Nobody Expects Kool-Aid or the Spanish Inquisition!

Let's pretend we live in a world where there is a group of people who think that drinking Kool-Aid is a moral evil, and let's assume that this is a deeply held belief for these people. Let's also assume that they believe that it is a moral evil even to help someone else drink Kool-Aid. And let's also assume that part of their deeply held religious belief is that God will judge them if they do these things that we've just spoken of. In this scenario, these Kool-Aid abstainers have a moral compulsion to abstain from something: namely, the drinking or helping others to drink Kool-Aid.

Along comes Kool-Aid Man, and he wants Kool-Aid. "Oh yeah! I want some Kool-Aid! Fill me up, Kool-Aid Abstainer!"

"Please, sir. Go to another vendor. If I help you get this substance, I'll be in violation of what God has told me to do."

"Oh no!" says Kool-Aid Man. "I'm an open-minded and tolerant man. In the land of Kool, they teach us to be like that. That being said, I will only drink Kool-Aid if I can get it from you."

"Please," says the Kool-Aid Abstainer. "If you make me do this thing, I believe I will be judged by God!"

In this scenario, maybe you think Kool-Aid Abstainer is a nut job and a bigot. And perhaps he is, for all we know! But what kind of person does Kool-Aid Man have to be to actually make this vendor give him something when he knows that Kool-Aid Abstainer thinks it is morally wrong for him to do so? The question is not whether Kool-Aid Abstainer is misguided or unkind. The question is, if Kool-Aid Man could go somewhere else, why doesn't he?

You can judge Kool-Aid Abstainer all you want (plenty do!), but at the end of the day, Kool-Aid Man's conscience is not violated by Kool-Aid Abstainer's unwillingness to oblige him. In fact, if Kool-Aid Man is a respectful, open-minded, tolerant person who cares about the conscience of his neighbor, he should find another place to get his Kool-Aid. Perhaps Kool-Aid Man justifies his insistence by claiming that it's his right, and maybe it is, according to the magistrate. But it says something about Kool-Aid Man that he would force Kool-Aid Abstainer to oblige him: namely, he believes that his own desires are more important than what he is doing to Kool-Aid Abstainer's conscience.

When modern people look back at the Spanish Inquisition, there are particular things about it that they find deeply offensive. But perhaps among the most offensive is that these authorities forced people to say and do things that were against their consciences. They forced them to lie. They forced them to recant deeply held religious beliefs, and they did so by the forceful and coercive hand of the state.

It is not a stretch to say that Kool-Aid Man, as open-minded as he claims to be, and as tolerant as he likes to think of himself, has no respect for Kool-Aid Abstainer. In point of fact, Kool-Aid Abstainer has never asked Kool-Aid Man to do something wrong even in all his years of prohibiting Kool-Aid Man from drinking his favored substance.

It is one thing for a person to be prevented by the magistrate from doing what they want to do. It's quite another to use the same magistrate to force the other person to do something that that person doesn't want to do for moral reasons. Meet Kool-Aid Man... the new modern Inquisitor.

Even the U.N. Gets It

Carl Trueman has evidently stepped into something this past week. He made some statements on Reformation 21 a few days ago that sounded an awful lot like two kingdoms theology. Admittedly, he eschewed the title in light of the fact that he hasn’t done much reading in the area. On Facebook, Anthony Bradley weighed in on the discussion.

Friends, if you ever wonder why Presbyterians turned a blind eye to black suffering during slavery and sat on the sidelines during the Civil-Rights movement, it's the position stated above. This sounds great on paper but if the church has no social witness history demonstrates that "individual Christians" will simply remain individualistic, at least in the American experience by those holding to this view circa 1776-1965ish. Admittedly, I was raised in the black church tradition so we would see this an untenable position. BTW, for the record, I don't believe the church should be involved in government or vice-versa.

I don’t think that Anthony Bradley intends the statement above to be an en toto argument against Trueman’s view, but it is extremely common for opponents of most forms of ‘Two Kingdoms’ to argue consequentially. The suggestion is that if this vaguely defined version of 2K has the field, nobody will ever have a reason to be good in public again.

