Natural Law arguments?

[caddy]

J.Budziszewski wrote a very good book on the Natural Law entitled, "What We Can't Not Know."

Amazon.com: What We Can't Not Know: A Guide (9781890626549): J. Budziszewski: Books

I would like to read VanDrunen's book,


Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought (Emory University Studies in Law and Religion (Eerdmans)) (Paperback)

Amazon.com: Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social…

 

[jwright82]

I've never read Dooyeweerd or Vollenhoven. Are there any easier or shorter introductions to their thought (on natural law)?

Introduction.
Dooyeweerd.
The Dooyeweerd Pages.

Here are some websites that can hopefully help out. My take on them and natural law is this creation itself is all law. Meaning that it is the narure of reality that it is law-spheres as they call them. And so natural law in a sense is expanded to include all reality. They follow Bavink in making a distiction between creation, which is good, and the particuler direction or uses that we humans make of creation. So economics is a good creational aspect of natural law but capitalism and socialism are two different uses or directions of this law-sphere that we humans have done. So we can judge these different economies you could say to see how biblical or christian they are. In their thinking they put a strong emphasis on the integrity of creation. So natural law is good and authoritative. Their language is steeped in philosophical vocabularies so that makes it difficult to read them but hopefully those websites will help.

Their followers did revolt against the conffessions and they seem to have a weird view concerning the bible but there is much to benefit from in their thinking.

---------- Post added at 11:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 AM ----------

Here is a wonderfull website on Bavink that has some good articles by and about him, some of them on this very subject enjoy!
Free Articles .

 

[Peairtach]

One rather minor reason I'm postmil is that I do not believe all the illumination of the Scriptures - and general revelation - that the Spirit of God has been doing in ethics and other areas -e.g. since the Reformation, but also earlier - will fall to the ground, but will eventually be blessed to a mature, strong and worldwide Church.

But that would have to be a different thread.

 

[jwright82]

One rather minor reason I'm postmil is that I do not believe all the illumination of the Scriptures - and general revelation - that the Spirit of God has been doing in ethics and other areas -e.g. since the Reformation, but also earlier - will fall to the ground, but will eventually be blessed to a mature, strong and worldwide Church.

But that would have to be a different thread.

That is one of the things I like about the postmill position too.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

One rather minor reason I'm postmil is that I do not believe all the illumination of the Scriptures - and general revelation - that the Spirit of God has been doing in ethics and other areas -e.g. since the Reformation, but also earlier - will fall to the ground, but will eventually be blessed to a mature, strong and worldwide Church.

But that would have to be a different thread.

That is one of the things I like about the postmill position too.

I recommend a read by Cornelius P. Venema. 'Promise of the Future' shows the history behind the discussion you guys are discussing. It is also an Optimistic Amil book. You guys would like it. I know we are way off topic now.... So let's reel it in. I am pretty sure this thread has probably run its course though.

 

[jwright82]

One rather minor reason I'm postmil is that I do not believe all the illumination of the Scriptures - and general revelation - that the Spirit of God has been doing in ethics and other areas -e.g. since the Reformation, but also earlier - will fall to the ground, but will eventually be blessed to a mature, strong and worldwide Church.

But that would have to be a different thread.

That is one of the things I like about the postmill position too.

I recommend a read by Cornelius P. Venema. 'Promise of the Future' shows the history behind the discussion you guys are discussing. It is also an Optimistic Amil book. You guys would like it. I know we are way off topic now.... So let's reel it in. I am pretty sure this thread has probably run its course though.

Thanks I will chek it out.

 

[alhembd]

Quote from James

Excellant points Richard, I am also more postmill but an amill as well (I can't make up my mind).

Well I'm an amil-postmil in the sense I don't believe the Millennium starts in the future but started in the first century.

I've never read Dooyeweerd or Vollenhoven. Are there any easier or shorter introductions to their thought (on natural law)?

Richard,

You say you believe the millennium began in the first century. But you also speak of the Church's gaining knowledge when better times come. I take it you are an "optimistic amil," or, that you would say you are postmil in that you believe Christ will come after the Millennium?

 

[Peairtach]

Quote from James

Excellant points Richard, I am also more postmill but an amill as well (I can't make up my mind).

Well I'm an amil-postmil in the sense I don't believe the Millennium starts in the future but started in the first century.

I've never read Dooyeweerd or Vollenhoven. Are there any easier or shorter introductions to their thought (on natural law)?

Richard,

You say you believe the millennium began in the first century. But you also speak of the Church's gaining knowledge when better times come. I take it you are an "optimistic amil," or, that you would say you are postmil in that you believe Christ will come after the Millennium?

Well maybe you should ask this on, or transfer it to, the eschatology section. There are lots of postmils who believe that the Millennium started in the first century, but don't believe we have quite reached the Silver/Golden Age stage, but that that is slowly developing in history like the tide coming in.