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.
I myself have many philosophical scrupples with the idea of natural law but I wanted to hear, or read I guess, the arguments in favor of natural law and the various understandings of this concept. I will lay out my scrupples if anyone is interested.
I myself have many philosophical scrupples with the idea of natural law but I wanted to hear, or read I guess, the arguments in favor of natural law and the various understandings of this concept. I will lay out my scrupples if anyone is interested.
I would be very interested in hearing your scrupples.
CT
James, reading the brief description of your scruples, I might make some comments:
1.) The Reformed tradition has always affirmed natural law, but not (as your post seems to imply you may have been led to believe) to the exclusion of necessary special revelation. The law which was written on the heart of man in creation (the moral law, or "natural law") has not changed; but due to man's depravity and how we have corrupted our use of reason, it is difficult for man to profit in it, and special revelation is necessary for a clear and full statement of God's law.
2.) Neither Westerners nor cannibals get to decide what is "natural;" God does that. It is man's duty to recognize it. One could likewise ask whether the Bible or the Qu'ran is God's special revelation. The fact that many mistakenly identify something as revelation (whether it be natural or special) does not negate the fact that the truth has been revealed to all men and we have the duty to recognize and respond to it, regardless of how we have corrupted our faculties. It is not the fact that people agree on something that makes it the naturally revealed law of God.
3.) Natural law is not really a "non-Biblical ethic," for whether the law is revealed by nature or scripture, it is still the same law. The use of them proceeds from different principles (one from reason, one from simple statement), but the content is the same. The law as it is revealed naturally has the use of restraining and directing those societies which do not have special revelation; it serves to stop the mouth of all and leave all without excuse; it provides us with a means of arguing for societal laws within our own country where a majority does not accept Biblical authority as a basis for morality and law; it serves to confirm us in our faith when we falter; etc.
Looking again, I see this thread actually started by asking for arguments IN FAVOR of natural law arguments.
Here are two of them, both using natural law arguments on the issue of homosexuality, and yet coming to different conclusions.
Andrew Sullivan appeals to natural law in favor of homosexuality:
But all these arguments are arguments for the centrality of heterosexual sexual acts in nature, not their exclusiveness. It is surely possible to concur with these sentiments, even to laud their beauty and truth, while also conceding that it is nevertheless also true that nature seems to have provided a spontaneous and mysterious contrast that could conceivably be understood to complement — even dramatize — the central male-female order. In many species and almost all human cultures, there are some who seem to find their destiny in a similar but different sexual and emotional union. They do this not by subverting their own nature, or indeed human nature, but by fulfilling it in a way that doesn't deny heterosexual primacy, but rather honors it by its rare and distinct otherness. As albinos remind us of the brilliance of color; as redheads offer a startling contrast to the blandness of their peers; as genius teaches us, by contrast, the virtue of moderation; as the disabled person reveals to us in negative form the beauty of the fully functioning human body; so the homosexual person might be seen as a natural foil to the heterosexual norm, a variation that does not eclipse the theme, but resonates with it. Extinguishing — or prohibiting — homosexuality is, from this point of view, not a virtuous necessitys, but the real crime against nature, a refusal to accept the pied beauty of God's creation, a denial of the way in which the other need not threaten, but may actually give depth and contrast to the self.
This is the alternative argument embedded in the Church's recent grappling with natural law, that is just as consonant with the spirit of natural law as the Church's current position. It is more consonant with what actually occurs in nature; seeks an end to every form of natural life; and upholds the dignity of each human person. It is so obvious an alternative to the Church's current stance that it is hard to imagine the forces of avoidance that have kept it so firmly at bay for so long.
Independent Gay Forum - Alone Again, Naturally
Scott Clark appeals to natural law against homosexuality:
I argue that the state should regulate marriage on the basis of natural, creational law and that those who advocate pushing back the boundaries of marriage to include homosexual marriage are advocating the recognition of the violation of natural, creational law recognized in the West by pagans and Christians for two thousand years.
Natural Law, the Two Kingdoms, and Homosexual Marriage
The fact that Sullivan appeals to "natural law" while contradicting it doesn't make his appeal either valid or true nor does it invalidate appeals to the creational law.