But it is worth asking the question... does Christianity have something unique to offer in the area of politics or public life that human beings do not already know, by nature? When it comes to slavery or segregation, is there something we know that your average non-Christian doesn’t also know?

I know very few people (who aren’t abject cowards) who, if seeing a child being beaten in the street, would not do something to help him or her. Even if they couldn’t do something themselves, they would call the police or look for someone who could help. Why? Is it because they went to church and heard the Gospel, and something unique about the Gospel impels them to act? Certainly not in all circumstances.

Cicero: "Nature produces a special love of offspring...and to live according to nature is the supreme good."
The American Indians: "The killing of the women and more especially of the young boys and girls who are to go to make up the future strength of the people, is the saddest part...and we feel it very sorely."
Ancient Chinese: "The Master said, Respect the young."
Hinduism: "Children, the old, the poor, etc., should be considered lords of the atmosphere."*

All human beings are born with a sense of right and wrong. This is natural to all human beings by God’s doing. It is the law of God written on the heart (Rom. 1:20) that condemns all men everywhere. This law is insufficient to save; it cannot bring salvation or forgiveness of sins, but it does bring guilt and an awareness of sin, and when God’s restraining hand is gracious in a society, the hearts of men are held in check by this conscience and society is certainly benefited by it.

Having said all of this, however, one need only read a non-Christian document such as The Universal Declaration of Human Rights to see that opposition to slavery or segregation is far from being a uniquely Christian notion.

Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. 

Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of persons. 

Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. 

Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 

Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

The point here is that just as it is written on the consciences of all human beings that they should assist a helpless child being hurt, it is also imprinted on the hearts of all people everywhere (though they might suppress it, as they do other aspects of God’s law) that slavery and segregation because of skin color is morally wrong. Christianity has nothing unique to bring to the table in this particular area (although the Gospel brings internal transformation, which gives one a delight in God's law and a consequent outward conformity to that law). To say that this particular aspect of justice is not the mission of the Church is not a condemnation of Christianity or of the Church, but rather a recognition that the Church quo Church has been given the “modest” task of saving souls and holding the spiritual keys to the Kingdom.

*From C.S. Lewis' Appendix in The Abolition of Man

Eleven Theses Actually on Natural Law

Adam Parker and I have composed this humble attempt at a response/critique/polemic to this post.

1. Natural Law is not to be equated with what people have said about natural law. The writings of John Rawls, for example, are not natural law. However, just because people differ about what is contained in natural law does not mean that natural law is deficient; the problem is with its interpreters.

2. Affirming natural law does not require a nature/grace dualism, simply because some who hold to natural law affirm this dualism. Luther and Calvin believed in natural law, and they were not friends of such a dualistic conception.

3. If someone accepts the reality of natural revelation, they would also need some doctrine of natural law. Natural revelation is a clear enough source, in and of itself, for what it is intended to reveal, and although it can be supplemented by other revelation, it does not have to be in order to be properly understood. Natural law is perspicuous, otherwise it would be unjust to condemn someone on the basis of it.

4. The God who speaks through nature speaks in Scripture, and the God who speaks in Scripture was born of a virgin in Bethlehem, but do not forget, God still speaks clearly through nature.

5. Those who accept natural law in this sense do believe that natural law can operate independently of special revelation because special revelation is consistent with natural law. The God who speaks in natural law, who was born of a virgin in Bethlehem, is the same God who spoke through Moses, the prophets, and the Apostles and thus speaks with one voice.

6. Every Christian who affirms natural law, by definition, must also hold to the exhaustive authority of Jesus over every last molecule.

7. If a person rejects natural law in all its formulations, but insists that special revelation is authoritative over the public square, this is 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 God speaks with a forked tongue in special and natural revelation, as though one trumps the other.

