Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer  Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivanhoe And I think that is what I had voted. | This? "Natural law exists ontologically but is epistemologically inaccessible for fallen men." If "inaccessible" means "unable to be reached," then I fail to see how #2 accords with "the good" as an ontic reality. |
I acknowledged its ontological validity. I expressed epistemic doubts. Perhaps the question should have been reworded. I am (again) expressing my doubts that NL, in some of its forms, is not sufficient for a social ethic, given the Resurrected and Ascended King Jesus.
While I could be wrong (probably am), I am simply saying that I as a Christian could not, in good conscience, meet unbelievers in the public square and say, "Let's just meet on neutral terms. Let's find some common-denominator for "justice" and agree on that." Given my views on the righteousness/justice of God in the person of Christ, I could never say that.
I won't stop others from pressing those claims for NL. Perhaps it might even work (interestingly, most of the successful NL formulations were done within a Christian social environment). But divorced from Christendom, I don't see it working. But history could prove me wrong.