Originally posted Oct 29, 2008. Revised April 4, 2011.
In the modern period, particularly in the 20th century, many Reformed folk became uneasy with the traditional Reformed language concerning “natural law.” As one who began to enter the Reformed world circa 1980 I mostly found Reformed people to be hostile to any notion of “natural law.” It was usually associated with expressions of autonomy or rationalism. Thus, it was a bit of a struggle when, as university student, I first read Calvin’s Institutes (1559) and found him referring to “natural law” quite a lot. It was difficult to reconcile the way he and others from the classical period of Reformed theology spoke about natural law with the way my contemporaries were speaking of it.
As it turns out, my contemporaries were either ignoring the older Reformed doctrine of natural law or they confusing it with other version of natural law that were not Reformed. Here’s an early essay on Calvin’s doctrine of natural law that distinguishes his use and view of it from others (e.g., Thomas). For those who are deeply skeptical about the possibility of a Reformed doctrine of “natural law” consider the relative frequency with which the Reformed confessions speak about natural law and natural revelation generally.
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 use the expression “the light of nature” in similar contexts in Westminster Larger Catechism Q&As 2, 60, 121, 151 (with thanks to David VanDrunen for pointing me to the WLC references).
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.
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.
WCF 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 divines make a similar point by contrasting the general function of the “law of nature” which teaches us that “a due proportion of time” should “be set apart for the worship of God” and then contrasts that general law with the specific teaching of Scripture regarding the Christian sabbath (21.7).
The contrast here is between common life and stated worship. The former is lived according to “the light of nature.” 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 some contemporary Reformed folk, 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, even by the unregenerate, to specific instances. The skepticism that our some have demonstrated toward the perspicuity of natural law is not only downright late modern (who can know anything really?) but contra confessional.
RELATED RESOURCES
David VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought
——A Biblical Case for Natural Law
——Natural Law in Reformed Theology: Historical Reflections and Biblical Suggestions (audio)
Resources on Two Kingdoms and Natural Law
Stephen Grabill, Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics (with the caveat that his criticisms of my early essay seem to me to be a little harsh. I might express myself a little differently today but I stand by my basic thesis that Calvin and Thomas had different definitions of natural law. Calvin connected and restricted natural law to the decalogue in a way that Thomas did not).
You state that the CD 3/4/.4 makes explicit the teaching that the light of nature “is sufficient for the ordering of common civil life”. But it appears to me that it teaches just the opposite where it states that man “is incapable of using it [the light of nature] aright even in things natural and civil.”
Steve,
I guess it depends upon how one understands what the Synod intended by “incapable” and “aright.” In the immediate context the Synod is addressing the incapacity of fallen man to make use of the glimmerings of natural light and law to know God savingly. The synod was well aware of the tradition before the Reformation and in the Reformation, which is well documented, teaching the existence and relative perspicuity of natural law for civil life. When the Synod says, “aright” it isn’t saying that natural law and light is inherently insufficient but upon the fact that, as all historians know, no society has ever reached perfection or ordered itself according to that revelation as it ought. The modifiers “incapable” and “aright” shouldn’t be construed to mean “not at all.”
Dr Clark,
Thanks for these posts concerning the two-kingdoms, natural law, and homosexuality. In the process of posting concerning homosexuality you brought up marriage and how natural law provides for the institution of marriage. How does this apply to divorce and remarriage on the state level? Cory
Cory,
This might be a better question for an ethics scholar such as David VanDrunen. As a historian I can say that the Reformation de-sacramentalized marriage and permitted divorce. Calvin served as legal counsel in his brother’s divorce from his adulterous wife.
It would seem that the magistrate has a natural interest in the preservation of families as a basic social unit. The liberal divorce laws of the last 50 years have not served social stability very well and seem to be contrary to nature inasmuch as they have and have served to undermine the very nature of a family. The homosexual critics of heterosexual serial monogamy have a point. Either a marriage contract is inviolable, except for a couple of instances, either it is grounded in creation (as Jesus says) or it is not and it’s merely a human, voluntary construct as much modern legislation seems to assume.
