge exclusively, and if the Bible prepares man for every good work, then Paul must think we are saved by good works.
Ron calls the gospel “minimalist.”
Ron can’t seen to “get” that I’ve been trying to get him to come clean on what he means by “every” and “life”
Apparently Ron thinks that good, logical thinking isn’t a “god work.” We are supposed to “think thoughts after God.” We are supposed to love God with all our “mind.” So, why didn’t God tell us whether paraconsistent logic or classical logic or traditional (Aristotelian) logic was the proper one? I feel so “unprepared for good thinking works” now.
And, notice that in my post I never used the word “exclusively.”
Oh, btw, part of what Christ purchased for me was my sanctification. Sanctification is part of salvation. Didn’t I mention “saving knowledge.” Apparently Ron’s a Pelegian who thinks that God gives that initial “oomph” and then Ron does the rest. Looks at the “life manuel” and “puts the plan into action.”
Oh, and Ron would rather continue to pick on the views of others rather than defend his own. Or, maybe he’s franctically looking in his gld plated Theonomy in Christian Ethics book for answers to my question.
Ron. Read it. Not there.
“Of course the real question is whether or not the Magisterial Reformers mean the same thing by Natural Law as John Locke and the Post-Enlightenment era (cf: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc…) mean by Natural Law. I would venture to say they do not.”
We can add Thomas Aquinas, for good measure. I agree natural law for the magisterial Reformers did mean not the same thing in philosophy (including so-called pia philosophia).
“Natural revelation, as we all observe it here in California, especially if you go to Hillcrest, seems to reveal that some people relate to each other in a way that we ‘bigots’ would call filthy, perverted, and abominable. The most fundamental observations of the human state that hasn’t been touched by Christianity, is one of murder, sexual immorality, idolatry, etc. (Jim Elliot comes to mind). I believe we used to call this ‘fundamental observation’ “barbaric.” ”
But St. Paul is very clear in Romans 1. It’s not natural revelation but the *perversion* of natural revelation. And he seems to “equate” the perversion of natural revelation with the revelation of the wrath of God.
“Would R. Scott Clark say that the “Natural Law” that humans can/do discover (NOT from the scriptures) ever contradict God’s moral law? (assuming they discovered it correctly)”
The Moral Law *is* the Natural Law, and vice-versa. The Moral Law reveals the eternal and unchangeable will of God for humankind in its particular historical and existential situation. In other words, the Law as a concept is not an *abstraction*. Rather it is very *concrete* and is only realised in this fallen creation. Natural Law is a kind of a “subtitute” (but not of a top-down incarnational direction which would make it a *mediator*) but a “temporary replacement” (bottom-up) as a result of the loss of communion with God and the concomittant divine *image* (and likeness). The Law therefore is a punishment imposed on mankind’s “upward” fall, to “limit” or curb its ambitatio divinatis. The Law does not offer the possibility of freedom but rather takes away freedom. The opposite of Law is faith. This is why Christ is the *end* of the Law to all who *believes*. Law is no blessing but a curse. Of course I cannot take this any further for fear of causing unnecessary offence to my dear Reformed brethren. I too am Reformed with strong Lutheran sympathies.
And Natural Law (ala the Reformation) is entirely consistent with the notion of *imputed* rights. God is not “beholden” to some “eternal law” (lex aeterna) but has decided according to His sovereign will to impose certain conditions which are in-built into the creation order. This does not mean of course that Natural Law is only analogical to the will of God but that only there would have been no Moral Law had Adam and Eve did not fell into sin. The Law is not an end it itself but an instrument of the Spirit in its three uses (two for some confessional Lutherans, i.e. subsuming the third category under the first two).
Our theonomist friends tell us that we need special revelation for public policy. They say that natural revelation is too obscure, so we need the consistency of the theonomic system.
Let’s look at the consistency of the theonomic system.
