When We All Say Whooosh Together Print
Sex and Culture
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Sunday, 06 January 2013 17:18

I appreciate the discussion of natural law going on under the previous post. I'd like to respond to a few of the points made, and develop everything just a tad further.

First, when I say the teaching of Scripture "trumps" natural law, I was doing nothing more than applying a standard rule of hermeneutics within the confines of Scripture -- which is that unclear passages are to be interpreted in the light of the clear ones, and not the other way around. Of course, since the source of all of this is God, there is no contradiction. But there are things which we might take as contradictory (or ambiguous) because of our limitations. When that happens, we are to shine the flashlight at the dark place, not shine the dark place at our flashlight.

Now it is quite true that bombastic, overly-sure-of-themselves interpreters have made the Scripture say things it does not say, and this is a problem. But the problem is always the people, not the text. And it turns out that people have to interpret and apply natural law just as much as they have to interpret and apply the laws of Deuteronomy. You don't get rid of people pride by moving from specific revelation to natural law. If a man full of his own opinions distorts the plain places of Scripture, how much more scope does he have when it comes time to project his own opinions up at the night sky?

I want to say that the created order reveals the true God, and not a false one. Thus, it is the triune God who is revealed. This is not the same thing as saying that the details of the doctrine of the Trinity are revealed, but rather that the true God is revealed, and when we learn more about Him, we discover that He is triune. What is excluded would be false gods -- generic place-holder deities. Also excluded would be gods whose described attributes contradict the attributes of the true God -- a finite Zeus, for example, or the Muslim Allah, who by definition has no Son.

Over the years, I have said that I believe in natural revelation, and not in natural law. My openness to the language of natural law is relatively recent -- say in the last couple of years. Ironically, it may appear that I believe that more "postive law" is revealed in my natural revelation/law approach than some standard advocates of natural law may be comfortable with. This may mollify (or not) some of my friends who are suspicious of any natural law talk at all, because they think it opens the way to Jesus-less religion.

Because special revelation teaches us about natural revelation, certain things follow. If it is the case that natural law falls out of natural revelation by good and necessary consequence, then what Scripture teaches us about natural revelation is a good example of how special revelation can inform and fulfill natural revelation. Scripure does not just teach us what Scripture teaches (about justification by faith alone, for example), Scripture also teaches us what we should have been getting from natural revelation. I don't think this is necessarily the case in every area, but it seems to me that Scripture provides an answer key so that we can cross-check some of our conclusions from natural law.

If, for example, we conclude from our examination of natural law that it is just fine for men to burn in lust for other men, and women for women, the apostle's discussion of what we should glean from "the things that are made" just flat contradicts this. This is why I said that homosexual marriage is a good test case for our approach to natural law. I do not believe that the content of natural law is limited to creating an obligation to worship the true God. That is the root of everything else. It begins there, but it certainly doesn't end there. Note what Paul says these disobedient people know and are unsuccessfully trying to supress. The italics are mine.

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (Rom. 1:28-32).

That is quite a list, and it goes well beyond an impulse to an undefined good, or a pang of conscience whenever someone begins to approach an undefined evil.

Because of how God created the world, and because of the conscience that is still operative in the heart of man, we are all without excuse. We do not die because we haven't heard about Jesus; we die because of our rebellion against the good things we have heard about. In short, we know what is right, and we know what is wrong.

A simple test will verify this -- the universal understanding of the inverse Golden Rule. We expect others to treat us in a way that we may or may not remember in our treatment of others. Forget the Ten Commandments, forget the Noble Eight-fold Path, forget the Tao Te Ching of Lao-tzu. Just strap an invisible recorder around everyone's neck, a recorder that does nothing but record ethical condemnations of others. Have the recording angel in Heaven distill from our condemnations of others an ethical code, and from that ethical code judge the wearer of the recording device. How do we all fare? Right.

So back to our test case of homosexual marriage. What I want to say, to a legislature that is considering it, that "this isn't right. You know that, and I know that. Let's not do it." Now I can say this with confidence because there are multiple witnesses ranged against our wavering legislator -- the night sky, his own conscience, the jus gentium, the law of Moses, and the Sermon on the Mount. If a strict biblicist takes some of those witnesses off the stand, I think he is mistaken, but I am not going to get worked up about it so long as he appeals to the Lord Jesus for the final authoritative word on the subject -- and tells the legislator that he "may not."