9. The list given in Romans 1:29-32 confirms that natural law provides a rather extensive amount of detail when it comes to what God will judge. Natural law contains considerable detail that can be known on the basis of natural revelation alone. Natural law communicates these things, regardless of what special revelation says about it.

10. The Reformers held to a robust form of natural law theory.

11. It can be demonstrated that natural law prohibits homosexual marriage.

Arguments for the Continuing Validity of the Decalogue

I have been helping co-teach a small group at our church where we have made the Ten Commandments the subject of study. What follows are basically my notes for the first lesson where I argued that the Ten Commandments are not relics of a bygone legalistic era, but that they are, rather, gracious gifts from God to His church for her edification and sanctification. Our Assistant Pastor, Rick Franks, taught the first part of the lesson where he argued that Christians are still under the law - though not as a means of being justified. In the second part of the lesson, I argued that the Ten Commandments do stand apart from the rest of the Old Testament law as something unique and persistent.

--------------------------------

With so many rules and laws in the Old Testament, why put such a special emphasis on the ten commandments? What about the many other commands throughout the Old Testament?

1. The Ten Commandments are a summary of the natural law in creation and therefore cannot be abolished or pushed to the side.

All ten commandments in one way or another are taught or implicit before the giving of the tablets of Sinai. This means that even if the Mosaic law were completely done away with, then the ten would still be a part of humanity's moral fabric.

(1) "No other Gods" (Ex. 15:11; Gen. 6:9) was implicit by the OT approval of those who walked with God, who worshipped only the Lord. Even the serpent's temptation to Eve was a temptation to set themselves up in God's place, therefore violating the first commandment.

(2) "No Idols" is already present in Genesis. As Philip Ross points out, the story from Gen. 31:34 where the menstrual woman is sitting on the idol is a "very sharp judgment on the unholiness and nothingness of this 'god'; a woman sat upon it in her uncleanness" (p 63). Also, at one point (Gen. 35:2) God commands Jacob to "Get rid of their foreign god."

(3) "Do not misuse the name of the Lord" is implicit whenever the name of the Lord is exalted or honored or sworn by in the pre-Mosaic fathers (Gen. 4:26; 24:3; 22:16).

(4) "Remember the sabbath" is referenced before the giving of the ten also. In Ex. 16:4-5 the people are told that they must collect enough mana and not to collect any on the seventh day. The narrative makes clear that the seventh day is to be "a day of rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD" (16:23). God's complaint in 16:28 "How long will you refuse to keep my commands and instruction?", according to Ross, "implies knowledge of 'commands' and 'instructions' concerning the Sabbath." The greatest proof of the Sabbath, however, is that it is rooted in the creation account which specifically points to the seventh day as a day of rest for God who needs no rest. Clearly, then, the mention of the Sabbath day is not for God's sake, but for man's sake.

(5) "Honor your father and your mother" is demonstrably present before the giving of the ten as Noah's sons go with him into the ark (Gen. 7:7), and as Reuben and Judah plead with their father for Benjamin to come to Egypt (Gen. 42:29-43:13). Negatively, dishonoring one's parents is condemned in Gen. 9:20-27 when Ham is condemned for his disrespectful attitude towards his father's nakedness.

(6) "You shall not kill" is obviously present in the murder of Abel. If murder did not become a sin until the giving of the law at Sinai, then upon what moral grounds did God condemn Cain? Clearly the sixth commandment was part of the moral law given to all humanity before any written law. Recall, also, that Moses killed a man and sought to cover it up (Ex. 2:11-14). This was also before any law had been given to humanity. As Ross once again points out, "Murder was therefore a crime before Sinai, among the chosen people and in heathen nations."

(7) "Do not commit adultery" begins in the garden of Eden as Adam and Eve become united in a one-flesh union (Gen. 2:23-25). This is later pointed to by Jesus as the grounds upon which divorce ought not to happen. If divorce is forbidden by Adam and Eve's union in the Garden, then surely the breaking of that union by adultery was as well. Also, consider how Abraham allowed Sarah into Abimelech's house. What happened next is remarkable because God came to Abimelech in a dream and warned him not that "adultery is a transgression of the moral order - he knows that already - but so that he knows he will commit adultery if he touches Sarah (Gen. 20:3-7).

