The second covenantal aspect, that is, the authority for judging, could be summed up by the term "jurisdiction," which is defined in one way as follows:
"Jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. The term is also used to denote the geographical area or subject-matter to which such authority applies."
Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction, accessed January 15, 2015.
A judge may only rule and make decisions over that which the judge has jurisdiction. Otherwise, the judge cannot even hear the case or any contentions of the party. The judge can't solve the contestants' problem. They must go somewhere else for relief. The civil courts are not to answer every prayer, just prayers for relief over which they have jurisdiction. Law, particularly human civil law, is not the answer for every problem. God's world is bigger and more diverse than that. Only God can answer every problem, and He has delegated limited authority to civil courts to provide redress for a limited spectrum of problems.
One way we know that jurisdiction and law are limited is the fact that God's law is limited. In what ways? First, it cannot save. The endless writing of laws to deal with every wrong and every complaint that people come up with is futile. It is, however, how certain politicians get and keep their jobs. It's how David's son, Absalom, began his rebellion.
"And Absalom rose up early, and stood beside the way of the gate: and it was so, that when any man that had a controversy came to the king for judgment, then Absalom called unto him, and said, Of what city art thou? And he said, Thy servant is of one of the tribes of Israel. And Absalom said unto him, See, thy matters are good and right; but there is no man deputed of the king to hear thee. Absalom said moreover, Oh that I were made judge in the land, that every man which hath any suit or cause might come unto me, and I would do him justice!" II Samuel 15:2-4.
Maybe the man had a complaint over which the courts didn't have jurisdiction. But Absalom would expand the court's jurisdiction. Absalom, unlike his father, would see that "justice" was done. Absalom, as if he were God, would solve everyone's problems. That's the politician, always promising what he or she cannot give.
The third covenantal aspect, law, is obviously central to a civil court. If there's no law addressing a grievance, then the court would not be able to apply a standard to the dispute. However, no law can adequately address every single instance in life; therefore, western law, particularly England and its successors (former colonies) adopted common law. Cases would determine the law in some cases, as well as to what cases the "law" applied. It allowed flexibility to a civil court to determine if a wrong occurred and the best way to provide restitution to the victim.
Here is the importance of limited law and careful analysis based on those limits. The populist, the power-seeking tyrant uses existing law to expand his or her power. The bible says to not add to or take away from it. That applies to biblical law. The common law method of applying law to individual cases means that the judge applies the law according to the general equities of that law. This principle is stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646:
Chapter XIX, Paragraph IV. "To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require."
Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics, Westminster Confession of Faith, written 1646, accessed at http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/, Jan. 16, 2015. The judge who expands instead of applying in a disciplined fashion is not being a judge; that person is making law, as if the judge were a legislator or God Himself.
The "liberal judge" has no limits except what he or she can pass off as intellectually acceptable - to his or her liberal colleagues. Those colleagues accept the law-making actions of the judge because they also do not believe in limits, except gradualism. Liberals who believe in immediate change are revolutionaries. They work together. If revolutionaries can get away with their actions, the gradualists applaud and excuse them. If the revolutionaries are prosecuted or conquered militarily, the gradualists make movies and books to make them look like heroes. The surviving revolutionaries accuse the gradualists of moving too slow, but at the same time, the revolutionaries are happy with the paving job accomplished by the gradualists, preparing the way for the revolutionaries. Thus they work hand-in-hand.
The individual application of legal principles/equities to a case is very different. Perhaps an example would help readers understand. If a driver of a car strikes another vehicle after running a red light, then the driver running the red light owes the victim the costs of their lost vehicle and any medical costs. The driver also owes the civil government a fine for running a red light. However, the liberal judge may go further and state:
"Insurance companies are too wealthy. Therefore, even though the defendant has no insurance, I order the victim's insurance company to pay for their customer's damage and the damage to the defendant's vehicle because the defendant's job depends on his ability to travel. Therefore, insurance companies that set 'limits' to the coverage are harming society."