The creational law exists. It's a given, a datum. It cannot be denied any more than air or the law of gravity can be denied. It's written on every human's conscience and it accuses them. It's true. It's universal and it's God-given (See Rom 1-2).
That's not the "natural law" of which Sullivan was speaking.
We should be careful to distinguish the sense in which one is using the key term here. Hugo Grotius wrote about "natural law" but not in the same way or in the same sense as the Reformed orthodox or Calvin.
The fact that it's possible to abuse a term or to equivocate doesn't invalidate the term or the truth of it.
The fact that Sullivan appeals to "natural law" while contradicting it doesn't make his appeal either valid or true nor does it invalidate appeals to the creational law.
The creational law exists. It's a given, a datum. It cannot be denied any more than air or the law of gravity can be denied. It's written on every human's conscience and it accuses them. It's true. It's universal and it's God-given (See Rom 1-2).
That's not the "natural law" of which Sullivan was speaking.
We should be careful to distinguish the sense in which one is using the key term here. Hugo Grotius wrote about "natural law" but not in the same way or in the same sense as the Reformed orthodox or Calvin.
The fact that it's possible to abuse a term or to equivocate doesn't invalidate the term or the truth of it.
The fact that Sullivan appeals to "natural law" while contradicting it doesn't make his appeal either valid or true nor does it invalidate appeals to the creational law.
The creational law exists. It's a given, a datum. It cannot be denied any more than air or the law of gravity can be denied. It's written on every human's conscience and it accuses them. It's true. It's universal and it's God-given (See Rom 1-2).
That's not the "natural law" of which Sullivan was speaking.
We should be careful to distinguish the sense in which one is using the key term here. Hugo Grotius wrote about "natural law" but not in the same way or in the same sense as the Reformed orthodox or Calvin.
The fact that it's possible to abuse a term or to equivocate doesn't invalidate the term or the truth of it.
Such abuse/equivocation only proves the epistemological problem due to sin, hence the Reformed confessional recognition of the necessity and perpescuity of special revelation. This is well explained by Thomas Boston above.
The fact that Sullivan appeals to "natural law" while contradicting it doesn't make his appeal either valid or true nor does it invalidate appeals to the creational law.
The creational law exists. It's a given, a datum. It cannot be denied any more than air or the law of gravity can be denied. It's written on every human's conscience and it accuses them. It's true. It's universal and it's God-given (See Rom 1-2).
That's not the "natural law" of which Sullivan was speaking.
We should be careful to distinguish the sense in which one is using the key term here. Hugo Grotius wrote about "natural law" but not in the same way or in the same sense as the Reformed orthodox or Calvin.
The fact that it's possible to abuse a term or to equivocate doesn't invalidate the term or the truth of it.
Well I hesitated to reply to the quote given by you above because it seemed incomplete to a total viewpoint of yours. I will ask a question about your view, if you don't mind, to clarify my own understanding of your viewpoint. First off how do you avoid the criticism of the fallacy of mass appeal in the quote given above? By that I mean just because a whole group of people or history of cultures believe something to be true doesn't by itself make it so. It seems to me that natural law does exist but beacuse of the fall it can no longer hold the normative place for us that it held before, but God is perfectly just in judging us according to it.
I see Dr. Clark appealing to Romans 1-2 instead of just mass appeal. Now you can say his appeal doesn't work but I do not see him simply standing on mass appeal.
CT
Again I'm not against the idea of natural law just against the idea of it standing on its own.
(Rom 1:18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
(Rom 1:19) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
(Rom 1:20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(Psa 19:1)The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
(Psa 19:2) Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
(Psa 19:3) There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
(Psa 19:4) Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
(Psa 19:5) Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
(Psa 19:6) His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
We also be careful about lifting quotations from authors that use "natural law". Mainly because there is in reality a "pre-Locke" and "post-Locke" understanding of Natural Law.
John Calvin vs. John Locke
Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is of infinitely more authenticity than that moral system, which is framed by ethical writers, and denominated the natural law. Because one is the law of nature, expressly declared so to be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but, till then, they can never be put in any competition together.
armourbearer and PuritanCovenanter I completly agree with you both, what you say is in full accordance with my own more dooyweerd/bavink understanding of creation. But the problem I was refering to was an autonomous natural law, one that stood on its own. How would this natural law on its own be completly logicaly authoritative, how would we prove something from natural law alone? That is my question I guess, if the proof here is to refer to only what culture after culture has accepted than I'm sorry but this is a logical fallacy. Again my question and my only question is how one would prove a moral authority based on natural law alone?