(8) "You shall not steal" is violated almost immediately when Adam and Eve stole fruit from God which they did not have any right to (although we'd be mistaken to reduce their sin to theft). Some major examples of theft before Sinai: Laban's defrauding of Jacob (Gen. 31:6-7), Rachel's theft of her father (31:19), and don't forget the episode involving Joseph's cup (Gen. 44). "Theft was in no sense acceptable before Israel heard the ten words" (p 73).

(9) "Do not bear false witness" immediately comes to mind when Adam passes the buck to Eve in the garden of Eden. After all, if he wasn't guilty then only Eve would have stood condemned in the Garden. Admittedly this is an indirect reference to lying, but it should be agreed that lying was a sin from the beginning. When Abraham lies to Abimelech about his wife, Abimelech the pagan lectures Abraham because Abraham was doing something "that ought not be done" (Gen. 20:9). Other events involved Sarah's lie in Gen. 18:15. Another is when Jacob recognizes that his deceit of his father to obtain the blessing would make him worthy of a curse (Gen. 27:12).

(10) "Do not covet" is also a command which is implicit in the fall narrative. The taking of the fruit was a desiring of something which Adam and Eve did not have a right to (Gen. 3:6). Geerhard von Rad observes also that Cain's murder of Abel sprang from his envy of God's pleasure in his brother. Joseph too experienced suffering at his brothers' hands when they coveted their father's affection from Joseph. Covetousness is a "constant theme" in the destruction of Abraham's family.

Natural Law was in place before Sinai:

(a) In Gen. 6:5 God judges the world because "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Clearly humanity lived under a moral law before the giving of the ten commandments. Once again, the moral law transcends the Sinai commandments.

(b) In Gen. 26:5 God says that "Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." Ross notes that "This is the first time the Pentateuch uses those words, which are of considerable significance later." Another scholar writes, "This is no simple anachronism; it carries significance for understanding the place of the law in the pre-Sinai period."1

(c) Some scholars see significance in the fact that the ten commandments were given in a desert which was not understood to be owned by any particular nation. They argue that this emphasizes the transcendent and universal applicability of the ten commandments.

2. In the OT, the Ten Commandments are singled out as unique and distinct from the rest of the Old Testament laws.

(a) Deuteronomy 4:12-14 teaches not only that the ten commandments are important, but they are the covenant. Exodus 34:28 teaches the exact same thing. Clearly the ten commandments occupy a very important place right up front in Israel's history.

(b) Interestingly, the two tablets containing two copies of the commandments were kept in the ark rather than beside it as the law was. This emphasized the covenantal nature of the ten commandments as one copy was normally given to each party in ancient near eastern secular treaties. In the case of Israel, both tablets are kept together because the Lord himself will dwell with the Israelites.

(c) In Deuteronomy 5:22 it says: "These words the LORD spoke with a loud voice to your whole assembly, at the mountain, from the midst of the fire, the cloud and the thick darkness; and he added nothing more." This clause is a boundary marker so that an answer might be given to the one who might ask, "Why the ten commandments? Why isn't the rest of the law of Moses seen as unique and applicable in all times and places?"

(d) Ross offers his own summary of his argument that "the Pentateuch recognized the Decalogue as a distinct element within the law"

1. The ten were not a marked historical development or a new law.
2. God spoke these words.
3. These words came from the finger of God.
4. He added nothing to these words and no other part of the law had that 'binding foundation-scroll' status.
5. The rest of the law was not written in a form which was addressed to the individual throughout.
6. Only the ten commandments function as the 'constitution' upon which 'all else is but commentary.' Ultimately, it was the 'constitution of the universe.'

The OT laws were traditionally divided into civil, ceremonial, and moral laws. Thomas Aquinas offered Deuteronomy 4:13-14 as a prooftext for this division of the law.

