Here is an example to demonstrate that natural law accomplishes the exact opposite of what Christians intend. Consider a child who tells his father: "Father, sir, I understand that you have given me explicit rules on how to relate to you and mother and my siblings; however, I have to tell you that I will be discerning what is right for myself. I will use my logic and what I can discern from nature, and I will tell you and my siblings what is 'natural' and right." It really doesn't matter whether the child accidentally hits upon rules that agree with those of his father; he has already set himself up as equal to the chief human authority of his life, an act of rebellious defiance.
Much of the following I have learned and deduced from reading Gary North's explanation of Cornelius Van Til's understanding of the bible's teaching as to the difference between the natural man and the spiritual man. See also the writings of R.J. Rushdoony.
First, natural law is an act of rebellious defiance against the God of the bible. It sets up man as equal to God, like the serpent told Eve in the Garden: that by defying God's command, they would become "as gods, knowing good and evil" for themselves. Genesis 3:5. By the way, just how natural was that law - to not eat of one of the trees of the Garden of Eden? Would we have come to the conclusion that one tree was off limits as food, if God had not specially commanded them not to? Not very natural was it?
Natural law relies on the natural man, who cannot submit to God, to decide how one is to submit to God. "[T]he natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." I Corinthians 2:14, KJV. Such is the mind of the "natural man" that he not only will not but cannot receive God's law; it is what he hates more than anything, for it convicts him as deserving of hell.
There is no greater condemnation or insult to the man who thinks he is wise enough to determine what the law should be universally not only for himself but for all men. And that is what is at heart so utterly impossible for the natural man to accept - that he is not only wrong in his assessment as to what is real or "natural," but that his great wisdom as to that "reality" is what condemns him. It's a double insult, so to speak. Therefore, in addition to his hard, sinful heart toward God, he is psychologically incapable of admitting that which means he is not wise and that his so-called wisdom means his eternal damnation.
Second, natural law isn't even "natural," as I mentioned above about the law against eating from one of the trees in the Garden of Eden. Here's how unnatural God's law is. Consider the First Commandment. Throughout the history of the world and until Moses, the world invented religions and gods galore, countless in number and so varied in their respective moral and theological systems that they could go to war with one another and claim their gods can beat the other nation's gods.
Then after the Exodus, the God of the Hebrews claimed that He had picked the Hebrews to be His representatives on earth, that His law is the highest law and wiser than any other law.
"Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people." Deuteronomy 4:6, KJV.
This God claimed that He had specially revealed Himself to the people and in such a unique way that no other nation could even pretend to imitate that nation. In fact, the key to another nation submitting to that God was by submitting to the Hebrews, as in the case of Jonah's prophesying to Nineveh, a rival nation of pagan beliefs which submitted to Jonah and avoided disastrous judgment by the Hebrews' God.
How natural is all this? First, the very knowledge of this God was given by divine revelation, not naturally occurring reason. Second, this divine revelation was uniquely given to the Hebrews, not any other people. Third, all people were expected to comply with this law, even though they were not given that law specially, as the Hebrews were. Fourth, the Hebrews were forbidden from having any other god; therefore, they were prohibited from forming alliances with other nations by adopting their gods to place on an equal status with Yahweh. In other words, the "natural" wisdom of those other nations was utterly rejected. Fifth, this God demanded capital punishment for anyone claiming a different god. Sixth, the civil government was expected to enforce the law against any other gods being worshipped within the borders of Israel. Lastly, nature, as a source of idolatry, was itself a rival god, something not normative for determining who the true God is or what His requirements are.
The above concepts were considered anything but natural in the ancient world in which the Hebrews lived. In fact, they were an affront to the "natural" order then existing.
Consider the Third Commandment, which promises God's divine punishment for those who take God's name in vain. It's not a natural thing for special punishment to occur because of someone speaking words in a disrespectful way about an invisible deity. Consider the Fourth Commandment, which commands an inefficient use of an entire day once a week based on some "mythical" idea that the world was created in six days of mornings and evenings. The Tenth Commandment tells us to not even desire that which belongs to another. All very unnatural.