It seems to me that natural law cannot function very well at all as a guide for social ethics. What people see in “nature” varies from time to time and from place to place in accordance with the prevalent world view. For example, at a merely empirical level, we can note that homosexuality is a fairly widespread phenomenon among both humans and animals. Empirically, we also note that heterosexual promiscuity is widespread, so much so that it could be characterized as the default position of the human race. It would be hard to construct a law against homosexual marriage and adultery based on natural law. Many have argued, of course, that the vested interest of society in stable families overrules homosexual and promiscuous desires. However, such an argument is highly subjective and won’t hold up for long in the face of human depravity. The only reliable foundation for laws restraining adultery, easy divorce and homosexual marriage is the transcendent authority of the Word of God. At least, that’s how I see it.
Rob,
I addressed at least part of your concern in my original post. Go back and take a look.
Second, it’s not as if we don’t know what has happened before us. We don’t live or we shouldn’t live with historical blinkers. We know that the baseline for conduct is.
Third, sin doesn’t obliterate the image of God in humanity. Warping is not obliterating. Inasmuch as we are image bearers we all have a true, non-saving, legal knowledge of God and his moral will as revealed in nature. We are constituted as recipients of natural revelation, including natural law.
If common conduct transformed moral law then the idea of theft would disappear. Yet, despite all the social changes that have occurred since the ancient world, the idea of theft and the intuitive knowledge that it is wrong and punishable by force persists. Why? It’s the way things are constituted.
Skepticism about natural revelation works against our very existence as image bearers.
I am skeptical about natural revelation. I don’t think the Reformed confessions give any ground to be optimistic about it. Article 14 of the Belgic says that “since mankind became wicked and perverse, corrupt in all his ways, he has lost all his excellent gifts which he had once received from God. He has nothing left but some small traces ..” It’s pretty hard, IMHO, to construct a theory of natural law on these vestigia.
Dr. Clark,
I agree that the main objective of the Synod is to establish the incapacity of man to make use of natural light to acquire saving knowledge of God. But I question your finding in the Canons of an allegedly explicit statement regarding the positive and right use of the natural light by unregenerate man, such that it can serve as the unaided basis for ordering society.
Based on the judgment of history–which you reference–that no society has ever ordered itself according to the light of nature as it ought, as well as the insistence of the Canons that man, in his unrighteousness, renders the light of nature “wholly polluted”, would it be fair to say that the light of nature is sufficient to order civil life only hypothetically? Or to ask it another way: doesn’t the fact that the light of nature is hindered and rendered wholly polluted by man’s depravity significantly compromise its suitability as the sole ordering principle of civil life?
Did ancient Rome or Athens have access to revelation beyond natural revelation? Did Calvin et al regard those as rightly ordered societies, as such?
I agree that the Canons are not setting forth a theory of civil government, but their language reflects the use of these categories in the period. There’s more in the WCF and much more in the writings of the time.
What I’m trying to do is to argue for a theory of civil government that is neither theonomic or theocratic nor antinomian. I’m also trying to get people to realize that the bias against natural revelation and natural law that seems to be widespread among conservative Reformed people today is at odds with our confession and tradition.
Please support this bare naked assertion. I think Dr. Bahnsen must be rolling over in his grave right now.
Any theonomists out there that confuse salvation with the civil government? Anybody? Anybody? Hmmmm.
Dr. Clark, I think the task that really needs to be accomplished is to prove that Theonomists are in a completely different camp than the Reformers with regard to their civil ethic. I’m sure if you spent a few years of reasearch it would take and the publish it that you’d sell millions of copies from both sides since this issue never seems to go away. I know I’d buy the book.
You can state that the Reformers over and over again appealed to what was obviously natural and pull your NLT out of that hat over and over again. I see it everywhere you point me to. Yeah, there is a natural law. Yeah, the Reformers appealed to it. Yeah, it conforms to the moral law. Big deal. The same people you appeal to for NL theory supported their NL conclusions WITH SCRIPTURE. Yet, you reject the fact that they did so by saying AS THEOCRATS THEY WERE WRONG TO DO SO! You pull the rug right out from underneath you when you do that. You arbitrarily take what you like from them, and say they were wrong on the things that you don’t like.