I should also note that our own confession, the Westminster Confession, teaches that while the moral law (again, summarized in the ten commandments) is still in effect for the church today, the civil and ceremonial aspects of the law are no longer binding for the church. So it recognizes this same division.

19.3 “Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.”

19.4 “To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.”

And so our own confession recognizes that while the moral law, which is summarized by the ten commandments, is still binding, the civil laws and ceremonial laws have "expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now."

3. The NT teaches that the Ten Commandments are still binding.

(a) Jesus did not change the law or his attitude to the law in any way during his life. Rather, as our Larger Catechism says, "Christ humbled himself in his life, by subjecting himself to the law, which he perfectly fulfilled."

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:17-19)

In all of the Gospels, Jesus is portrayed as keeping each and every commandment of the Old Testament and of teaching others to keep them, as well. Even Jesus' teachings on the Sabbath, which some point to as being a change from the "old order" were entirely in keeping with Old Testament teachings. When we get to the fourth commandment we will address this question, but in the meantime it is useful for us to note that Jesus' teaching is always in keeping with the Old Testament teachings.

1 Matthew 4:10
2 John 4:24
3 Matthew 5:33-37
4 Luke 23:56
5 Matthew 15:4; Luke 2:51
6 Matt. 5:21-6; 15:9; 19:3-9, 18
7 Matt. 5:27-32; 15:19; 19:3-9, 18
8 Matt. 5:19; 19:18
9 Matt. 5:33-37; 15:19; 19:18
10 Luke 12:15

(b) Jesus saw the Ten Commandments as an inseparable unit. In Mark 10:17 Jesus is talking with the rich young ruler and when the man asks how he might have eternal life, Jesus points to the ten commandments: "You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'" What is so brilliant is that Jesus references the ten by pointing to several of the ten, but not all of them. He does not have to - this young man would have known all ten commandments by heart.

(c) The Ten Commandments are all presented positively in the book of Acts (both explicitly and implicitly), even after Jesus' ascension.

1 Acts 4:11-12; 4:24; 12:22-23
2 Acts 7:42; 15:20, 29; 19:19
3 Acts 23:3
4 Acts 13:14, 44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4
5 Acts 23:5; 25:6-12
6 Acts 7:51-53; 9:22-24; 21:30-31
7 Acts 15:20
8 Acts 5:4
9 Acts 5:1-11
10 Acts 20:33

(d) The Moral Law is never revoked. Elsewhere in the book of Acts (10:28), we find that Peter has a vision and is commanded by God to eat the unclean animals. In this event, God declares that the ceremonial (purity) laws of the Mosaic period are no longer binding. He does not revoke the moral laws. The Ten Commandments are NOT part of the ceremonial law. Rather, as we argued already, the Ten are a summary of the Natural Law which God has placed in the hearts of all men. Such a law cannot simply be revoked. However, many try to argue that of all the ten, only the Sabbath is part of the purity laws. Once again, this will be addressed when we discuss the fourth commandment. We must remember that the Ten are viewed by Moses, as well as by Jesus, as a unit, all written together, and to be obeyed without being separated from one another.

------------------------------------------------
Almost none of this lesson would have been possible without the aid of Philip Ross' book From the Finger of God. Many of the arguments in this lesson were taken straight from (or were summarized from) his book.

Is Instinct the Measure of Morality?

AOL TV summarizes an interview with singer/actress Kristin Chernoweth, where she claims that "her staunch Christian beliefs are not at odds with her support for the gay community."

In an interview with 'The Advocate' Chenoweth says that people are born gay or straight, just like they're either tall or short, and that it's not a choice. In response to a question about people who cite Christianity as justification for passing discriminatory laws, she said "I would ask, 'What would Jesus do?'"

She added that, "It sounds so cliché and Pollyanna-ish, but I have a feeling if he were on the earth today, he wouldn't be walking around saying, 'You're going to hell' and 'You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong.' I think he'd be accepting and loving."

