Eleven Theses on Natural Law Print
Sex and Culture
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Saturday, 05 January 2013 08:16

1. At the foundational level, natural law needs to refer what nature teaches us, and not to what any particular men have said about it. Natural law theorists are commentators on the text, and commentaries on a great text always differ among themselves. We should not make the mistake of rejecting the text because we have rejected any or even most of the commentaries.

2. Accepting the authority of natural law in the sense I am describing does not require a nature/grace dualism. That dualism is found in some of the commentaries, but not in the stars. What is nature but one vast repository of grace? And what is the grace of God but something manifested in all of His works?

3. If we accept what special revelation teaches us about natural revelation, we need to have some sort of doctrine of natural law. This is because natural revelation creates the profound and ongoing moral obligation to worship the true God.

4. The God who speaks through nature speaks in Scripture, and the God who speaks in Scripture was born of a virgin in Bethlehem.

5. Those who accept natural law in this sense do not believe that natural law operates independently of what God has told us more specifically in the Scriptures. Special revelation is consistent with natural revelation, but it also trumps it. Moses outranks the natural order, and Jesus outranks Moses.

6. Every form of natural law that tries to evade the exhaustive authority of Jesus Christ over every last molecule in the cosmos is to be rejected. But it is also true that every rejection of natural law that tries to evade the exhaustive authority of Jesus Christ over every last molecule in the cosmos is to be rejected.

7. If a man rejects natural law in all its formulations, but insists that special revelation is authoritative over the public square, whether it has been baptized or not, his error is a trivial one. But if he insists on the "Bible only," and then restricts its authority to those who have voluntarily submitted themselves to it, he is guilty of a serious error.

8. The most serious dualism to avoid is not a nature/grace dualism, but rather the dualism that tries to pretend that the God who speaks in Exodus and Romans is a different God than the one who speaks in Andromeda and the Pleiades.

9. The list given in Romans 1:29-32 demonstrates that, according to special revelation, natural law provides a rather extensive amount of detail when it comes to what God will judge in us. Natural law contains considerable detail.

10. The Reformers held to a chastened form of natural law theory. So should we.

11. The current test case for all theologies of natural law is homosexual marriage. If they allow for it, they are contradicting, in ascending order of importance, what the Lord God has said in the Milky Way, in the human conscience, in the law of Moses, and in the words of our Lord Jesus Christ.


Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Tim Enloe  Saturday, January 05, 2013 9:34 am
Pastor Wilson,

Regarding #3, this is a weak understanding of natural law, because it doesn't just create a profound moral obligation to worship God. It underwrites non-specially revealed positive law codes that can be used to seek (relative and imperfect) instantiations of justice in personal and civic life. This is not to mention the problems inherent in saying that natural law teaches us to worship "God." What does that term signify? One can follow Augustine and say nature clearly teaches the Trinity or one can follow Aquinas and say it doesn't, because that's the domain of faith. But in no case can one simply gloss over Christian interpretive history by saying vaguely that natural law teaches us the moral obligation to worship "God."

Regarding #5: how does one thing (natural law) God Himself instituted as a standard "trump" another thing (Scripture) He Himself instituted as a standard? This is a problematic way to put things.

Even if you don't mean it this way yourself, I think the language of saying "Scripture trumps natural law" facilitates smuggling #7s Bible Onlyism in through the back door. That is, anytime we don't like some conclusion of "natural law" (say about politics - the big idol of American Evangelicals) we can just pull out our Bibles (the meaning of which we, being regenerate, can't make serious mistakes about) and voila! The Really Real and Truly True and Knowably Known "Final" Standard.

It seems to me that if natural law really is held to be consistent with Scripture (and vice versa) there needs to be a better way of talking about their relationship than the language of "trumping." God can't trump Himself. I suspect that lurking behind this point of yours remains the incorrect notion that natural law is a positive law code, and that since most statements and expositions of this code were done by pagans we Christians have to distrust them and find a truly reliable standard - namely, the "clearer" Bible. But natural law isn't a positive law code; the positive law codes based on it are merely prudential applications of natural law's really rather basic statements "Do good" and "Avoid evil." These are so general that they are bound to produce different prudential applications in different cultures. Probably then what you want to say is that at any point where there is an actual formal contradiction between an ethical principle Scripture teaches and some ethical principle that a natural law-based ethical system teaches, Scripture "trumps" the latter. That's a good principle, I think, but is going to have quite a bit of wiggle room in application due to the "squishiness" of prudence.