But if a narrow biblicist, in the name of a pious Bible-only sensibility, wants to act like we have nothing to say to the people instituting these monstrosities, then I think we we have found the source of that piety . . . cowardice. Any more of a demonstration of prophetic virtue on our part might bring us into conflict with the adversary.

And, if we meditate on this point sufficiently, it might occur to us to wonder why the few bastions of faithfulness on the Supreme Court (as measured by opposition to outrages like homosexual marriage) are bastions manned by Roman Catholics with the rocks and clubs of "inadequate" natural law theory. We clear our throats patronizingly. Their time would be much better spent if they came down to our Reformed basements workshops in order to study (and debate) these schematic and very detailed diagrams of VanTillian stinger missles that we found around here somewhere. Sometimes we even count down, and all say whooosh together.


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!
Seth B.  Sunday, January 06, 2013 5:38 pm
What caused the switch?

EDIT: As in, your acceptance of the language of natural law theory.
Seth B.  Sunday, January 06, 2013 5:47 pm
Also, what difference does it make that you're open to the language of natural law?

I could call a square a "square", or I could call it a "paralellogram with right angled sides". The meaning of those terms is *precisely that same*. Why does the terminology of the language make any difference?
Phil Jones  Sunday, January 06, 2013 11:21 pm
You're "the man" Brother Wilson you are the "man".
Phil Jones  Sunday, January 06, 2013 11:25 pm
Why do some never tire of their pretensions? Did no one ever teach them how to spit and scratch?
Phil Jones  Sunday, January 06, 2013 11:35 pm
I just learned that the New Apostolic Reformation has added Christian Reconstruction to their train and Prof. Wagner banished mad cow disease from Germany. I am behind the times.
katecho  Monday, January 07, 2013 3:01 am
In his previous "Gel Cap" post, Doug Wilson wrote:
Quote:
This revelation would mean that someone can get accurate information about God simply from the way things in the world are, whether inside or outside him, without reference to any special revelation from God. And second, does any element of this natural revelation bring with it any sense of moral obligation? If so, one of the things that natural revelation reveals is law, and calling it natural law doesn't give me heartburn.

I'm heartburn-free with Doug's qualified use of the term "Natural Law", as a term to help us believers work through some important principles. I'm even persuaded by Doug's point that there is a definite law-like function in addition to a general revelatory function. But the amount of necessary qualification shows how prone the term is to being misunderstood, particularly by unbelievers that we might be tempted to influence. I still think the Richard Dawkins crowd will bind themselves down with 30 wrong preconceptions before the first qualification of the term can even be offered.

Doug's eleven theses deserve more thought than I had time to give them, but they seem generally acceptable to me. They probably overlap with the points I want to add, but I'll toss in a few more theses of my own:

12. Natural Law is not simply an available means to get to some knowledge of God and His attributes. Doug has said that by it "someone can get accurate information about God simply from the way things in the world are". Yes one can, but I think Doug should state it much more powerfully than that. Natural Law can't be just a scattering of clues and gems of information to be gleened, like Easter Eggs hidden by the Author inside a video game. Consideration of Natural Law is not like Darwin's consideration of finches, or a physicist's consideration of laws governing relationships of matter. It is much deeper. Natural Law is antithetical to self-law (autonomy). Natural Law is like a meta-law. Natural Law is the structure that connects everything together with meaning, such that we even apprehend what is meant by words like "law" or "information" or "person". Natural Law would include the entire vocabulary of innate concepts and meanings that we function with. It is the entire grid of meaning that unbelievers can't get away from, because wherever they go they take their mind with them, and their mind has God's hand prints all over it. For example, the very distinction between right and wrong means what it means in their minds because of this structure, and the instantiated universe that we swim in, which God created and put us in. Natural Law is utterly pervasive and is an organized, inescapable structure of relationships forming the very categories of meaning that we use to think and communicate with.