Therefore, in addition to the fact that natural law is in principle a rebellious defiance of the God of the bible, it also can't even support the law of God as something natural, reasonable, and deducible by sinful man.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Saturday, November 22, 2014
Natural Law Cannot be the Answer 1
What is Natural Law? Today, it is often pulled out as representative of the Christian concept of civil government and godly policy. It is anything but that.
First, I should clarify that by the term "natural law," I'm not referring to biological law. Nor am I referring to the philosophical proof that says man can inductively reason that there's a natural law governing us. When I refer to natural law, I'm referring to the judicial concept of determining "the law" from nature.
The following is a simplistic definition from dictionary.com: Natural law equals "a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature, right reason, or religion and as ethically binding in human society." Dictionary.com, accessed on November 22, 2014 at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural+law. A more complex definition comes from Wikipedia:
"Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis; ius naturale), is a system of law that is determined by nature, and so is universal.[1] Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature — both social and personal — and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it. Natural law is often contrasted with the positive law of a given political community, society, or state.[2] In legal theory, on the other hand, the interpretation of positive law requires some reference to natural law. On this understanding of natural law, natural law can be invoked to criticize judicial decisions about what the law says but not to criticize the best interpretation of the law itself. Some scholars use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale),[3] while others distinguish between natural law and natural right.[1]
"Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation.[4] Natural law theories have, however, exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[5][full citation needed] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, as well as in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Declarationism states that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.
"Natural Law and consent of the governed (John Locke) are the Foundation of the American Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. (See "Laws of Nature" First Paragraph Declaration of Independence [6]) Consent of the Governed, derived from the John Locke's Natural Law Social Contract, replaced the Old World Governance Doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings (Thomas Hobbes)."
Wikipedia, accessed on November 22, 2014 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law.
In spite of all the language in these definitions that might be attractive to support a Christian worldview, words like "universally cognizable," "religious," "natural justice," and "natural right," a very pertinent question should immediately arise. If we have a law in the bible, given to us directly from God through Moses, inerrant, eternal, and ideal in comparison to all human-derived law, whether natural or otherwise, why do we need a law "universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature." A correlative question is "universally cognizable" according to whom? According to those who contend that Marxism is the natural state of affairs, those that claim that same sex marriage is natural and normal, those that claim anarchy is the natural state of mankind? Which is it? Or choose a fourth alternative, a tenth, a hundredth! How many variations of opinion can there be as to what is "universally cognizable?"
If natural law, the law of the Creator for the world He made, is "universally cognizable," why did the God of the Hebrews, asserted to be the Creator, state that "after the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances?" Leviticus 18:3, KJV. Why did the land of Egypt not cognize natural law? Why did Canaan walk in different ordinances from that of natural law? Would we have been able to tell the Canaanites: "Say, your laws are not natural; you should follow natural law." Would they have said, "Oh, we have not cognized the correct law based on nature. We will gladly change our ordinances." I have my doubts. In fact, why would the Israelites themselves need a law from God as dictated to Moses? Wasn't it natural and "universally cognizable" to them already?
Natural law has the benefit of the semblance of universality and permanence; however, the question would well depend on who is determining what it is from day to day. Just do a google search some time of the words natural law, and you will find every form of flakiness and philosophically bizarre ideas you'll ever encounter.
Natural law is a compromise between Christians and unbelievers. The Christian says, "Okay, we understand you're not a believer in our religious book, but surely you believe in something more permanent than personal opinion. Can't we agree to work out laws that we both agree are based on a universal moral law, not based solely on personal opinion, something that's fair?" Over the centuries, here's where we've arrived. The unbeliever: "Remember that agreement we made centuries ago. Well, we don't believe in keeping those types of things, and we never really agreed with this idea of universal law anyway. So, here's what's natural: Same sex marriage, killing babies in the womb and selling their parts, and the obliteration of the artificially created free market system of economics. Oh and by the way, don't even think of bringing up that biblical law idea as an alternative, you tyrant who wants to force theocracy on everyone!"
And this result is what we deserve. In ancient Israel, what caused the loss of their society to the pagans? Compromise with paganism. God is a jealous God, and he doesn't share His glory with anyone. That includes natural law. If He had wanted us to figure it out using our reason and based on nature, then why would He give us a revealed law, explicit, specific, and written down for us by inspired prophets?