What hasn’t been done, and is necessary to support your NLT as a sufficient alternative to theocrat reasoning, is a good work on WHY THE REFORMERS WERE WRONG TO BE THEOCRATS.
I’ll take Gillespie and Rutherford and their scores of divines over the Irrational American Presby’s of the late 1700’s any day. Thank the LORD for them!
Theonomists, especially Bahnsen, have just borrowed from the theocrats and helped to refine their method to help them from their common inconsistencies. Theonomy is nothing new, as Meredith Kline affirms here: http://www.covopc.org/Kline/Kline_on_Theonomy.html
I knew one day that there would be something I could thank Kline for. 😉
kazoo
Kaz,
1. One reason why people are reluctant to engage theonomy is because it is a black hole. It never ends.
2. In my experience theonomists can’t be wrong. This is why I use theonomy as an example of the QIRC in RRC. Being right about theonomy is not about getting it right, i.e., rightly understanding the faith and living by it but about “being right.” In my experience, theonomists are mostly fundamentalists who switched uniforms but who are playing in the same league by the same rules.
Yes, if you’ve read as much of my material as you say you’ll know that I’ve argued at length (and as I say in RRC) that we made two great mistakes in the 16th and 17th centuries: theocracy and geocentrism. We should learn from these mistakes so we don’t repeat them. The tragedy is that theonomy wants not only theocracy but to go where even the Reformers and the orthodox didn’t go, namely theonomy.
I don’t write these posts to convince the invincible theonomists but to provide help to those who know that theonomy is wrong but who are unaware of the alternative offered by an adaptation of the historic Reformed theory of natural law.
As to Rutherford, I’m sure you’ll want to look at David VanDrunen’s analysis of Lex Rex when it appears.
Rob and Steve,
You need to keep distinct the issues of general revelation’s perspicuity and sufficiency from the issues of man’s sinful nature and depravity. The former is about the inherent nature of general/natural revelation, the latter is about a problem inherent in *man*. The reality of the latter does not overturn the reality of the former.
If it did, then how would special revelation help? The noetic effects of sin would apply to both general and special revelation.
A lot of folks who downplay natural law appeal to VanTil’s insights on the noetic effects of sin. However, they fail to also appropriate VanTil’s insights on common grace, one of the major doctrines he expounded and defended in his career, in regard to the utility of natural law. This doctrine is both thoroughly biblical. So if God does indeed restrain the sin nature of the unregenerate, who may or may not have access to special revelation, then natural law becomes a live option again.
“Barthian-like rejection”???
rofl
David,
I completely agree with your distinction and am gladly willing to grant the existence of natural law. The question is not whether there is natural law, but how it can operate as a separate, stand alone norm for civil life, given the testimony of the Canons that sinful man cannot rightly use it in natural and civil matters and wholly pollutes it with his sin. If this is true, how will a natural light so clouded and degraded by sin in the minds and hearts of men lead them to a rightly ordered society?
I may be all wet with regard to Van Til, but I doubt his doctrine of common grace (an idiosyncratic treatment to say the least) will rescue the version of natural law being promoted here. Nevertheless, I find it quite interesting how the allegedly biblical doctrine of common grace is waived as a talisman of sorts to baptize all sorts of ideas. Quite a versatile doctrine.
Benjamin,
You know I mean it. It’s meant to shock. I know that most theonomists hate Barth and would hate to think that they’ve arrived at the same place but they have! That’s the shocker. The rhetoric I’m getting in the combox from self-identified theonomists would warm the cockles of old Karl’s heart.
Steve,
“Stand-alone?” What does that mean? Is that code for “neutral?” Law is law. Revelation is revelation. Revealed law is revealed law. It comes from God. It’s binding and normative. Murder is a sin and a crime. The magistrate bears the sword to punish it. He doesn’t need Paul to tell him that. He already knows it! He was doing it before Paul wrote Rom 13. He was doing it before Moses wrote Genesis.