(Psa 19:4) Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
armourbearer and PuritanCovenanter I completly agree with you both, what you say is in full accordance with my own more dooyweerd/bavink understanding of creation. But the problem I was refering to was an autonomous natural law, one that stood on its own. How would this natural law on its own be completly logicaly authoritative, how would we prove something from natural law alone? That is my question I guess, if the proof here is to refer to only what culture after culture has accepted than I'm sorry but this is a logical fallacy. Again my question and my only question is how one would prove a moral authority based on natural law alone?
I can't prove you exist. How do I know you exist as you say you do? To whom shall I address the question?
(Psa 19:4) Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
I have been witnessed to the truthfulness of this passage alone. I was a Sailor and the there is no mistake in a Navigator's mind. Their Line is gone out through through the whole earth. There is an unspeakable clear speech here. There is evidence even if we are prepositional. You ought to see the orderliness of creation in all things. Look at the Navigational tools Sailors use. There is one even after the Sextant. Their line is gone out.
armourbearer and PuritanCovenanter I completly agree with you both, what you say is in full accordance with my own more dooyweerd/bavink understanding of creation. But the problem I was refering to was an autonomous natural law, one that stood on its own. How would this natural law on its own be completly logicaly authoritative, how would we prove something from natural law alone? That is my question I guess, if the proof here is to refer to only what culture after culture has accepted than I'm sorry but this is a logical fallacy. Again my question and my only question is how one would prove a moral authority based on natural law alone?
I don't know if you'd agree that the parent has even less specific and detailed biblical guidance to use than the magistrate, and thus also has to, to a large extent, depend on a sanctified person's interpretation of natural revelation?
And unsanctified parents have to depend on common grace interpretations of natural revelation.
This of course impinges heavily on the theonomy debate, James. T. David Gordon has pointed out contra Bahnsen's argument that if theonomy is not accepted then civil magistrates have no guide as to what to do, that there are many areas of life where we are left with no specific guide from the Bible.
Leaving the theonomy debate aside for the moment, it has occurred to me that in the area of child-rearing, the Scriptures are low on specific and detailed prescriptions. To a large extent the parent is left by Scripture to fill in the details of precisely how and when to chastise, etc, etc, etc, by sanctified common sense i.e. natural revelation interpreted by the sanctified person in the light of the often very general teaching of Scripture and applied, giving biblical natural law(s).
(Psa 19:4) Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
I have been witnessed to the truthfulness of this passage alone. I was a Sailor and the there is no mistake in a Navigator's mind. Their Line is gone out through through the whole earth. There is an unspeakable clear speech here. There is evidence even if we are prepositional. You ought to see the orderliness of creation in all things. Look at the Navigational tools Sailors use. There is one even after the Sextant. Their line is gone out.
I am not denying that natural law exists or that creation is orderly. Just that you can prove a moral code from natural law alone. For instance how would you prove that homosexual marriage is wrong by only appealing to natural law, and do this without commiting the logical fallacy I mentioned above.
I don't know if you'd agree that the parent has even less specific and detailed biblical guidance to use than the magistrate, and thus also has to, to a large extent, depend on a sanctified person's interpretation of natural revelation?
And unsanctified parents have to depend on common grace interpretations of natural revelation.
Oh I agree I am a parent.
This of course impinges heavily on the theonomy debate, James. T. David Gordon has pointed out contra Bahnsen's argument that if theonomy is not accepted then civil magistrates have no guide as to what to do, that there are many areas of life where we are left with no specific guide from the Bible.
Leaving the theonomy debate aside for the moment, it has occurred to me that in the area of child-rearing, the Scriptures are low on specific and detailed prescriptions. To a large extent the parent is left by Scripture to fill in the details of precisely how and when to chastise, etc, etc, etc, by sanctified common sense i.e. natural revelation interpreted by the sanctified person in the light of the often very general teaching of Scripture and applied, giving biblical natural law(s).
