Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Does anyone know if this book has come out yet, or when it's expected to become available? Thanks.
Thanks for the note, Rev. Hyde. Maybe my memory has failed me. I was under the impression that a more scholarly treatment of natural law was going to be published soon after the popular monograph. Maybe I misunderstood. Do you know when his book on the two kingdoms may be becoming available?Hi Casey,
I'm not quite sure what book you are talking about, but Dr. VanDrunen does have a book in the works on the two kingdoms, but not natural law, per se. He does hope to write more on natural law.
Are you referring to a book or article you heard about?
This is what I am referring to in the OP.I have his "A Biblical Case for Natural Law."
I heard he is coming out with a longer treatment as the above book is 69 pages of text.
Thanks for the recommendation.But, there are plenty of scholarly books out on natural law. Not only are there writers in the Aristotelian/Thomistic tradition, who have been churning out good material for a while, there's also another book I have by Grabill, Rediscovering The Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics. It is detailed, and attended by copius amounts of foot, er, end notes.
....
5. Not all versions of "natural law" are the same. There are distinct differences between the version of natural law taught by Calvin, Reformed orthodoxy, and CVT, and the version taught by Thomas and Rome. The Protestants (Luther, Bucer, Melanchthon, and Calvin) all identified the decalogue with "natural law" and that was at the foundation of their doctrine of the covenant of works or the "covenant of nature."
....
5. Not all versions of "natural law" are the same. There are distinct differences between the version of natural law taught by Calvin, Reformed orthodoxy, and CVT, and the version taught by Thomas and Rome. The Protestants (Luther, Bucer, Melanchthon, and Calvin) all identified the decalogue with "natural law" and that was at the foundation of their doctrine of the covenant of works or the "covenant of nature."
but the main point still holds -- that NL isn't some ethereal amorphous subjective entity but a fixed, objective, revealed law expressed in nature and in special revelation.
but the main point still holds -- that NL isn't some ethereal amorphous subjective entity but a fixed, objective, revealed law expressed in nature and in special revelation.
Professor Clark,
Where is NL revealed in special revelation?
but the main point still holds -- that NL isn't some ethereal amorphous subjective entity but a fixed, objective, revealed law expressed in nature and in special revelation.
Professor Clark,
Where is NL revealed in special revelation?
Dr. Clark can speak for himself, but isn't NL recorded in Scripture in Rom. 1:19-31?
Professor Clark,
Where is NL revealed in special revelation?
Dr. Clark can speak for himself, but isn't NL recorded in Scripture in Rom. 1:19-31?
Casey, if you are still here among this drivel,
Romans 2:15 says the works of the law are written on the heart. A lot of NL guys say that means natural law is written on the heart. I actually don't think that verse supports NL, though I do have a room for NL in my theology.
Per Rom 1:18ff I don't think "without excuse" implies a good NL. I think other things do, but not that. One could turn it around and say that "they suppress the truth" proves the non-truth of NL. I buy a form of NL, but I don't use those verses.
A lot of people look at general revelation and immediately infer natural theology (The HCSB Apologetics Study Bible, for example). I don't think that is a good move.
Romans 2:15 says the works of the law are written on the heart. A lot of NL guys say that means natural law is written on the heart. I actually don't think that verse supports NL, though I do have a room for NL in my theology.
Per Rom 1:18ff I don't think "without excuse" implies a good NL. I think other things do, but not that. One could turn it around and say that "they suppress the truth" proves the non-truth of NL. I buy a form of NL, but I don't use those verses.
A lot of people look at general revelation and immediately infer natural theology (The HCSB Apologetics Study Bible, for example). I don't think that is a good move.
I dont see how you can not get from general revelation to natural theology without denying that God revealing various things tells us anything about himself. And I think that is a hard road to go down.
Also you cannot use "they suppress the truth" to prove the non-truth of NL. Remember suppression does not imply removal and does not imply that such cannot be overriden.
CT
Professor Clark,but the main point still holds -- that NL isn't some ethereal amorphous subjective entity but a fixed, objective, revealed law expressed in nature and in special revelation.
Where is NL revealed in special revelation?