Dr. Clark,
Thanks for the vote of confidence! But I’ve been wrong many times and about many things. 🙂
Just kidding. Trying to lighten it up a bit.
Yes, I’ve done the reading. I wouldn’t says so if I hadn’t.
As to the ‘never ends’ plight, I think watching Ben Stein’s new movie might explain why.
Blessings to you!
Bye for now,
kazoo
Dr. Clark,
Great post.
I’d be interested to hear your take on natural law and the right to gun ownership as it relates to self defense =P The WLC seems to indicate you have a right to defend yourself because it is one of the duties implied by the sixth commandment, but I’m not sure how I should take that.
PRC,
I’m influenced by Johannes Althusius (not Thomas Malthus) Politica… I don’t recall if he addresses self-defense, but he might. Unfortunately there is no complete english translation but it’s a place to go.
Most Reformed natural law theorists argued for a natural right of self-defense as a part of their argument against tyrants (e.g. Beza’s De Iure Magistratuum, “Brutus,” Vindiciae contra Tyrannos) appealed to a natural right of self-defense. Where they erred was in their theocratic identification of the modern nation-state with national Israel.
Steve said: how it can operate as a separate, stand alone norm for civil life, given the testimony of the Canons that sinful man cannot rightly use it in natural and civil matters and wholly pollutes it with his sin.
Again, this would equally apply to special revelation.
And just because sinful man cannot “rightly” or perfectly use natural law doesn’t mean that he can’t use it at all. Sin pollutes, but it does not eradicate knowledge or moral faculties that are tied to the imago dei. Our doctrine of common grace is not in conflict with our doctrine of total depravity (which, by definition, does not mean that people are as bad as they could be).
“Where they erred was in their theocratic identification of the modern nation-state with national Israel.”
That seemed to be the error of the Westminster Divines and Calvin also, in many instances. That’s why I don’t know if their arguments hold water or not as they relate to my interests. ARghh.1!!1
If this is true, how will a natural light so clouded and degraded by sin in the minds and hearts of men lead them to a rightly ordered society?
The only remedy to the moral problem is regeneration, not more information, even in the form of more revelation. But God has not promised to regenerate everyone in our society before Christ’s parousia.
Man’s compromised ability to follow natural law does not compromise NL’s nature as a “stand alone norm”. A norm is a norm whether or not we can keep it. And no norm gives us the moral ability to follow a norm.
As a norm, natural law is sufficient because of its divine authority and because of the perfection and completeness of its content. The fact that mankind does, to an extent, twist natural is our moral, subjective problem, it does not alter the nature of the objective norm of NL.
I used to think that to be Reformed, one must reject natural law. But when I read Romans, I find it there.
I have a few questions for those who affirm natural law. How should we distinguish natural law from natural theology? Is natural theology just as useful as natural law? Is natural law a subcategory of natural theology? Please, don’t get to technical if possible; I don’t know Latin or Greek. Or if you can point to good introductory works, I will appreciate it.
One more question. I noticed that Dr. Budziszewski is noted as a source for information on natural law on a Reformed church’s website that Dr. Clark links to on his Natural Law resources post. Should his work be read with a caution?
Alberto,
You’re not alone. This is why I did the Calvin research in the 80s and finally published it in the 90s. I too was told that “Reformed people don’t believe in natural law.” I read the Institutes in college and remembered Calvin talking about “natural law” and I read the Enlightenment writers talking about natural law and realized that they had secularized aspects of Reformed theology– like “the state of nature.”
There is good natural theology and poor. The latter tries to build a positive theology, e.g., doctrine of God, man, Christ, salvation etc. In Reformed use natural theology and revelation are law and privative. The law demands, teaches what must be done, but it goes not teach us the Trinity, grace, Christ, salvation etc.
Check the blog posts above on natural law. I gave a great lot of references.
I don’t know Budziseweski’s background or work. I’ve heard a few interveiws with him. I can’t comment. David VanDrunen is our ethics prof scholar of natural law.