Enter Greg Bahnsen. Granted, he was the most cogent and scholarly of the theonomists. But his arguments were arguments for the *idea* of theonomy. As far as how particular case laws apply today, he had that less worked out.
Enter Rousas Rushdoony. He wrote three long volumes on how case laws would apply. He came along and said, “here’s the idea, and here’s how it works out.”
But Rushdoony even went so far as to include ceremonial and dietary aspects; Vic Lockman, the cartoon theonomist, agreed.
Enter Gary North (won’t mention his nickname). “No,” he says, “we really should use stoning and not the chair for the punishments. It’s clearly expressed in God’s Word.”
Now theonomist A says the Sabbath-law still applies to the state; whereas theonomist B disagrees. Theonomist C says he is not so sure anymore if idolatry is a crime (Bahnsen was unsure before his death), whereas theonomist D still thinks it is.
Theonomist E makes arguments that wearing two kinds of fiber or planting two kinds of seed no longer applies, whereas theonomist F doesn’t buy the arguments.
As you can see, I could go on and on.
I am not saying that the above *refutes* theonomy.
But I am saying that theonomy doesn’t offer us any more consistency or “clarity” than what critics of natural law theory say it offers.
Many of us have had to wade through the theonomy/reconstruction literature. It is evident from some of the posts here that some of our theonomic brothers haven’t done their homework. It isn’t as if I haven’t provided you fellows with lists of resources on natural law.
Once more:
1. Resources for Reformed Approaches to Natural Law
Not all of these are online. Ask your reference librarian, in any public library, to order them for you by inter-library loan. It should be free or nearly free.
2. Here are some other posts on NL.
3. Some considerations from the confessions:
The WCF opens thus:
“Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation.”
Note that the divines did not say that the light of nature is “not sufficient” for civil government but for salvation. For the divines, as for Calvin, civil government is one thing, salvation is another. Theonomists confuse these two things far too often.
1.6: “there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature….” Notice that the divines taught that there are some circumstances “common to human actions and societies” that are ordered by the “light of nature.” The divines did not share the theonomic/Barthian skepticism about natural revelation and natural law. If I remember my history, the divines did not write during the Enlightenment. I think they were Christians and Reformed at that.
It’s worth noting how often the divines speak about “the nature” of this or that, including the human nature of Christ (ch. 8). Yes, special revelation teaches us a great deal about the human nature of Christ but not everything. Scripture assumes, as do the divines, that, if our sense perception is working correctly, we perceive with them truth about human nature. Scripture doesn’t teach us what an arm or a leg or skin is or even how to eat. Indeed, Scripture doesn’t teach us a great many things about daily life or natural human existence. It doesn’t intend to teach us those things. It intends to teach us about sin and salvation. How do we know what sort of humanity Jesus had, that he is really consubstantial with us? We know it because we know from experience what humanity is and we know from Scripture that he was like us in every respect, sin excepted. If we become skeptical about “nature” as a genuine source of knowledge we risk our Christology. The same sort of argument applies to the doctrine of the sacraments (29:5). The divines assume that we know what bread and wine are and what their nature is. Scripture does not teach us what is the “substance and nature” of bread and wine, only that they remain substantially bread and wine. We need Scripture to teach us what the sacraments are but nature teaches us what bread and wine are.
The Canons of Dort (RE 1.4) make a similar distinction between what “the light of nature” can and cannot do. The light of nature is insufficient for salvation, but it is sufficient for the ordering of common civil life. This teaching is explicit in CD 3/4/.4:
“There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, and natural things, and of the difference between good and evil, and shows some regard for virtue and for good outward behavior. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. By no means, further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted and hinders in unrighteousness, which by doing he becomes inexcusable before God.”
Back to the WCF 10.4: “…be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature….” The Confession assumes that it is possible for human beings to order their lives according to the “light of nature.” A life thus lived is lived according to natural law. This law keeping is insufficient for salvation, but civil life is about law it is not about salvation.
