Observations On Natural Law Theory

1.) Natural law exists but it can’t be appealed to as a mechanism to build societal harmony or social order by, since men suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

2.) Natural law, according to Natural law theory, is that aspect of reality that is dependent upon the reality of God and is inescapable and because of its inescapable revelatory nature can be appealed to in order to build a common realm existence and social order. The problem here though, is that man Himself is part of Natural law — which is to say that man himself is dependent upon the reality of God and is Himself part of God’s inescapable revelatory work. Yet, because man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness he denies that he denies both that he is dependent upon God and that he himself is part of God’s inescapable revelatory work. Now, if man suppresses the truth about Natural law that is closest to himself (i.e. — his very own existence) how is it that man is going to accept the tenants of some Natural law theory that that would require far less suppression then the suppression used to deny that he himself is part of God’s Natural law?

3.)For Natural law to work it has to exist within a overarching agreed upon theological matrix / paradigm. You can have Christian Natural law work as a organizing mechanism for a social order but it is not working because of the Natural law component but because of the Christian framework that is informing Natural law and in which the natural law expression is resting. Some faith system is always prior to some Natural law expression.

4.) Natural law worked within Christendom for centuries precisely because the objective social order was Christian. Take away that objective social order and Natural law is just one mans or group of men’s opinion.

5.) This is why Natural Law can never work in a social order context that exists within overarching theological matrix of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism’s (pluralistic modernity) very definition requires as many Natural Laws as there are variant cultures comprising the “multi-cultural” project. To appeal to one Natural law in a multicultural society is in direct contradiction to the whole multicultural project. Multiculturalism demands multi-Natural-law theories.

6.) The one exception to #5 is when multiculturalism realizes that its project is not really about chaotic diversity but unitarian unity. What is really be pursued in multiculturalims is the mono-culture that is called multiculturalism. Natural law could work in a putative multicultural setting where it is realized, at least by the ruling elites, that multiculturalism is not about absolute cultural diversity but rather absolute cultural unity. However, the Natural law that will arise if this day ever comes will not be a Natural law that any Christian could ever accept.

However, in the scenario put forth in #6 once again Natural law is existing in a overarching a-priori theological matrix-paradigm.

7.) You can not invoke the matter upon which one will be thinking (Natural law) without first considering the thinker themselves. Since they will be thinking upon the matter delivered to them by natural law their cogitation is based on something prior to the matter they are receiving that Natural law is sending. In other words their thinking about what they are receiving in Natural law is already religiously conditioned, since they as the thinker are religiously conditioned. As man thinks about whatever he thinks about he thinks about it from a religiously conditioned viewpoint.

The whole “LIGHT” in the “light of nature” is only light as general revelation is read through the prism of special revelation.

8.) If you define the natural light as merely intuitive then we’d agree that natural light is perspicuous, necessary and sufficient. However, the minute you go from intuitive to discursive at that minute the process is poisoned by sin. Ontologically we can’t get away from what we know to be the truth and that ontological knowing seems to be grasped intuitively. However, it seems to be the case that we use our epistemological apparatus in discursive reasoning to deny what we can’t escape knowing ontologically.

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him. View all posts by jetbrane