If, as Bavinck rightly teaches, nature itself is theonomous, it doesn't make sense to say the Bible "trumps" what nature says. The analogy you provide about Jesus trumping Moses isn't to the point, since there we're talking about two instances of special revelation, one of which fulfils (not trumps) the other.
Rob Steele  Saturday, January 05, 2013 10:31 am
I think what he means by "trumping" is not that the various witnesses are in conflict with each other but that our reading of them often is. My take is that since we can't trust theologians to interpret special revelation correctly all the time, so we probably ought not trust scientists to always interpret nature correctly either.
David Stewart  Saturday, January 05, 2013 5:08 pm
Tim,

Would you please clarify something for me? In your first post, were you arguing that nature reveals certain moral laws which are not revealed through special revelation?
Joe Rigney  Saturday, January 05, 2013 11:54 am
Poythress, in his book Redeeming Science, argues that special revelation has a twofold priority over natural revelation. It has a redemptive priority because only special revelation is salvific (no one is saved by God's revelation in nature). It has a linguistic priority in that special revelation is written in human language and is therefore more direct in its pronouncements (and thus more easily understood).

What's more, Scripture, unlike nature, isn't cursed and fallen. Thus, it isn't sending "mixed messages" (so to speak). That's why the fact that some animal species may engage in male-to-male sex isn't an argument for the natural-ness of homosexuality. Scripture speaks to the issue, providing the context for why such unnatural things are happening in nature, and (perhaps) in that sense, "trumps" it?
Tim Enloe  Saturday, January 05, 2013 2:39 pm
Rob: Agreed, neither theologians nor scientists are always to be trusted. But for me, this is another reason why the language of Scripture "trumping" natural law is problematic. It really means "this particular theologian's reading of Scripture trumps natural law," and usually what is meant by "natural law" is the wrong idea of some positive law code (say Roman or American) that the biblicist feels doesn't measure up to his (apparently unquestionable) reading of Scripture. So the language of "trumping" just isn't helpful to me, because it helps theologians who don't really grasp what they are talking about cover up their caricatures both of the thing they are critiquing and the standard they are using to critique it. (I'm not speaking of Pastor Wilson himself with that remark.)

Joe: I see two problems with Poythress' dual priority idea. One is that no one claims natural revelation is salvific, so it doesn't really matter for the argument about natural law that Scripture addresses redemption. Two is the importance of ensuring that an appeal to linguistic priority is not tacitly assuming an inadequate or incorrect view of the Protestant doctrine of the "clarity" of Scripture. It is not unambiguously true as a matter of a general principle that because Scripture is written in human language it is "clearer" than nature. The classical First Cause argument, which is the use of natural revelation called natural theology, is no less "clear" than Genesis 1:1, and both of these require significant operations of fallen human reason to interpret. So it does not matter that Scripture is not cursed and fallen like nature. Scripture's interpreters are fallen (and if they are saved, they are in the process of being saved, so they may not be always correct in how they read Scripture), and that makes all the difference in the world sometimes.

Also, Pastor Wilson's post is about natural law, not natural revelation. These are related phenomena, but not identical. Natural revelation is what Romans 1 says about how the invisible attributes of God are revealed in the things which are made. Natural law is an ethical "pressure" built into our nature that compels us to recognize a distinction between good and evil and to seek to do the former and avoid the latter.

Tim Enloe  Saturday, January 05, 2013 2:40 pm
At any rate, let me make clear that I appreciate these recent posts by Pastor Wilson a great deal. This was not the perspective I got in his classes at NSA nearly 10 years ago about natural law, and having gotten a better perspective on it once I was finished with NSA, it's encouraging to me to see Pastor Wilson articulating a view much more in keeping with classical Protestantism. I'm a nobody; he's a somebody. It's excellent to see a man of his influence exploring this very important trajectory in so constructive a manner.
Tim Enloe  Saturday, January 05, 2013 6:57 pm
David: my understanding of natural law is that it is not in essence a positive law code - that is, it is not a list of specific moral injunctions like "Do not steal," "Do not commit adultery," etc. It is a natural pressure, so to speak, within us, put there by God, that compels us to recognize the distinction between good and evil and seek the former while eschewing the latter. So in that sense, no, nature does not reveal "certain moral laws."