Sanctions and continuity go together. If you're sanctioned positively, then your future is more blessed, more secure, but never absolutely. How does a judge decide a sanction? Although the civil/criminal distinction that western law establishes is somewhat artificial, it is a convenient way to distinguish some types of cases from others.
In a criminal case, the judge is normally constrained by statutes determining what sanction to apply. There is some discretion however. The most important biblical standards for justice are victim's rights and restitution. Because of the risk of incarceration, criminal law is applied very strictly against the State. Therefore, even though biblical law does not mention incarceration, except for quarantine, at least, western law allows requires strict proof by the state to obtain a conviction.
Here is where continuity/inheritance and sovereignty meet, else wickedness reigns. Sinful man attempts to use the law to obtain his inheritance. He uses it to punish his enemies and to take others' wealth. Thus, he thinks that he can obtain positive sanctions for himself and negative sanctions for his enemy and thereby preserve his posterity. The righteous man submits to God's law, applied by God's delegated authority, and he trusts God to grant his posterity continuity or not. Thus, Christ submitted to the delegated authority of Pilate's Court (John 19:11), which denied the Righteous One any inheritance and imposed the most severe sanction of death. Yet Christ knew that God, being sovereign, could vindicate Him even in death, and He did by raising Christ from the dead.
Thus, faith triumphs over man's law because it trusts in God's righteous judgment. Righteousness before God triumphs over the unrighteous judgment of man because the Sovereign God is unlimited in HIs authority and power. His jurisdiction, unlike a human court, is unlimited. To oppose the concept of limited jurisdiction of man's courts is to oppose the unlimited jurisdiction of God's, opposes God's law, sanctions negatively the righteous, and attempts to steal the inheritance only God can grant.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Thursday, January 1, 2015
Natural Law Cannot be the Answer 3
Gary North in his commentary on Genesis explains the humanistic ways man tries to create and apply law.
"There are two humanistic standards that covenant-breakers substitute in place of biblical law: natural law and positive law. Natural law theorists declare that man, as judge, has access to universal standards of righteousness that are binding on all men in all periods of time. These standards are therefore available to all men through the use of a universal faculty of judgment, either reason or intuition. In fact, to declare judgment in terms of such a law-order, the judge must exercise both reason and intuition, in order to “fit” the morally binding universal standard to the particular circumstances of the case. What is therefore logically binding becomes morally binding in natural law theories.
What is logical is therefore right.
"Positive law does not appeal to universal standards of logic in order to discover righteousness. It appeals to the particular case. Circumstances determine what is correct. In the United States, the legislature (Congress) declares definitively what the law is, and this becomes the morally binding code of justice. But the legislature has a rival: the judiciary. The judge interprets the law in terms of a written Constitution and also previous judicial declarations. In other societies, there is no such authority of the courts. Judgment finally becomes the true law, if “the people” (or the executive) are willing and able to enforce what the judge declares. In short, what the state can enforce is therefore right."
Gary North, Sovereignty and Dominion, An Economic Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 2 (Dallas, GA: 2012), pp. 554-5.
Here's natural law in action. A man and a woman in the original garden adopt a "reasonable" justification for eating what God has forbidden. It's good for food, pleasant to the eyes, and can make one wise. So the woman and the man made use of their senses and intelligence to determine what is natural law.
It was entirely unnatural to have a tree in a garden full of tree and from which one could not eat. It made no sense to have a valuable tree and not eat from it. It was also unnatural to listen to someone telling them what they could or could not do, without even consulting them or explaining why they could not eat from it. This person posed a threat to them by commanding them to not eat from the tree. They would die, he said.
How unnatural! What a threat! How undemocratic? How selfish on the part of the threatener! It made more sense to eat of the tree and profit from it than to abstain. Again, Gary North's analysis is instructive.