13. Natural Law, as Scripture outlines it, is inescapably theistic. It is not a secular law, and is incompatible with any secular or agnostic agenda. This can't be overstated or left unstated. Natural Law doesn't establish some rationalistic beachhead so that secularists or two-kingdom fans can have a place to build a civilization that ignores God. Phooey on that project. Natural Law removes our excuses now, not just in a final judgment. However, I would agree that it'd be helpful to have patience to allow unbelievers to thoroughly identify and accept their own subjection to this law before we argue for the theistic character of it.

14. Natural Law is therefore not a neutral law. Affirmative duties are established by this Law, and these personal obligations are to a personal God. Those who refuse to acknowledge God are condemned by this law, so it cannot be said that we have a neutral relationship to it. This Law removes excuses. It removes secular agendas too.
Tim Enloe  Monday, January 07, 2013 5:25 pm
Pastor Wilson,

A fair post, but when you say "That is quite a list, and it goes well beyond an impulse to an undefined good, or a pang of conscience whenever someone begins to approach an undefined evil.", you seem to me to be conflating natural revelation, as in Romans 1, with natural law, as in Romans 2. These are not quite the same thing, as I've said before. Natural revelation shows us the invisible attributes of God from the things which have been made. It is because "they did not give glory to God nor thanks" that the moral perversions you mention (which, incidentally, are violations of natural law) ensue.

Maybe part of the problem is that the "natural" part of natural revelation / law isn't being adequately emphasized. There's a nature to the cosmos that can be probed by human reason found within it and shown by that instrument to be reasonable by nature. Likewise, there's a nature to ethical beings like man that his reason can probe and exposit. This is explanation for why Plato (Justin Martyr notwithstanding) not knowing the Law of Moses nevertheless reached the conclusion that suicide is morally evil and that homosexuality is contrary to nature because it is literally a sterile act. It's the reason Aristotle concluded that adultery and stealing are wicked, and so on for many of the best pagan thinkers. Rational reflection on the "vague" moral pressure God built into our beings (natural law) gradually, via prudential application, became fleshed out into positive law codes that, as Cicero said, do not differ very widely across the spectrum of human civilization. If there is a person who argues that natural law underwrites men lusting after men and women after women, the natural law tradition (at least as I understand it) would say that that person is simply unreasonable, not understanding human nature.

I'm not saying all this to be contentious. These really are important points that are essential to recovering that "chastened natural law" view of the Reformers that you mentioned earlier. Perhaps a good way to test one's grasp of the concept of natural law is to reflect upon whether advocacy of it makes one's Scripture nerve hurt. If it does, one doesn't accurately understand the concept. It's not enough to say, vaguely, that these two things are not in contradiction. That's not strong enough. The truth of the matter is that the two things are parallel, the difference being that natural revelation doesn't show the way to salvation and following natural law doesn't save. If there is any trace in one's thought of attempting to "justify" natural law by an appeal to Scripture, one is still stuck in the Bible-Onlyism that is the plain contrary of the Reformers' own program. (Not to mention that such shows one is still stuck in Evangelicalism's secular / sacred divide.)
David Stewart  Tuesday, January 08, 2013 7:55 am
Tim,

From where in the Bible do you draw a distinction between natural law and natural revelation? I see the chapters in Romans you quote, but I do not see where, in those passages, Paul is developing a distinction between two separate entities (law on one hand, and revelation on the other), nor do I see where Paul's mention of a "law in their hearts" is proof positive that he is now introducing a different form of revelation from that which he mentioned in Romans 1. The law in the hearts of Gentiles, I believe, refers to that innate sense that all people have of their Maker. That knowledge, marred and blurred by sin but still retained to a degree in all men who still hold some vestige of being made in God's image, tells us that we are all in disobedience to Him and that we rightfully fall under his condemnation. Not all men profess this, but Paul says that all men know this, on some level.

A more philosophical question for you - where exactly do you see a law in nature? What law are you referring to by "natural law"? Is this a watered down version of the Mosaic law? Is it a summary of the Ten Words? Is it different altogether from Biblical law? And where do you see in nature this law as being presented? Besides Romans 2 allegedly teaching this distinction, are there other Scriptures that you feel demonstrate this?