Chenoweth continued, using her own tiny stature to illustrate her point. "What would I do if it was a sin to be short? That's the way God made me, so what could I do? Let's see, I could wear heels, I could tease my hair, and maybe on a good day I could be 5'1". But the bottom line is, I'm 4'11" and that's the way I was put together. And that's what I believe about homosexuals."

The example of "if it was a sin to be short" is of course, ridiculous. The fact is that there are lots of things that people believe are wrong even though people have a natural inclination to do them. From lusting in your heart after someone to the fact that by nature we enjoy stealing and talking about our neighbor behind their back, we are by nature sinners. Our natural condition or desire is no gauge for morality. I hate to drop a bomb like Lewis on Chernoweth's head, because she's such a sweet lady, but this notion that our natural desires are good and are the measure of goodness needs to be laid to rest once and for all. Take it, Lewis:

Telling us to obey Instinct is like telling us to obey 'people'. People say different things: so do instincts. Our instincts are at war. If it is held that the instinct for preserving the species should always be obeyed at the expense of other instincts, whence do we derive this rule of precedence? To listen to that instinct speaking in its own cause and deciding it in its own favour would be rather simple-minded. Each instinct, if you listen to it, will claim to be gratified at the expense of all the rest. By the very act of listening to one rather than to others we have already prejudged the case. If we did not bring to the examination of our instincts a knowledge of their comparative dignity we could never learn it from them. And that knowledge cannot itself be instinctive: the judge cannot be one of the parties judged; or, if he is, the decision is worthless and there is no ground for placing the preservation of the species above self-preservation or sexual appetite.

As far as I'm concerned, Christians ought to stop fighting the battle over whether or not some people are born with homosexual desires. Let us grant it. Supporters of the morality of homosexual behavior are still left in the position of defending a morality which is rooted in the human condition rather than in an external natural law. As Lewis says in the above quote from The Abolition of Man, this position is circular in nature.

Natural Law's Diversity: Moral Advances vs. Moral Innovations

In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis spends a great deal of time defending the notion of Natural Law. As we have been bemoaning for some time, the notion of Natural Law has largely been largely lost in the Reformed theological world. One of the complaints which is often heard from those who might seek to downplay the significance of Natural Law is: "which one?" Which version of natural law, in other words, is the Natural Law? "If we lump together," Lewis asks, "the traditional moralities of East and West, the Christian, the Pagan, and the Jew, shall we not find many contradictions and some absurdities? I admit all this."

Lewis' solution to these difficulties, is to argue for a distinction between "a real moral advance" and a "real moral innovation." He argues that Christ's Golden Rule is an advance from something such as Confucius' "Do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you." However, he argues that Nietzsche's ethic is an "innovation" which does not fit within Natural Law because it rejects its classically acknowledged contents.

But the Nietzschean ethic can be accepted only if we are ready to scrap traditional morals as a mere error and then to put ourselves in a position where we can find no ground for any value judgements at all. It is the difference between a man who says to us: 'You like your vegetables moderately fresh; why not grow your own and have them perfectly fresh?' and a man who says, 'Throw away that loaf and try eating bricks and centipedes instead.'

And so the bigger picture answer offered by Lewis - in a very barebones form - is to suggest that, of course, the Natural Law is objective and fixed, but that its application to each society is, to a certain degree, flexible (within a certain allowable range). To step outside of the range is to innovate. Those who stay within the range are making progress.

Modifications and advances in Natural Law are found throughout almost all societies. In fact, all societies which believed in objective right and wrong do have some variations in their laws (especially, Calvin points out, in each society's sanctions against lawbreakers), but these are differences of degree and not contradictions. Wherever contradictions exist, someone has legislated against the Natural Law. Humanity needs moral advances, not Nietzsche-esque innovations.

