God’s Abiding Law – Page 2

Critiquing Haines & Fulford on Natural Law

“By natural law, then, we mean that order or rule of human conduct which is

(1)based upon human nature as created by God

(2)knowable by all men, through human intuition and reasoning alone (beginning w/ his observations of creation, in general, and human nature, in particular), independent of any particular divine revelation provided through a divine spokesperson; and thus

(3) normative for all human beings.”

David Haines & Andrew A. Fulford

Natural Law; A Brief Introduction and Biblical Defense

#1 is not possible since human nature as created by God no longer is human nature, fallen as man is.

#2 fails to take into account that Scripture teaches that the carnal mind is enmity against God (Romans 8:7) and the Scripture that teaches of fallen man;

they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind.

Also #2 fails in what is implied in the phrase “reasoning alone.” There is no reasoning that man develops that is not beholden to some God or god concept. Even the very idea of reasoning has to presuppose some kind of God in order to mean anything. The problem here is the premise that “reasoning” is a neutral something that fallen man engages in quite apart from a-priori presuppositions about God and His reality.

#3 fails the is and ought test. All because Natural Law teaches what ought to be normative for what fallen man knows does, doesn’t mean that is what fallen man claims to know.

The problem with Natural law in a nutshell is that Natural Law theorists don’t take into account the relationship between the ontological realities of fallen man and the epistemological realities of fallen man.

Ontologically fallen man remains a creature of God. He can’t avoid intuiting the fact that he is to God what a fingerprint is to a finger. He knows it in all of his being. He can’t escape it. However, fallen man, being fallen, uses his fallen epistemological apparatus to deny what he can’t escape knowing to be true ontologically. As such he suppresses the truth, via his fallen epistemological apparatus, in order that God may not rule over him.

Natural law does not take this into account positing as it does that fallen man has the ability by use of fallen reason unguided by special revelation and a regenerate mind that fallen man is capable of a knowing that can align him with the creator’s world.

In and by this move Natural Law advocates deny the uniquely Reformed doctrine of total depravity. It is the fallenness of man that makes it true that what fallen man ought to know by way of natural law fallen man claims not to know as he suppresses what he ought to know in unrighteousness.

Natural Law thus introduces into Christianity huge amounts of contradiction. Only a presuppositional approach removes that contradiction. Only a presuppositional approach is consistent with Reformed Christianity.

On Mastering One’s Fears

“I have a friend in Hollywood. He is an actor. He is a well known actor. He has work. He strongly supports President Trump. He’s a real patriot. He just asked me to be sure that I don’t tell anybody (that he supports Trump) because of the system.”

Roger Stone
Interview with Robert Davi

I am running this quote not in connection with the political aspect but rather with the reality of the fear that people have in connection with their putative convictions. I say, “putative” because how much of a conviction can someone hold who is ashamed of that conviction, or fearful of what would happen to them should their conviction be known?

I have had, as a minister, on more than one occasion have had people speak to me the same kind of idea that Roger Stone had spoken to him by his Hollywood actor friend. More than once I’ve had people say something like, “I agree with you but I can’t be associated with you because it would put my career in danger”, or “I would lose my friends,” or “my family wouldn’t understand,” or “agreeing with you publicly would make it hard on my children.” Another version of this is, “I agree with you but you make the issue at hand far more important than it really is.” Usually, such statements circle around Theonomy, or Kinism, or my views on Government schooling.

I can be very bi-polar about my response to this. On one hand I understand the necessity sometimes to play one’s cards close to the breast. There are times when one keeps the false flag flying and doesn’t raise the Jolly Roger to let everyone know you’re a pirate. I, myself, have, in the past, played the “clever to protect myself” game. I genuinely understand the more than a few ministers who correspond to me telling me that they agree with my Kinism but they dare not let Kinism come from the pulpit or in their online writings — and that even though they agree it is a Biblical doctrine. The price to be paid by especially clergy is a high price to be paid. It means very possibly the end of their career, the inability to provide for their family, and the hatred of countless numbers of dumb people (i.e. — the Normies).