David,
I’ve already granted the existence of natural law. I acknowledge that it is a norm. I’m not arguing that there is a problem with the norm, but a problem with the people who will try to decipher the norm from nature. Are you suggesting that a perfect apprehension of natural law is implanted in the human heart? The Canons teach that man’s moral/ethical vision is so degraded by sin that he is not able to properly apprehend, receive, interpret or apply the natural light, so as to order society according to it. Some vision correcting spectacles will be necessary for that.
I acknowledge that it is a norm. I’m not arguing that there is a problem with the norm
You questioned “how [NL] can operate as a separate, stand alone norm for civil life.” My response answered that.
but a problem with the people who will try to decipher the norm from nature.
And for the third time, I need only point out that if the problem is with the people who try to decipher NL, then special revelation is no help. The same thing will happen when deciphering special revelation as with natural revelation.
Are you suggesting that a perfect apprehension of natural law is implanted in the human heart?
No. Apprehension refers to subjective understanding. Not even regenerate Christians have perfect apprehension – either of natural law or special revelation.
The Canons teach that man’s moral/ethical vision is so degraded by sin that he is not able to properly apprehend, receive, interpret or apply the natural light, so as to order society according to it.
Once again – if common grace is true, then man can apprehend natural light more or less, according to the measure of common grace given. Sufficiently, even if not “properly” or “rightly.”
Some vision correcting spectacles will be necessary for that.
What does that even mean? You need to decide if you think the problem is an informational problem or a moral problem. If it is a moral problem (which is what the Canons are actually teaching), more information doesn’t help.
David,
The problem is both informational and moral.
It is informational in the sense that the human mind, darkened by sin, cannot properly process natural revelation/law and come to a right understanding of what it reveals/requires (the noetic effect of sin).
I disagree with you that special revelation does not have a function here to make sinful men aware of the content of the natural law (scripture interprets and clarifies the natural law–makes it plain and explicit).
It is moral in the sense that even when the human mind acquires some notion of what the natural law requires, the human will suppresses that knowledge in unrighteousness and is unable to do what it requires.
For you, it seems common grace is the key that solves both problems by unlocking the sin darkened mind to comprehend the natural law and enabling the sin-corrupted will to perform it.
From your statements, it is clear to me that this whole business depends on positing some version of common grace. That is a lot of theoretical weight to hang on such a precarious doctrinal hook.
Dr. Clark, I would find it helpful if you could (in your spare time) make a separate post fleshing out the concept that denial of Natural Law is inherently Barthian and Enlightentment-derived, contrary to the theo-crat/-nomic assertion that we are the ones trapped in the enlightenment.
Anybody that uses the Great Commission as a mandate for constituting “Christian nations” is confusing salvation with civil government. I know you’ve done it, Ron has done it, and I bet all the usual suspects have too (Bahnsen, Rushdoony, North, Jordan, Wilson, …)
Steve,
What if we simply speak of the providential preservation of human societies and restraint of the effects of sin? Reformed orthodoxy is replete with this doctrine. They did not regard it as “precarious” at all. Here is an area where the PRs (which view I take it you’re defending implicitly) have abandoned the tradition.
RSC said, “In my experience theonomists can’t be wrong. This is why I use theonomy as an example of the QIRC in RRC. Being right about theonomy is not about getting it right, i.e., rightly understanding the faith and living by it but about ‘being right.’ In my experience, theonomists are mostly fundamentalists who switched uniforms but who are playing in the same league by the same rules.”
I think of Sean Lucas’s notion of “Fundamentalists learning to be Presbyterian,” and DGH’s idea that “Theonomists are Calvinism’s version of Methodists.” You have to love it when someone “says what I would think if I had thought of it,” especially when it comes in short, sharp and shocked packages. I know I do.
Just to clear something up:
“What people see in “nature” varies from time to time and from place to place in accordance with the prevalent world view. ”
The term ‘natural’ in ‘Natural Law’ does not mean ‘nature’ like you’d use it in the phrase, “I’m going on a nature hike”, it’s rather a normative claim about proper function, or how things ought to function. The specificatins the design plan calls for.