20.4: …for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature….” On Christian liberty, the divines connect “the powers” ordained by God to maintain order (which was a problem during the English civil war!) with this troublesome expression, “the light of nature.” This language and way of thinking about civil life was well and deeply ingrained in Reformed orthodoxy in the 16th and 17th century. In this article the Confession even contrasts this source of knowledge with the “ceremonial” laws that had expired because they had been fulfilled.
21.1: “The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might.” The contrast here is between common life, which is lived according to “the light of nature” and stated worship. Instead of applying the RPW to “all of life” (and thus to none of it really) the divines distinguish between daily life and stated worship. The RPW applies to the latter. It is derived from special not general revelation. Do not miss the fact, however, that once again the divines appeal to natural revelation. They always assume that, for civil life and order, it can be known. They even go so far as to teach that “the law of nature” teaches “that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship….” Unlike our theonomists, the divines believed that there is a natural law, that it can be and is known, that it contains specific precepts that are revealed with sufficiently clarity to be applied to specific instances.
The skepticism that our theonomists have demonstrated toward the perspicuity of natural law is not only downright late modern (who can know anything really?) but contra confessional.
Paul, I didn’t call “the gospel” “minimalist”. I call *your version* of the gospel minimalistic. Individual Justification is only the part of the Creation being reconciled to God. You said,
But then your comment was pointless. I asked, “Why did God reveal Himself in special revelation if natural revelation is sufficient for life in the creation?” Notice the all encompassing nature of the question (i.e “life in the creation” *includes* eternal glory which has been the goal of life in the creation from the beginning), and your response was essentially that He *DIDN’T* reveal himself for life in the creation, but rather only revealed Himself *for salvation, justification, et all*, making the apparently “enlightened” distinction between carnal life and spiritual life. You didn’t mention sanctification specifically. You even mocked my view that scriptures address the whole of life by comparing it to Olsteen.
Further, you didn’t even address EVERY GOOD WORK. If normal isn’t neutral, then it must be good or evil. If it is good, good works are only such as God has commanded in His holy Word, and not those devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention.
To your “question”, I assume you mean Ezra 7? I don’t see how Ezra 7 is a problem for the theonomic thesis. Ezra specifically praises God for “put[ing] it into the king’s heart to bring honor to the house of the LORD in Jerusalem in this way … extend[ing] His good favor to me before the king and his advisers and all the king’s powerful officials.” He nowhere says that Artaxerxes decree was perfect, nor would he since Artaxerxes put his own law in the mix. But if Roe V Wade was overturned tomorrow, and baby killers were threatened with mere imprisonment or loss of property (i.e. fines), rather than the death they deserve under God’s Law, I would still praise God in spite of the fact that the penalties are not biblical.
Dr. Clark asks,
Easy. I don’t read the reformers through the enlightenment realizing that the former preceded the latter, and that doing so would thus be absurd.
So quoting Calvin on Natural Law (like some of the sources you link) is pointless because, as you admit above, he had something entirely different in mind than Descartes. The reformers did not pit Natural Law against God’s Law. Calvin denied that the enforcement of the Tables of the Law could rightly be separated between Church authority and State authority.
.
So not only does he state that God’s Word proves civil authority concerning both tables, he appeals to Natural Law to support the claim as well! But my main point in quoting that is to show that Calvin lived in a day when “no man [had] discoursed of the duty of magistrates, the enacting of laws, and the common weal, without *beginning* with religion and divine worship.” This obviously is no longer the case, but in order to get Calvin, we must keep in mind his fundamental presuppositions on this point. Right discourse on Natural Law, for Calvin, *begins* with religion and divine worship.
Ron,
It is apparent that you have not done the basic secondary or primary reading on this question. I’m not sure how to put this but to say that you’re not really prepared to have this discussion.
Go back, do some basic reading, then come back and we’ll talk. Haven’t we had this conversation before?