So, I understand the sentiment captured in the opening quote. And I get people’s fears. I myself live with those fears daily.

But at some point it is my conviction that people have to rise above these natural fears because until people in the shadows come out and nail their flags to the mast, the depredations of our egalitarian culture, our lawlessness, and our thinking destroying habits is going to destroy us, first as a visible church, and then as a people. If we will not stand up in favor of Kinism, in opposition to government schooling, and in opposition to the prevalent opposition to God’s law then we will disappear as a people and our children and grandchildren will be the victims of what too often is nothing but cowardice dressed up in the evening clothes of personal pragmatism and an egocentric self protection.

Jesus spoke about the necessity of taking up the cross, and denying one’s self. The writer to the Hebrews reminds his recipients not to give up on Christianity because of the difficulties they were facing by embracing Christianity, reminding them, “you have not yet resisted unto the point of blood.” Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progess” is all about the theme of the winning through the difficulties of following Christ. It was not about the theme of avoiding the difficulties of following Christ.

I can hear now the potential protests. “But those issues and those types of issues are not really hills to die on. They are not the issues upon which Christianity pivots.” It’s hard to believe that someone would argue this way given how government schools are brainwashing our children against Christianity, and given how our culture (and Church) is manifestly doing everything it can to evade championing God’s law, and given the egalitarianism that has now gone so far as to seek to normalize the most aberrant of behaviors. This egalitarianism did not start with the transgenderism that we are embracing as a culture now but started far further up on what turned out to be the slippery slope of all slippery slopes.

And yet people are frightened. So frightened that even some of them don’t want to it to be publicly known that they embrace what Trump symbolically stands for. (Admission … I like Trump as a symbol, but I do not think the man matches the symbol and so will not be voting for Trump.) However, fear, is no reason to not play the man and come forward consistent with one’s “secret convictions.”

Here I am in the middle. Being frightened myself I get that people are scared. However, the whole idea of courage is the ability to stand even in spite of legitimate fears.

I hope, that in the near future, Roger Stone’s Hollywood friend can have enough courage to come out of the closet and let it be known he is done being ashamed of his convictions, and that regardless of the cost.

Four Brief Observations Regarding Natural Law

1.) The acceptance of Natural Law (NL) as a epistemology for fallen man not only touches on the issue of epistemology but it also is a demonstration of warped thinking regarding Christian anthropology and Christian hamartiology.

Anthropology and Hamartiology because NL adherents are out of step with the effects of sin on fallen man. For NL adherents man is not quite as fallen as for Reformed folks and neither has sin affected man quite as thoroughly as for Reformed folks.

2.) The great unstated premise of advocates of Natural Law is that fallen man can observe the Universe and quite apart from any beginning theological premises can read the law of nature correctly by the usage of naked reason… reason unclothed with any theological a-prioris.

Of course this is a literal impossibility. Reason is never exercised as if naked. Reason always operates upon and with a theological grist. This is why it is irrational to speak of “right reason” in the context of NL because the fallenness of man w/ its noetic effects of sin upon the mind does not allow any fallen man to have this thing called “right reason.”

3.) The mind of man is at enmity with God. (Romans 8:7)

Romans 8 teaches that the mind of man is at enmity w/ God. If the mind of man is at enmity w/ God then certainly this includes being at enmity w/ God’s revelation of NL with the implication that NL is no trustworthy epistemology for ordering society.

I have no understanding how someone can say they are Reformed while at the same time holding to NL.

4.) The basic division between the Thomistic NL types and Presuppositionalists is that the Thomists believe that man reasons from man to God via right reason and natural law, while Presuppositionalists believe that man reasons from God to God via special revelation.

There is no reconciling Thomistic NL and Presuppostionalism. Those in each camp who understand there worldview will NEVER be reconciled.