So to attack natural law by saying, “when I look out my window at nature, it doesn’t seem that _____. That’s simply to equivocate on the term.
Btw, Rube, you can see Barth chastising natural law/theology/revelation in his works, he’s pretty up front about it. Interestingly, theonomist Mike Butler, in his tape series, ‘Religious Epistemology,’ points out that recons like himself have something in common with Barth here viz. his problems natural law/theology/revelation.
So, Clark’s point is one made by theonomists themselves.
David,
You say:
and
It seems to me that this assumes their is no difference in your view between the regenerate and the unregenerate. But the scriptures definitely teach something different!
Special revelation IS of help to God’s elect, because God’s elect have His Spirit illuminating our minds, and sanctifying our lives, etc. It seems to me that the work of Christ IN us is of value to us to do just what you say would be hindered in both general and special revelation. His work IN us helps us to rightly discern natural law as well as His Word, which is foolishness to the carnal man.
But let’s not stop there. If what I am saying is rational (and maybe it isn’t. I’m sure Manata will point out the flaws if there are some) then the ones that can discern natural law ALSO have in their arsenal the scriptures, which don’t conflict with natural law.
kazoo
Rube says:
And since he’s my very good friend, I must respond in fun (but with seriousness)
W2K Klineans are confusing the Great Commission with salvation. They confuse Christ’s mandate to the church with a dualistic pietistic escapist mandate (that Christ did NOT give). You water the GREAT Commission down and assume what we say the result of it is, is salvation. And hence your misguided accusation that theonomists confuse salvation with civil government. A civil government with righteous laws is a result of a land filled with many disciples (saved ones, to be crude).
kazoo
“There is, to be sure, a certain light of nature remaining in man after the fall, by virtue of which he retains some notions about God, natural things, and the difference between what is moral and immoral, and demonstrates a certain eagerness for virtue and for good outward behavior. But this light of nature is far from enabling man to come to a saving knowledge of God and conversion to him–so far, in fact, that man does not use it rightly even in matters of nature and society. Instead, in various ways he completely distorts this light, whatever its precise character, and suppresses it in unrighteousness. In doing so he renders himself without excuse before God.”
The Article of the Canons maintains the two Reformation understandings concerning natural law. The first is that the sinner is capable of conforming to natural law; the second is that the sinner is incapable of conforming perfectly to natural law. The apparent tension can only be resolved if we understand that two different righteousnesses or standards are noted here. In sight of God, man is totally depraved. But before men, a relative judgment operates. One natural law, but two different interpretations according to the judgment of the right-hand kingdom to above (heavenly) and the left-hand kingdom below (earthly).
That sounds very much like David Hume Jason…
Whoops I am reading Hume right now, I meant John Locke. Wrong Brit…
Do you know of anyone who rejects “Natural Law” ( as understood by Calvin, WCF divines, etc.) but would argue that they, in rejecting natural law, are an advancement on the older view? I ask this because everyone I have read, so far, who rejects the understanding presented above attempts to justify their rejection of natural law by appealing to Calvin, which I cannot swallow at this time. I could understand them appealing to certain aspects of Calvin’s thought if they were arguing that Calvin simply “got it wrong” and they are taking the good and leaving the bad, but this is not what I have seen. Again, are you aware of anyone that would defend this position as an advancement and development in doctrine through history? Thanks for any help.
Bobby,
It’s not easy to find people who have engaged (studied) carefully the tradition. It’s even more difficult to find those who are rejecting the tradition who’ve studied it carefully. The Barthians and theonomists have rejected natural law, for different reasons, but few of them have taken the time to learn the tradition carefully. Many Barthians assume that Barth IS the tradition. Many theonomists seem to assume that Bahnsen is the tradition. This is why I write of “Reformed Narcissism” in Recovering the Reformed Confession.
Over the years some of the theonomists have admitted that Calvin taught natural law but got it wrong. Most recently I heard James Jordan saying that Calvin grew out of his natural law doctrine into theonomy/theocracy.
Check out the Heidelcast episode where we listened to some clips by JJ.