Dr. Clark,
Please take me out of that lump of ‘skeptics’ you put me in. I think I pretty much asked questions and gave examples of where my questions came from. I just tend to agree with Paul the Apostle that this law written on the hearts of men is what we naturally tend to suppress in unrighteousness.
I just knew you were going to post links and say do your homework instead of just giving a yes or a no to my specific questions! I hoped you wouldn’t this time.
However, as a theonomist, I do not deny the existence of natural law. Neither did Bahnsen when he wrote his masters thesis, as I have pointed out before. It is the discovering of this natural law that I am asking questions about. It seems to me that all of the ‘obvious’ natural law that has been pointed out to me has had the benefit of your Christian world view to inform it.
kazoo
Kazoo.
You knew the answers to your questions before you posted them. I take them as rhetorical.
I’m a teacher. I can’t do a seminary course here. You need to read. As a teacher I say, “Get thee to a library all the time.”
Don’t I get credit for posting links? How many other sem profs are online discussing theonomy with you? How many other take it seriously enough to even spend the time it took to write two long posts in three days?
Dr. Clark,
You say to Ron:
Maybe you’ve had that discussion with him, I don’t know. But I know you’ve had it with me and others on your blog here and in the Puritan Board. It seems to be a habit with you. You get hard questions and then instead of answering them, you suggest that those asking the questions go and do their homework, thus avoiding the issue all together.
I would still like your answers to these simple questions please:
Kazoo:
Thanks,
Kazoo
K,
I would like you to be Reformed, but what are the “chances” of that? I’d like a lot of things I don’t get!
Have you read my essay on Calvin and Natural Law? Your question suggests that you have not. That’s why I haven’t answered it here because it would continue to facilitate your intellectual laziness.
Josh,
What you point out about theonomists here is valid. But it actually proves that those who say that theonomy is like fundamentalism where they have their safe and easy answers by just going to the Bible are wrong and ignorant (ininformed).
Those that say there are three theonomist rabbi’s and the theonomists have thier torah to go to are basically just revealing their ignorance. Thank you for pointing that out.
What indeed Bahnsen did for the Reformed world was provide a framework within which they could then do the hard work and study to provide legitimate answers to the world of ethics, including but not limited to civil law ethics. Theonomy in Christian Ethics was just a THESIS. But it addressed so very many of the constantly repeated objections to it before the objections ever arose! Theonomy is NOT a matter of simply going to a newly formed torah to get your answer and Josh has just helped prove that. But what he failed to do was disprove the theonomic thesis, which DOESN’T reject “natural law.”
If you find yourself disagreeing with this while reading it, then I say to you (respectfully): “Go back, do some basic reading, then come back and we’ll talk.” 🙂
Now, history shows us that instead of embracing gratefully the hard work that Bahnsen put into his master’s thesis, Kline took personal offence to the little appendix in the published part, and the seminary world that pretty much controls the pulpits in our little Amreican reformed world was won by Kline and his followers.
kazoo
Dr. Clark,
Yes. I did read it. Within days of you suggesting it. I also went to the link where one of your colleagues had a list of suggested reading. Aaron’s Rod blossoming is on my headboard partially read. All of Institutes 4 is read by me now. Lex Rex by Rutherford is on my headboard ready for me to dive into.
I take knowledge seriously and I have not been lazy in this aspect. You say it will take me 2-3 years to get there. Well, you haven’t heard from me on these issues in months. I’m studying.
I ask you to answer these questions here for the purpose of THIS discussion and the intellectual furthering of IT. Yes, I ‘think’ I know your answers, but I’d rather have them confirmed here by you so that time, space, and words aren’t wasted arguing against a straw man. I want to engage with the real issues and not false ones.
I think I put up some rather relevant and thought provoking answers besides the two simple ones I had for you as well.
But anyway, I’ll give my thoughts on what I think your answers are:
Would R. Scott Clark say that the “Natural Law” that humans can/do discover (NOT from the scriptures) ever contradict God’s moral law? (assuming they discovered it correctly)
I believe that the answer here is “NO.”