Talking About Natural Law

Fallen man remains God’s man and as Gods man fallen man remains the fingerprint of God. However, fallen man hates God and by extension hates himself as the fingerprint of God. Therefore fallen man both knows God and doesn’t know God. Ontologically fallen man cannot get away from the realities of who he is. However, fallen man uses his epistemological apparatus to deny what he can’t escape ontologically. In Romans this is called “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.” This epistemological suppressing the truth in unrighteousness is applied to all of creation and nature since all creation and nature likewise are fingerprinted with the finger of their creator and as such the real meaning and truth of them must be suppressed and denied. The further fallen man becomes consistent with his suppression the more God’s creative reality must be assaulted and denied. This explains the current perplexity where a sitting Supreme Court justice and countless others like her no longer can answer the question; “What is a woman.” Fallen man cannot answer this question because even though fallen man cannot escape ontological reality, he will, by the usage of his epistemological apparatus suppress and deny what he can’t escape from knowing.

When a whole culture is given over to this consistent denial and suppressing of Natural Law givens the result eventually will be death, because all those who hate God love death.

However, cultures strewn with the unregenerate can be stabilized by the presence of believers who are not suppressing reality and who read Natural Law aright because they are reading it through the lens of Special Revelation. In such cultures and in such cases what happens is that fallen man, being inconsistent with his self avowed God denying principles, sneaks into his Christ hating worldview capital from the Christian world and life view. This stolen capital keeps the unbeliever afloat so that, as one example, in a culture leavened with Christ (a Christian culture) they can make marriages that last and are comparatively stable.

In such a culture stabilized by a Christian ethos you would then expect there to arise a philosophy that embraced Natural Law because then the stability of the culture can be ascribed to man who reads NL aright instead of being ascribed to the Biblical beliefs of the Christians in the social order. However, all along, the epoxy of the social order is special revelation.

In such a culture, Christian thinkers themselves may well begin to talk about Natural Law as being the epoxy that allows Christians and fallen man to together create a stable social order. However, if those same Christian thinkers could live long enough lives to see the deterioration of their once stable cultures because the Christ hater began to be more and more consistent with their suppressing the truth in unrighteousness they would then realize that it was not Natural Law that was the epoxy that held the culture together but rather it was the explicit special revelation that was embraced by them and their kind that created a sturdy headwind that allowed the unregenerate to sneak that earlier spoken of stolen capital into their worldviews in order to keep stability in the culture leavened with Christ.

If the above isn’t helpful try to reverse engineer all of this. Imagine growing up in a Cannibalistic adulterous ridden culture where treachery and treason were exalted as genius and so was untouched by Biblical Christianity. Could anyone imagine that such fallen people would ever come up with a Natural law that taught the precepts found in the 10 commandments?

Of course the problem here is never with God’s natural revelation of which Natural Law is a subset. The heavens do indeed declare the handiwork of God. All of creation screams the truth of God. However, fallen man is like the chap who is constantly pushing the buttons in order to find a radio station that doesn’t play “the truth of God’s revelation.” Fallen man, becoming increasingly consistent with his enmity against God (Romans 8:7) would go as far as to rip his own eyeballs out in order to not see the truth contained in Natural Law.

Because of this Natural Law is a weak reed in order to lean on to make law for a particular social order populated by a large majority of people who are being ever more increasingly consistent with their hatred of Christ. We are seeing this daily in the West.

For Christians in the West then, the appeal is not to Natural Law. The appeal is to the politicus usus of God’s perspicuous Law in order to order social order aright. This, in combination of heralding the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only way to pull back anti-Christ social orders from the edge of the abyss. Appeals to Natural Law will only hasten our nearing, ever nearing, to the final fall.

Refuting the Idea that Hate is Bad Form for Christians

Have to be blunt: if you harbor hatred in your heart for Muslims (please recognize the difference between the Muslim people and Islam as a religion) you are sinning. Period. Full stop. As a follower of Christ, hatred is NOT an option, and if your “theology” gives you a place for it, you have been led astray. Repent.