"It is more common for self-styled Christian social, political, and legal theorists to declare the doctrines of natural law. Natural law seems at first glance to be closer to a concept of eternal law made by God. Natural law theorists can also appeal to the fatherhood of God (Acts 17:26) as the foundation of their universal valid categories of law. But the fatherhood of God is a doctrine that condemns man, for it points to fallen man’s position as a disinherited covenant-breaker, not an ethical son. How can a disinherited son agree with an adopted son about the nature of their mutual responsibilities to themselves and to the Father, let alone agree about the final distribution of the inheritance? Did Isaac and Ishmael agree? Did Jacob and Esau agree? Did Cain and Abel?
"What was the “natural law” aspect of God’s prohibition against eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? The serpent at first tried to lure Eve into eating by an appeal to what appeared to be a universal law. Hadn’t God said that they could eat of every tree in the garden? In other words, why not eat of this one tree? Eve replied appropriately: God has forbidden us to eat of this particular tree. This was a specific revelation to her husband. If she had stuck with her initial resistance, Satan would have thwarted his plans. If man had relied on natural law theory to guide his actions, he would not have offered even this token resistance to the temptation. The general law—eat from every tree—would have prevailed. It took God’s verbal revelation to warn them about the prohibited tree.
"It is not surprising to find that those Christian scholars who have been most open in their denial of the continuing applicability of revealed Old Testament law have also been vociferous promoters of some version of natural law theory. Natural law theory offers them a time-honored, man-made covering for their shame, for they fear being exposed as unfashionably dressed in the eyes of their humanist colleagues. Natural law theory is the conservative antinomian Christian’s fashion preference in the world of fig leaf coverings. The 'bloody skins of God-slaughtered animals'—the forthrightly biblical morality of Bible-revealed law—are just not adequate for him.
"There was also an element of positive law in the temptation. The serpent denied that God’s sanction would come true. So, he was asking them to test the reliability of God’s word with respect to the sanctions. 'Go ahead and test this. You’re in charge. See if I’m correct about the outcome.' Adam and Eve attempted to establish an alternative legal order by eating. They sought to impose a different outcome in history from the one God had declared."
***
"For many of those who believe that Christianity is doomed to historical impotence, there seems to be no reason to call forth ridicule, let alone persecution, on themselves by declaring that all humanists are wearing fig leaves, and that Bible-revealed law is the only way that God wants us to cover our nakedness, through grace. Meanwhile, they can buy an 'off the rack' fig leaf wardrobe from the latest humanist collection—well, maybe not the latest, but a discount version that is only ten years out of date. 'Better to be trendy ten years late than never to be trendy at all!'
"Fig leaves do not stand up to the howling winters of a cursed world. When Christians finally learn this lesson, they will be ready to begin to exercise godly judgment."
North, ibid, pp. 555-7.
Why is Natural Law theory not the answer as far as a Christian law order is concerned? It's not Christian. Therefore, it's time Christians repented of relying on humanistic law orders and returned to God's word.
"There are two humanistic standards that covenant-breakers substitute in place of biblical law: natural law and positive law. Natural law theorists declare that man, as judge, has access to universal standards of righteousness that are binding on all men in all periods of time. These standards are therefore available to all men through the use of a universal faculty of judgment, either reason or intuition. In fact, to declare judgment in terms of such a law-order, the judge must exercise both reason and intuition, in order to “fit” the morally binding universal standard to the particular circumstances of the case. What is therefore logically binding becomes morally binding in natural law theories.
What is logical is therefore right.
"Positive law does not appeal to universal standards of logic in order to discover righteousness. It appeals to the particular case. Circumstances determine what is correct. In the United States, the legislature (Congress) declares definitively what the law is, and this becomes the morally binding code of justice. But the legislature has a rival: the judiciary. The judge interprets the law in terms of a written Constitution and also previous judicial declarations. In other societies, there is no such authority of the courts. Judgment finally becomes the true law, if “the people” (or the executive) are willing and able to enforce what the judge declares. In short, what the state can enforce is therefore right."