Would R. Scott Clark say that the “Mosaic Law” ever contradicted God’s moral law?
I am pretty sure that the answer here is “NO.”
Kazoo
Jeff,
When you say that “theonomy does not reject natural law” we need to be more clear here. Theonomy *does* reject natural law *as a basis for civil code.* Granted theonomy, as well as natural law theorists, recognize that natural law is suppressed in unrighteousness.
I am glad to hear a theonomist admit, as did Bahnsen, that theonomy does not offer pat and easy answers for the civil code. My point was merely to demonstrate that theonomists cannot critique natural law theory by saying that it is “subjective” or “unworkable,” which many theonomists have said.
Josh,
Blessings on your head!
I would be more glad to hear the anti-thonomists admit, as did Bahnsen, that theonomy does not offer pat and easy answers for the civil code. Those that do obviously have not “done their homework.”
You say:
Which is just another way of saying that theonomy rejects natural law theory. My gosh, the more I study and look into it, the more I find that there are so many of them anyway. Which NL theory is correct? Acquinas? Oh yeah, the reformers had it right. Wait, no, they sort of had it right, but since they were theocrats, the applied it wrongly.
If God’s moral law doesn’t contradict natural law (not theory), then any proper discovery of NL should be in harmony with God’s moral law. Special revelation gives us this moral law in writing so there shouldn’t be any problems here. The divines had no problem mixing the two, but scripture always trumped ambiguity. Just look at the Larger Catechism section on the law.
kazoo
Ron,
Clark is right, do your homework. While you’re at it, perhaps you can learn how to spell “Osteen.” Other than that, I answered your questions and leveled objections youseem unwilling to address. Apparently for you, your posturing about “answering questions” and “running when there’s a tough question asked,” is simply one more of your sophisms since when your questions are answered you say that they weren’t. Either that, or you can do the minimal amount of thinking on your end to think through the answer someone gives.
Oh, btw, nice fallacious argument:
[1] Ezra didn’t *say* that the punishments of Xerxes were “perfect” or “just” or “not criminal”
therefore,
[2] They were not ____, _____, ____, or _____.
Anyway, thanks for reminding me why I don’t discuss these things with you. I’ll let you alone so you can go and transform your neighborhood and sanctify all those unjustified people.
Just thought to answer the first poster – history depends on how far back you look 1600s is not far enough…
gay
1178, “full of joy or mirth,” from O.Fr. gai “gay, merry,” perhaps from Frank. *gahi (cf. O.H.G. wahi “pretty”). Meaning “brilliant, showy” is from c.1300. Slang for “homosexual” (adj.) is first recorded 1951, apparently shortened from gey cat “homosexual boy,” attested in N. Erskine’s 1933 dictionary of “Underworld & Prison Slang;” the term gey cat (gey is a Scot. variant of gay) was used as far back as 1893 in Amer.Eng. for “young hobo,” one who is new on the road and usually in the company of an older tramp, with catamite connotations. But Josiah Flynt [“Tramping With Tramps,” 1905] defines gay cat as, “An amateur tramp who works when his begging courage fails him” Gey cats were also said to be tramps who offered sexual services to women. The “Dictionary of American Slang” reports that gay (adj.) was used by homosexuals, among themselves, in this sense since at least 1920. Ayto [“20th Century Words”] calls attention to the ambiguous use of the word in the 1868 song “The Gay Young Clerk in the Dry Goods Store,” by U.S. female impersonator Will S. Hays. The word gay in the 1890s had an overall tinge of promiscuity — a gay house was a brothel. The suggestion of immorality in the word can be traced back to 1637. Gay as a noun meaning “a (usually male) homosexual” is attested from 1971. (open source English Etymology)
Paul finally makes a valid point:
I’m so ashamed… I have much to learn from you, brother.