I completly agree, I guess I am not explaining myself very well so I wil try. Natural law does exist and affects each and everyone of us, or you could say that we all posses knowledge of it. That is not what I am talking about here, whether or not natural law is operative, what I am talking about is basing an argument for or against something based on natural law alone. Take the whole same-sex marriage discussion. How would you prove that this was against natural law? If you said that every culture in history has recognized this than that doesn't prove anything at all, it is a logical fallacy in fact. So does that make more sense or not?
I think I have badly explained what I was trying to ask. My original question was answered but it raised this new one and I wanted to see what everyone thought, I guess I should have specified that.
(Psa 19:4) Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
I have been witnessed to the truthfulness of this passage alone. I was a Sailor and the there is no mistake in a Navigator's mind. Their Line is gone out through through the whole earth. There is an unspeakable clear speech here. There is evidence even if we are prepositional. You ought to see the orderliness of creation in all things. Look at the Navigational tools Sailors use. There is one even after the Sextant. Their line is gone out.
I am not denying that natural law exists or that creation is orderly. Just that you can prove a moral code from natural law alone. For instance how would you prove that homosexual marriage is wrong by only appealing to natural law, and do this without commiting the logical fallacy I mentioned above.
Orderliness has to come from somewhere. Definition has to come from somewhere. I do not believe man was created in some void or vacuum without understanding. If there is a natural law there has be one who is over it. If there is a deity over creation then one must also conclude that he set the law up and the principles by which they work. Concerning homosexuality, I would say the animal kingdom itself proves male and female relationships. I know there are abrogations in some instances. I also believe the natural order of family would prove something in the question of homosexuality.
How can we prove murder is wrong? I like to start with that question because mankind has a self preservation principle in his nature. That comes from God. I also understand that man is fallen and dies. That is a judgment because we all have sin in our heart as a principle. Mankind knows he doesn't always think clearly and makes mistakes. He even naturally violates his conscience. He opposes himself on many different levels. This also should prove there is a moral boundary.
I am a presuppositionalist. I believe every man has knowledge of God and that every man knows he will be judged by God. Man just suppresses the truth in unrighteousness.
I don't think natural law stands on its own. It is under God. I do believe it is revelatory, but not unto salvation.
Orderliness has to come from somewhere. Definition has to come from somewhere. I do not believe man was created in some void or vacuum without understanding. If there is a natural law there has be one who is over it. If there is a deity over creation then one must also conclude that he set the law up and the principles by which they work. Concerning homosexuality, I would say the animal kingdom itself proves male and female relationships. I know there are abrogations in some instances. I also believe the natural order of family would prove something in the question of homosexuality.
How can we prove murder is wrong? I like to start with that question because mankind has a self preservation principle in his nature. That comes from God. I also understand that man is fallen and dies. That is a judgment because we all have sin in our heart as a principle. Mankind knows he doesn't always think clearly and makes mistakes. He even naturally violates his conscience. He opposes himself on many different levels. This also should prove there is a moral boundary.
I am a presuppositionalist. I believe every man has knowledge of God and that every man knows he will be judged by God. Man just suppresses the truth in unrighteousness.
I don't think natural law stands on its own. It is under God. I do believe it is revelatory, but not unto salvation.
Mature Christian thinking on all areas of life that are not specifically covered by the Bible should, all other things being equal, be more valuable than unsanctified thought. It should give us sound(er) natural law principles informed by a mature, wise, sanctified consciousness.
But this isn't always the case, because things aren't always equal and a non-Christian may be a better scholar of an area than any of his Christian colleagues.
But sometimes there is more than one right way of doing things E.g. Great Britain has a constitutional monarchy and America has an elected president. E.g. some Christian parents will spank their children for a particular offence, while others will spank them for another.
Sometimes it is just that people need to find out and follow what works best; there is a purely pragmatic test about what the Christian or someone else should do.
As a postmil, I believe the Church will eventually reach greater maturity and spiritual insight in this area of ethics, as with a more full-orbed and consistent biblical ethics, gleaning all relevant insights from the Old and New Testament Scriptures. It's just a process of illumination through history, until the Church is more complete, mature and covers a greater percentage of the human population.
We're almost certainly in for rocky (rockier) times, in e.g. Britain and America, before Enlightenment secular humanism runs its disastrous course.
Excellant points Richard, I am also more postmill but an amill as well (I can't make up my mind).