On the other hand, this really is one of those nuanced questions, not because of clown car scholarly obfuscation but because our philosophical language as Protestants has become debased by Bible-Onlyism and its related cultural dead-ends. As I said in another comment, Bavinck, certainly a Reformed author if there ever was one, argues that all of created reality is theonomous - that is, revelatory of God's nature and purposes and requirements. Scripture is not the only theonomous standard, and so it would not be true to argue (I'm not saying you are arguing this) that standards from outside of Scripture are necessarily autonomous. The innate moral "pressure" of natural law compels us to think about what good and evil are, and to use our also God-given faculty of reason to try to spell that out. From such attempts to spell it out come specific positive law codes - lists of "Do this" and "Don't do that" imperatives. So it is perhaps true to say on the other hand that derivatively, via our discursive reasoning from natural law and our experiences in God's world, nature reveals certain moral laws apart from Scripture. Notice I said "apart from" Scripture not "not revealed in Scripture." It's really quite an amazing thing to see how frequently Plato and Cicero and Aristotle come up with moral injunctions that are exactly the same as Scripture's, despite their not knowing anything about Scripture.
David Stewart  Saturday, January 05, 2013 7:28 pm
Tim,

I believe Christians would be much more true to the teaching of the Scriptures, and avoid a great deal of ambiguity, if we avoided the use of the phrase "natural law". There is no law in nature, an idea which I believe you have alluded to in your post above.

In brief, I see natural revelation as not saying anything that would not be found in God's special revelation, and as certainly not saying anything contradictory to special revelation. How sinful man, under the noetic effects of sin, interprets natural or special revelation is often bent, inconsistent and incorrect, and therein lies the problem with us, not the revelation.

I do not believe natural revelation presents God's way of redemption, but only our rightful condemnation as law violators. You could not look at the trees or the stars and see the gospel message.

Thanks for your reply.
Tim Enloe  Sunday, January 06, 2013 5:07 pm
Hey David,

Did you observe the distinction I made between natural law and natural revelation? The two are related, but different, phenomenon. I agree with you (as do all classical Reformed sources I know of) that natural revelation is not redemptive. That's not its purpose, so to continue to raise this point is to miss the real issues at hand. As for the noetic effects of sin, sure, that's an important Reformed doctrine. But I think it's past time we started thinking critically about what we to this point appear to have uncritically assumed makes us better than unbelievers: the noetic effects of redemption. Being "saved" (i.e., personally convinced of one's regenerate status) does not eliminate interpretive difficulties when we approach Scripture (and so we typically drastically abuse the classic doctrine of the "clarity" of Scripture), nor does piously reading our Bibles all the time give us privileged insight into the workings and meaning of God's world. We are not where the Reformers were in terms of understanding the two modes of God's revelation, and we pretty seriously need to work to get back to where they were.

I don't intend to harp on this, but I believe it's very important that Reformed Christians in particular follow Pastor Wilson's lead here and begin to seriously reconsider our "traditional" (where that word means merely the last 100 years or so) derogations of nature in favor of our own often uncritically held interpretations of Scripture.

There is a reason we lost the culture war 100 years ago (especially with such events as the Scopes Trial), and also why our present efforts to recover the culture-changing work of the Reformers remain somewhat stymied. That reason is because we have a truncated understanding of the grandeur and the "voice" of God's creation, and have trained ourselves to retreat into our private devotionals and personal impressions about "Truth." Recovering a more robust doctrine of natural law is one key to revitalizing our cultural work today.
Tim Enloe  Sunday, January 06, 2013 5:11 pm
Seth B: actually your reading of Calvin's remark about "spectacles" is inaccurate. He makes it quite plain throughout the Institutes and many of his Commentaries that the "spectacles" of Scripture correct fallen man's confused knowledge of God. He does not claim that the "spectacles" of Scripture are necessary for properly understanding God's world, and indeed in many places he expressly denies this. This view of his remark is responsible for more mischief in Reformed approaches to nature (and also education) than I have yet been able to adequately tally. It's past time we get more and better familiar with Calvin.
Seth B.  Sunday, January 06, 2013 5:31 pm
To be fair, I'm still reading through his Institutes.

But I'm also Van Tillian, and he and Bahnsen say as much.

“Where natural revelation plays a part in Christian apologetics, that revelation must be read through the glasses of special revelation.” - Bahnsen, Always Ready, p. 259.

“But if the facts which face man are already interpreted by God man need not and cannot face them as brute facts. If the facts which man faces are really God-interpreted facts, man’s interpretation will have to be, in the last analysis, a re-interpretation of God’s interpretation.” - Van Til, Christianity and Idealism,

“But, in fact, no non-Christian can be consistent to the logic of his presuppositions... No matter what a man may believe, he cannot change the reality of what is. As Christianity is the truth of what is there, to deny this, on the basis of another system, is to stray from the real world.” - Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, 150.