And your “assessment” of my Ezra 7 rebuttal isn’t accurate. I am not arguing anything regarding the justice or not of Artaxerxes’ decree. Where did I say anything like that? I am arguing that Ezra doesn’t say anything about the specific penalties one way or the other. He only praises God for the favor given God’s people by Artaxerxes. You are reading into that praise that Ezra must have given full approval every aspect of the decree. You didn’t even get it right WHO Ezra was praising, much less the content of his praise. Perhaps you should have done your homework on the text first before trying to form an argument from it.
Yo Dr. C,
I’m not sure if you noticed that Mollie Hemingway’s article, which cited your blog with regard to Newsweek’s endorsement of gay marriage, was later linked to by the Weekly Standard’s blog. The WS blog was then linked to by Newsweek’s response to its critics. Indirectly, you’re getting some play in my present playground: DC politics. That fact is pretty ironic (but welcome), considering the subject of your post. Keep up the good word of doing some of the heavy lifting for historic Reformed Christianity!
Stephen
Hi Stephen,
I didn’t know that. Thanks for the heads up!
“Natural” and “creational” law as a basis for civil law quickly gets back to the idea of there being a God who must be worshiped, honored , and obeyed, which implies that at some level the first table of the law comes into the civil jurisdiction. If the civil magistrate is not interested to enforce, within its sphere, commandments 1-4, it’s not long before 6-10 go out the window, and I believe this is what we are seeing in the world today.
Riley,
Okay, where in the NT does any author say anything like this? Paul clearly teaches the natural knowledge of God’s moral law and of the existence and some attributes of God but he never draws your inference, that, e.g., Nero should enforce the first table. Paul had plenty of opportunities to make that case but never didn’t. Did he fail to do his duty?
In the Holy Ghost-inspired writings of Paul the apostle, according to my observation, he never makes the sharp distinction between the civil enforcement of different portions of the moral law as you and many others in American, Reformed circles do. In fact, he simply affirms that the duty of Nero or any other magistrate is to, be an “avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.” Romans 13:4 NKJV When “evil” is mentioned without differentiation between whether it is in reference to God or man, it includes both. I would also add that Paul the apostle did not have to break new ground in this regard, first of all because it was not the major point of his epistles, which were not written to churches and not to the civil magistrates, and secondly, because there was continuity with the already-existing Old Testament conception of godly statesmanship. As references I would cite the commendation of non-Israelite national leaders like Cyrus of Persia for enforcing to some extent the first table of the law, and statements of judgment against non-Israelite nations for idolatry. Blessings upon you!
*were written to churches and not to the civil magistrates
Riley,
Actually, Romans 13 doesn’t make your case. Whereas Paul made no distinction between the different kinds of evil, he gave no evidence that he expected the Roman authorities to act on church disciplinary matters. The implied context of Romans 13 is that the civil gov’t had its sphere for what laws they were to enforce and the Church had its.
And what about Paul’s statements in I Cor 5. He expresses no intention for disciplining the outside world, just the Church (vs 12).
As was mentioned before, the history of times where society was used as a supplemental disciplinary arm of the Church caused the Church to discredit itself.
Who has suggested that the state should step into church disciplinary matters? Certainly not I. Saying that the civil magistrate has a responsibility to promote godliness and true worship is not to say that he is taking over the church’s particular sphere.
Riley,
Anytime you have the gov’t enforcing laws that the Church calls believers to obey but are not infringing on the rights of the rest of society, you automatically have the gov’t, and society through the gov’t, being an auxiliary disciplinary arm of the Church. For example, if the gov’t punishes a person because their belief in God was heretical, then the gov’t is acting as an auxiliary disciplinary arm of the Church
I disagree entirely. The government ought not to decide who may partake of communion or vote in church meetings. But preventing heresy within the civil, outward sphere is not specifically a church matter any more than theft is, which is also something the church preaches against. You used this qualification: “that are not violating the rights of society,” but I do believe that those who go on teaching damnable heresies in public are indeed doing severe damage to the commonwealth and the rights of society.