VanDrunen on the Continuing Applicability of the Mosaic Civil Code

In his magnificent volume Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, David VanDrunen spends the fifth chapter of his book examining the view of men during the time of high orthodoxy like Turretin and Rutherford regarding the natural law and its relationship to the Mosaic civil law. One argument that VanDrunen spends a great deal of time substantiating is that the orthodox Reformed theologians saw the civil law as remaining in effect insofar as it conformed to the Natural Law. At one point, Turretin even says that (in VanDrunen's words) "equity is the mind of the law as well as the aim, rule, and end of all law." Then, in Turretin's words, "the law of nature (the fountain of all other laws, because it is the most equitable) is also the most majestic" (Institutes 2.137-138). I quote these words with an eye on our contemporary environment where, especially those who have been influenced by Van Til (and I count myself among them, to a degree) by and large tend to reject Natural Law.

In VanDrunen's conclusion in this section, he discusses how we ought to understand the reference to equity in WCF 19.4, which reads as follows:

To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

Here is the conclusion VanDrunen reaches:

In light of this evidence, I suggest that the most plausible reading of WCF 19.4 [with regard to its reference to equity] concurs with the general sentiments of the Reformed orthodox writers being studied in this chapter. The civil or judicial law of Moses has been abrogated in the coming of Christ, yet has continuing applicability insofar as it reflects the natural law. For Reformed orthodoxy, as for the Reformation and medieval traditions of the past, civil magistrates ought not to impose the Mosaic civil law as such upon contemporary societies. Yet at times they will implement Mosaic civil laws, not because they are Mosaic laws, but because they are particular applications of the natural law still appropriate under present circumstances. (p. 170-171)

A Prooftext for the Threefold Division?

I have read and loved Philip Ross' book From the Finger of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law. I am now reading it through for the second time more slowly because I am helping teach a class at our church on the Ten Commandments and am finding Ross' work to be extremely helpful. I am drastically over-preparing for the class and almost certainly my leftovers and notes will become posts here at BTB in the future.

What was of interest to me was that Ross includes in the book a prooftext which Aquinas was fond of using to show that the threefold division of the law into moral, civil, and ceremonial may be more than just a helpful convention. He points to Deuteronomy 6:1:

These are the commands, decrees and laws the LORD your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess.

Ross examines the three words for "decrees," "commands" and "laws" and comes to this conclusion:

...[T]he individual Hebrew words for law do not divide the law into cast-iron categories. Even so, the [sic] Deuteronomy's use of the words sometimes makes a distinction between the Decalogue and the rest of the Mosaic code. That distinction does not force the practical-theological conclusion that the Decalogue 'doth for ever bind all'. It does, however, further challenge the view that the Old Testament law was written, and always viewed, as an indivisible whole.

Turretin: Natural Law is from God

"[T]here is a natural law, not arising from a voluntary contract of law of society, but from a divine obligation being impressed by God upon the conscience of man in his very creation, on which the difference between right and wrong is founded and which contains the practical principles of immovable truth (such as: 'God should be worshipped,' 'parents honored,' 'we should live virtuousy,' 'injure no one,' 'do to others what we would wish them to do to us' and the like). Also that so many remains and evidences of the law are still left in our nature (although it has been in different ways corrupted and obscured by sin) that there is no mortal who cannot feel its force either more or less."

-Turretin's Institutes 2.3

Argument for Infanticide from Natural Law Fail

A while back Steve from Triablogue posted an argument meant to demonstrate the absurdity of natural law theory (he had Catholics in his sights at the time). When I originally read it I felt his argument did not deal fairly with natural law theory. Since then, Steven (not the same Steven) has posted a response in which he notes the confusion of "nature" and "natural." Read the post to get the meat of it.

The lesson for today?

natural law ethics is not the view that nature, as in the world out there in the jungles, seas, etc., determines what is good for us and bad for us, but rather that our natures (in a technical metaphysical sense) determine what is good for us and bad for us.

Thanks, Steve.