Thanks,
DS
katecho  Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:12 am
Tim Enloe wrote:
Quote:
This is explanation for why Plato (Justin Martyr notwithstanding) not knowing the Law of Moses nevertheless reached the conclusion that suicide is morally evil and that homosexuality is contrary to nature because it is literally a sterile act. It's the reason Aristotle concluded that adultery and stealing are wicked, and so on for many of the best pagan thinkers. Rational reflection on the "vague" moral pressure God built into our beings (natural law) gradually, via prudential application, became fleshed out into positive law codes that, as Cicero said, do not differ very widely across the spectrum of human civilization.

I think there is general agreement that Natural Revelation (without appeal to Scripture) can get a thinking man to a functional moral system that resembles the major features of the revealed moral law. What follows from this agreement?

In spite of agreement, some still seem to want to see it proven in the civic realm. So they might oppose any explicit appeal to Scripture in the foundational civic documents. This seems to be what happened with the US Constitution. They were almost self-conscious about their Christian faith, as if they needed to prove something to the world about the sufficiency of Natural Law, or the generous liberty of the Christian faith.

Some seem to want to take the proof even further, they suppose that if they can reason out a functioning civic moral theory from Natural Revelation, without reference to Scripture, then they must be able to do the same without reference to the Creator or to God at all. This seems to be what has happened over time in the secularization of America. Because no Scripture was referenced in the founding documents, this somehow gave permission to go all the way and ignore God completely. The two-kingdom view seems to think this is at least permissible and legitimate.

I would argue that we have forgotten ourselves if we think this way. Natural Law requires the acknowledgement of the Creator. This is the point of Romans 1. Natural Law condemns those who ignore God. Natural Law does not simply reveal that functional moral systems are possible to be reasoned out. It reveals that there is a Creator and we are obliged to honor Him. We are without excuse if we refuse. In other words, Natural Law reveals that a godless secularism is false and immoral. So if we encountered a legitimate culture, obedient to Natural Law, then at the very least we better find an altar to the "unknown God" in the center of the public square.

So it is not enough to find a culture that knows homosexuality is a perversion, and that murder and stealing are morally wrong. If they aren't acknowledging creation's God, then they are in bold violation of Natural Law, and stand condemned, without excuse. This is why I said that Natural Law is inescapably theistic and that godless secularism and agnosticism is excluded by it.

Now completely aside from Natural Law theory, we need to acknowledge that we actually live in the age of the Gospel to the Gentiles. God has overlooked the times of ignorance, but is now calling all men, nations, and kings of the earth to repent. In other words, we live in the age of special revelation on a global scale. God has furnished proof to all men by the resurrection of Christ. This light can no longer be ignored. King's are now required to kiss the Son or perish in the way. There are Scriptural obligations of governments now. It is not the time to go back and try to demonstrate that groping in the dim light of Natural Law is sufficient to find God. That was already granted and never seriously in dispute.
Richard Arneson  Tuesday, January 08, 2013 3:41 pm
Thanks Pastor Wilson,

I found this post helpful, in particular the last few paragraphs got me looking in the right quadrant of the map so to speak. I was having some difficulty trying to identify what made natural revelation strategic compared to the potency of the gospel. But if I have understood rightly that wasn't your point at all, so much as to contrast showing up to the fight vs. not showing up. And while it is preferrable to have the whole revelation of God, better to show up with what you got than not to show up. Here in Washington State the Church largely failed to show up for the fight on Referendum 74. And I am ashamed.
Tim Bayly  Wednesday, January 09, 2013 1:20 pm
>>If a strict biblicist takes some of those witnesses off the stand, I think he is mistaken...

Right, but as the thrust of the rest of this post might indicate, the typical problem isn't the strict biblicist who takes some of these witnesses off the stand, but the strict biblicist and the strict subscriptionist, alike, who agree in taking the witness of Scripture off the stand.

In my experience, it's almost never the case that believers gag the book of nature while unleashing the book of God. Sometimes we gag the book of God while unleashing the book of nature, but most often, we gag ourselves.

Love,