First, I should clarify that by the term "natural law," I'm not referring to biological law. Nor am I referring to the philosophical proof that says man can inductively reason that there's a natural law governing us. When I refer to natural law, I'm referring to the judicial concept of determining "the law" from nature.
The following is a simplistic definition from dictionary.com: Natural law equals "a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature, right reason, or religion and as ethically binding in human society." Dictionary.com, accessed on November 22, 2014 at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural+law. A more complex definition comes from Wikipedia:
"Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis; ius naturale), is a system of law that is determined by nature, and so is universal.[1] Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature — both social and personal — and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it. Natural law is often contrasted with the positive law of a given political community, society, or state.[2] In legal theory, on the other hand, the interpretation of positive law requires some reference to natural law. On this understanding of natural law, natural law can be invoked to criticize judicial decisions about what the law says but not to criticize the best interpretation of the law itself. Some scholars use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale),[3] while others distinguish between natural law and natural right.[1]
"Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation.[4] Natural law theories have, however, exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[5][full citation needed] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, as well as in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Declarationism states that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.
"Natural Law and consent of the governed (John Locke) are the Foundation of the American Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. (See "Laws of Nature" First Paragraph Declaration of Independence [6]) Consent of the Governed, derived from the John Locke's Natural Law Social Contract, replaced the Old World Governance Doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings (Thomas Hobbes)."
Wikipedia, accessed on November 22, 2014 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law.
In spite of all the language in these definitions that might be attractive to support a Christian worldview, words like "universally cognizable," "religious," "natural justice," and "natural right," a very pertinent question should immediately arise. If we have a law in the bible, given to us directly from God through Moses, inerrant, eternal, and ideal in comparison to all human-derived law, whether natural or otherwise, why do we need a law "universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature." A correlative question is "universally cognizable" according to whom? According to those who contend that Marxism is the natural state of affairs, those that claim that same sex marriage is natural and normal, those that claim anarchy is the natural state of mankind? Which is it? Or choose a fourth alternative, a tenth, a hundredth! How many variations of opinion can there be as to what is "universally cognizable?"
If natural law, the law of the Creator for the world He made, is "universally cognizable," why did the God of the Hebrews, asserted to be the Creator, state that "after the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances?" Leviticus 18:3, KJV. Why did the land of Egypt not cognize natural law? Why did Canaan walk in different ordinances from that of natural law? Would we have been able to tell the Canaanites: "Say, your laws are not natural; you should follow natural law." Would they have said, "Oh, we have not cognized the correct law based on nature. We will gladly change our ordinances." I have my doubts. In fact, why would the Israelites themselves need a law from God as dictated to Moses? Wasn't it natural and "universally cognizable" to them already?
Natural law has the benefit of the semblance of universality and permanence; however, the question would well depend on who is determining what it is from day to day. Just do a google search some time of the words natural law, and you will find every form of flakiness and philosophically bizarre ideas you'll ever encounter.
Natural law is a compromise between Christians and unbelievers. The Christian says, "Okay, we understand you're not a believer in our religious book, but surely you believe in something more permanent than personal opinion. Can't we agree to work out laws that we both agree are based on a universal moral law, not based solely on personal opinion, something that's fair?" Over the centuries, here's where we've arrived. The unbeliever: "Remember that agreement we made centuries ago. Well, we don't believe in keeping those types of things, and we never really agreed with this idea of universal law anyway. So, here's what's natural: Same sex marriage, killing babies in the womb and selling their parts, and the obliteration of the artificially created free market system of economics. Oh and by the way, don't even think of bringing up that biblical law idea as an alternative, you tyrant who wants to force theocracy on everyone!"
And this result is what we deserve. In ancient Israel, what caused the loss of their society to the pagans? Compromise with paganism. God is a jealous God, and he doesn't share His glory with anyone. That includes natural law. If He had wanted us to figure it out using our reason and based on nature, then why would He give us a revealed law, explicit, specific, and written down for us by inspired prophets?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)