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.
No comments:
Post a Comment