“If man knows certain facts whether or not God knows these facts... whatever sort of God may remain He is not the supreme interpretative category of human experience.” - Rushdoony, By What Standard?, 49.

Van Til himself said Calvin was, at some points, inconsistent with his own principle. So was Augustine. Van Til was trying to be as consistent as possible in his Calvinistic philosophy.

If you still think I'm wrong, explain how you think any part of natural revelation can be interpreted *correctly* apart from special revelation. Sure, men like Aristotle *attempt* to interpret the world. I'm not denying that. I'm saying that if they were consistent with their presuppositions, all possibility of knowledge would be destroyed.
Seth B.  - Not Calvinistic  Sunday, January 06, 2013 5:11 pm
Mr. Wilson, it seems to be that your explanation of natural law is not Calvinistic at all here.

(Disclaimer: I have not read Aquinas, but I have read Calvin and several other reformed theologians. This is their interpretation of Aquinas.)

Aquinas distinguished between general and special revelations, but he thought of them two separate fields of knowledge. So, there are religious/spiritual truths that can only come through divine revelation; but there are also truths from natural revelation.

Calvin's view is a little different. We read natural revelation *through the lens* of special revelation. So, instead of general and special revelations being two separate fields with their own interpretive categories, we use special revelation as the principle of interpreting general revelation.

In Calvin's view, special revelation is the principle of interpretation with general revelation as the object. They are philosophically distinct categories. In Aquinas, the are philosophically in the same category, each with its own principle of interpretation.

Claiming that natural revelation is consistent with special revelation is like saying my glasses are consistent with my hand. Doesn't make sense. Saying special revelation *trumps* natural revelation is like saying my spectacles trump my hand. You're talking about two different categories. It *does* make sense to say that I cannot see my hand clearly without spectacles.
holmegm  - re: Not Calvinistic  Monday, January 07, 2013 9:39 am
Seth B. wrote:
Mr. Wilson, it seems to be that your explanation of natural law is not Calvinistic at all here.

{...}

Calvin's view is a little different. We read natural revelation *through the lens* of special revelation. So, instead of general and special revelations being two separate fields with their own interpretive categories, we use special revelation as the principle of interpreting general revelation.

In Calvin's view, special revelation is the principle of interpretation with general revelation as the object. They are philosophically distinct categories. In Aquinas, the are philosophically in the same category, each with its own principle of interpretation.

Claiming that natural revelation is consistent with special revelation is like saying my glasses are consistent with my hand. Doesn't make sense. Saying special revelation *trumps* natural revelation is like saying my spectacles trump my hand. You're talking about two different categories. It *does* make sense to say that I cannot see my hand clearly without spectacles.


I dunno (unless you are saying something different from what it sounds like you are saying).

I'm going by memory here, but aren't the first two chapters of the Institutes saying that to know God, man must first know himself, but to really know himself, man must know God? A much more synthesized sort of approach?
Tim Enloe  Tuesday, January 08, 2013 4:34 am
Seth, I appreciate your thoughtful response, which shows openness to learning. I'm aware of what Van Til and Bahnsen say about Calvin. Honestly, it would be better to get grounded in Calvin himself first before reading such things. I spent a good long while tracking this theme of natural knowledge relative to Scripture through Calvin's writings. If you are interested in understanding why I said what I said, the results can be found here:

http://www.academia.edu/2357017/Calvin_on_the_Noetic_Effects_of_Sin
M. Stewart Quarles  - re:  Tuesday, January 08, 2013 11:06 am
Tim Enloe wrote:
Natural revelation is what Romans 1 says about how the invisible attributes of God are revealed in the things which are made. Natural law is an ethical "pressure" built into our nature that compels us to recognize a distinction between good and evil and to seek to do the former and avoid the latter.


This is an excellent distinction, Tim. And the reason for much confusion when these discussions leave the church and enter public/civic discourse.

Davy  - Basis  Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:07 am
So, I guess I get that this is an attempt to have some traction with the "secular" culture on these issues (do I have that right?). But before committing yourself to this wholly, have you figured out how you can get the unbeliever to make the logical, mental, and emotionally-vested leap from "It appears to be contrarary to what we see in nature" to "therefore, it's a sin against God and/or no one should do that"?

Without that, I think the traction exists not.