James White

This is magnificent claptrap. This is the kind of stuff that either brain injured people come up with, or people who have been raised as modern Christians. It is the simpering speech used by derelicts, drug addicts, or people with Ph.D’s in some kind of “theology.”

1.) No man can truly love anything without also hating that which has as its animating spirit the annihilation of that which he loves. For example, as James White loves His wife, I suspect that he would hate anybody who assaulted or even degraded the man’s wife.

2.) The idea of “hating the sin, but loving the sinner,” while communicating a wee bit of Biblical thought isn’t the whole word on the matter. After all, God’s Word explicitly tells us that “there is a time and a season for everything under the sun. A time to love and a time to hate.” Do we really believe that Solomon in Ecclesiastes was thinking while writing, “A time to love and a time to hate the sin but love the sinner?”

3.) If we are to hate the sin but love the sinner then why are we not to love the righteous works but hate the righteous?

4.) If we are to be “like our Father in Heaven,” then it would seem that we absolutely must hate the sinner as well as his sin. Throughout revelation God does indeed hate the sinner, along with and because of their sins (Lev. 20:23, Ps. 5:4-6, 11:5, Prov. 6:16-19, Hos. 9:15, Mal. 1:3, Rom. 9:13). Indeed God hates the sinner so much that He casts the sinner with their sin into hell for all eternity (Mt. 10:28).

5.) God hates His enemies so thoroughly that He;

a.) Closed the door of the Ark so His enemies would drown
b.) Showered Sodom & Gomorrah with Brimstone and fire
c.) Totally obliterated the Egyptians in plague and water

6.) Further the saints of old — our Fathers — hated sinners

a.) Joshua’s work on the Canaanites
b.) David’s work on the enemies of God
c.) Samson’s work on the Philistines
d.) Elijah’s work on the Prophets of Baal
e.) Phineas’ Javelin throwing contest
f.) Moses’ dispatching of the Egyptian overseer
g.) Jesus Christ peeled skin with a whip against the Jewish Bankers

7.) Scripture informs me to

a.) “Hate that which is evil, love that which is good.” Rm. 12:9
b.) “Hate evil, O you who love the LORD!” Psalm 97:10
c.) “Hate evil and love good; establish justice in the gate.” Amos 5:15

On the Amos 5:15 passage the Puritan commentator Matthew Poole offers;

“Slight dislikes will do little in this ease, you rulers and judges must heartily hate, and show that you hate, the evil, both ways, doings, contrivers, and abettors of the evil among the people and yourselves;”

Now, those like Dr. James White who insists that Christians are not to hate those enemies of God who hate God and His Christ will instantly run to Matthew 5:39;

39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

This passage refers to just what it says, as it only applies to some kind of petty insult coming from a personal enemy. It seems past obvious that one can’t make this walk on all fours, and yet that is what we get from any number of those reputed to be pillars in the Church. Think about it for a second. Does making this text walk on all fours make any sense at all?

” But I tell you, whoever rapes you in one bodily orifice, offer him another,”

” But I tell you, whoever bludgeons you with a pipe on one side of the skull, turn to him the other side of the skull to bludgeon.”

” But I tell you, if someone abducts one of your children, give him another child to abduct.”

“But I tell you, if someone rapes your wife, give him your daughter to rape.”

Now, all of the above does not mean that we don’t do good to those who are our personal enemies or who dish out to us petty insults. If my neighbor hates me throws paint balloons at me, I may well still bring them some hot chicken soup when they are ill and so show them a kindness. However, if that same neighbor goes after my grandchildren to harm them, they can be sure that fire and sulfur is going to rain down on them.

If you can’t find it in your heart to hate Muslims, Hindus, Jews, or Atheists as they seek to continue to bury this culture is Christ dishonoring laws and customs, you are indeed not right in the head. A lack of hate here communicates that you don’t really love Christ and His Law-Word.