Two Quotes from Calvin on Natural Law & Civil Laws

[T]here are some who deny that a commonwealth is duly framed which neglects the political system of Moses, and is ruled by the common law of nations. Let other men consider how perilous and seditious this notion is; it will be enough for me to have proved it false and foolish. (IV.XX.14)

Now, since that last quote is a bit of a tongue-twister, I thought I would restate it in a way that reads like English. So here it is - Adam's paraphrase:

If you don't think that a good nation should be ruled by the common law of nations and instead you think that a good nation's laws must include the Mosaic law, you are a dummy.

I didn't say it - Calvin did! (I didn't say it would be a kind paraphrase.)

In the next section, Calvin discusses the importance of Equity.

We [should examine]...these two things: the constitution of the law, and the equity on which its constitution is itself founded and rests. Equity, because it is natural, cannot but be the same for all, and therefore this same purpose ought to apply to all laws, whatever their object. Constitutions have certain circumstances upon which they in part depend. It therefore does not matter that they are different, provided all equally press toward the same goal of equity.

It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men. Consequently, the entire scheme of this equity of which we are now speaking has been prescribed in it. Hence, this equity alone must be the goal and rule and limit of all laws.

Whatever laws shall be framed to that rule, directed to that goal, bound by that limit, there is no reason why we should disapprove of them, howsoever they may differ from the Jewish law and among themselves. (IV.XX.16)

You'll have to forgive all of the Two Kingdoms posts. That's what I've been studying and reading about lately; ergo... lots of 2K discussions. Or maybe I've just been looking for lots of excuses to Photoshop humorous images of Calvin onto other peoples' bodies...

Where Have All The (Natural) Lawmen Gone?

A few days ago, I posted a list and asked if Natural Law was clear enough to teach these things. Specifically, I wanted to know if there were any Reformed people who would affirm that Natural Law can offer any accurate guidance for the civil realm. The list included things such as duty to care for families, the obligation of promises, and also included the prohibition of murder, slavery, adultery, tyranny, and incest.

This list was compiled by Harro Höpfl in his book The Christian Polity of John Calvin. The list is a selection of things (often very specific; though not necessarily comprehensive) which - according to Hopfl - Calvin believed were informed by "'nature' or 'natural sense' or 'reason'" (p. 179-180).

I was so struck by this list because Reformed theologians today seem to be embarrassed of any sort of affirmation of so much clarity in natural law - especially of the sort Calvin was wiling to affirm. To many it smacks of inclusivism, liberalism, or rejecting Scriptural authority. To many, natural law doesn't matter at all, since all we really need to do is bring everyone - believer or not - under the rule of Scripture (in which case, natural law can go the way of the dinosaurs for all we care - am I right?)

Is it really such a "radical" idea that men ought to be held to the standards which God has placed them under? (Don't forget to add the 'R' to the 2K!) Perhaps what really needs to happen is for Reformed thinkers to develop a renewed interest in and appreciation of natural law. It is a part of our heritage - it's in our bones and sinew. Our forefathers believed in it (think Turretin, especially), and though it is hotly debated how natural law was to be applied to the civil kingdom, it wasn't always an embarrassing thing to acknowledge that men have in their hearts the knowledge of right and wrong as a clear standard by which the common kingdom could be held to by its own citizens.

Instead of a sermon, let me end with a question: whose fault is it? What happened to Natural Law, in other words? Do we lay our complaints at the feet of Van Til? Kuyper? Bahnsen?

Is Natural Law Clear Enough To Teach This?

Are there any Reformed folk out there who are willing to say that the Natural Law is clear enough to teach the following:

• The authority of fathers over wives and children.
• The sanctity of monogamous marriage.
• The duty to care for families.
• Breastfeeding.
• Primogeniture.
• The sacrosanctity of envoys and ambassadors.
• The obligation of promises.
• Degrees of marriage.
• The need for witnesses in murder trials.
• The need for distinction of ranks in society.
• Prohibition of incest.
• Prohibition of murder.
• Prohibition of adultery.
• Prohibition of slavery.
• Prohibition of the rule of one man.
• Respect for the old.
• Equity in commercial dealings.
• Religion must be the first concern of governors.