Gary North, Sovereignty and Dominion, An Economic Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 2 (Dallas, GA: 2012), pp. 554-5.
Here's natural law in action. A man and a woman in the original garden adopt a "reasonable" justification for eating what God has forbidden. It's good for food, pleasant to the eyes, and can make one wise. So the woman and the man made use of their senses and intelligence to determine what is natural law.
It was entirely unnatural to have a tree in a garden full of tree and from which one could not eat. It made no sense to have a valuable tree and not eat from it. It was also unnatural to listen to someone telling them what they could or could not do, without even consulting them or explaining why they could not eat from it. This person posed a threat to them by commanding them to not eat from the tree. They would die, he said.
How unnatural! What a threat! How undemocratic? How selfish on the part of the threatener! It made more sense to eat of the tree and profit from it than to abstain. Again, Gary North's analysis is instructive.
"It is more common for self-styled Christian social, political, and legal theorists to declare the doctrines of natural law. Natural law seems at first glance to be closer to a concept of eternal law made by God. Natural law theorists can also appeal to the fatherhood of God (Acts 17:26) as the foundation of their universal valid categories of law. But the fatherhood of God is a doctrine that condemns man, for it points to fallen man’s position as a disinherited covenant-breaker, not an ethical son. How can a disinherited son agree with an adopted son about the nature of their mutual responsibilities to themselves and to the Father, let alone agree about the final distribution of the inheritance? Did Isaac and Ishmael agree? Did Jacob and Esau agree? Did Cain and Abel?
"What was the “natural law” aspect of God’s prohibition against eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? The serpent at first tried to lure Eve into eating by an appeal to what appeared to be a universal law. Hadn’t God said that they could eat of every tree in the garden? In other words, why not eat of this one tree? Eve replied appropriately: God has forbidden us to eat of this particular tree. This was a specific revelation to her husband. If she had stuck with her initial resistance, Satan would have thwarted his plans. If man had relied on natural law theory to guide his actions, he would not have offered even this token resistance to the temptation. The general law—eat from every tree—would have prevailed. It took God’s verbal revelation to warn them about the prohibited tree.
"It is not surprising to find that those Christian scholars who have been most open in their denial of the continuing applicability of revealed Old Testament law have also been vociferous promoters of some version of natural law theory. Natural law theory offers them a time-honored, man-made covering for their shame, for they fear being exposed as unfashionably dressed in the eyes of their humanist colleagues. Natural law theory is the conservative antinomian Christian’s fashion preference in the world of fig leaf coverings. The 'bloody skins of God-slaughtered animals'—the forthrightly biblical morality of Bible-revealed law—are just not adequate for him.
"There was also an element of positive law in the temptation. The serpent denied that God’s sanction would come true. So, he was asking them to test the reliability of God’s word with respect to the sanctions. 'Go ahead and test this. You’re in charge. See if I’m correct about the outcome.' Adam and Eve attempted to establish an alternative legal order by eating. They sought to impose a different outcome in history from the one God had declared."
***
"For many of those who believe that Christianity is doomed to historical impotence, there seems to be no reason to call forth ridicule, let alone persecution, on themselves by declaring that all humanists are wearing fig leaves, and that Bible-revealed law is the only way that God wants us to cover our nakedness, through grace. Meanwhile, they can buy an 'off the rack' fig leaf wardrobe from the latest humanist collection—well, maybe not the latest, but a discount version that is only ten years out of date. 'Better to be trendy ten years late than never to be trendy at all!'
"Fig leaves do not stand up to the howling winters of a cursed world. When Christians finally learn this lesson, they will be ready to begin to exercise godly judgment."
North, ibid, pp. 555-7.
Why is Natural Law theory not the answer as far as a Christian law order is concerned? It's not Christian. Therefore, it's time Christians repented of relying on humanistic law orders and returned to God's word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)