Fisking Wolfe on His Appeal to Classical Natural Law Theory to Overturn R2K

What follows beneath the article is a brief running fisk critique of Stephen Wolfe’s offering. Needless to say, I am not impressed at this attempt to resurrect Natural law theory as a replacement for Theonomy.

Stephen Wolfe and the rest of the Natural Law lovers have to learn at some point that the only reason appeal to Natural Law could work once upon a time in the West is because the West already was a largely Christian civilization. The appeal to Natural Law could work in 1500 or 1100 because Europe already had a Christian consensus and so the appeal to a Natural law that supported the already existing Christian consensus could win the day. However, we no longer live in a Western Civilization where there is a Christian consensus therefore appeals to Natural Law are never going to work since a pagan and un-Christian people are never going to agree that Natural Law teaches a Christian law order.

Natural law is a myth in terms of its inability to govern a social order in a Christian direction when the social order is manned by pagans.

Classical Reformed Theonomy

“The natural law is an ordering of reason, consisting of moral principles that are innate in rational creatures, given by God, who is the author of nature.”

Stephen Wolfe

1.) Natural law cannot serve as a mechanism for building social orders because nature, like man’s reason, is fallen.

2.) As the Belgic confession Article 14 teaches Natural law is limited in what it can and cannot accomplish:

“For the commandment of life which he (man) had received,5 he

transgressed; and by sin separated himself from God6 who was his true life, having corrupted his whole nature,7 whereby he made himself liable to corporal and spiritual death.8 And being thus become wicked, perverse, and corrupt in all his ways, he hath lost all his excellent gifts which he had received from God9 and only retained a few remains thereof,10 which, however, are sufficient to leave man without excuse;11 for all the light which is in us is changed into darkness,12 as the Scriptures teach us, saying: The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth13 it not; where St. John calleth men darkness.”

3.) Moral principles, to be sure, are innate in fallen man, however those who champion Natural Law as a mechanism whereby social orders can be organized do not seem to understand that fallen man suppresses what is innate to him in unrighteousness (see Romans 1).

____

“Laws are just only if they command what proceeds from God’s natural law.”

Stephen Wolfe

1.) You mean a law isn’t just if it proceeds from God’s special Revelation?

2.) Where do we find this consensus on what God’s natural law teaches? What library book contains that information?

3.) Does Wolf realize how many versions of Natural law exists? Will it be Natural Law that teaches us which version of Natural law is correct?

____

” In this way, the magistrate mediates divine civil rule, as the one who determines appropriate action from natural law principles.”

Stephen Wolfe

I guarantee I never voted for anyone upon the idea that they had the capacity to determine appropriate action from natural law principles.

When will our eggheads ever realize that Natural Law is a thin reed to lean on in times that find us being ruled by anti-Christ pagans? No Mao, or Stalin, or Bite-Me is ever going to change their ruling based on our appeal to Natural law. Better to appeal to God’s revealed law in Scripture so that the refusal of Magistrates to yield to God’s law will be seen for what it is — defiance of the God of the Bible.

______

“A Christian commonwealth is an entity that acts upon civil society via civil law for the people’s earthly and heavenly good.”

Stephen Wolfe

No, rather a Christian commonwealth is an entity that acts upon civil society via civil law for God’s glory — which will then result in people’s earthly and heavenly good.

Wolfe’s definition puts man at the center so is just another form of humanism.

____

“Not every particular civil law of a Christian civil government is distinctively Christian. Indeed, most are simply human; they concern human things.”

Stephen Wolfe

But how can we know what “human” is unless we presuppose Christianity? Therefore I must contend that any law that is genuinely human must at the same time be Christian since only Christianity gives us a basis wherein we can define human.

_____

“Since Scripture contains the natural law (in inscripturated form), Scripture can and ought to inform our understanding of the natural law, the common good, proper determinations for civil law, and the means to heavenly life.”

Stephen Wolfe

If Scripture contains natural law why do we need natural law? Why not just appeal to Scripture?

_______

“No civil law can be fundamentally derived from a supernatural principle.”

Stephen Wolfe

Now, that one is a mouthful.

If something is in the Bible does that make it a supernatural principle? After all, the whole bible is a supernaturally inspired book. If the Bible tells me that a man shall not lie with a man is it wrong to make a civil law based on that since, per Wolfe, no civil law can be fundamentally derived from a supernatural principle?

______

Although the Mosaic law is of divine origin, the law in itself, in substance, shares the same classification as other examples of civil law—it is one possible body of law that “proceed[s] from the immovable principles and general conclusion” of the natural law. The Mosaic law is not above natural law; it is a perfect application of it.

Stephen Wolfe

But Stephen, other examples of civil law cannot claim to have been given by God for man’s good ordering. As such, the Mosaic Law cannot be set in the same level as all other law orders that deviate from the Mosaic law.

Any changes in civil law orders have to come, not by an appeal to Natural law, but by an appeal to the reality that certain laws in the Mosaic order are not part of the general equity.

Wolfe schematic puts the Mosaic law on the same level as other Christian law orders that deviated from the Mosaic law. It also makes the mistake of lifting Natural Law over God’s revealed law when it comes to how civil law in Christian law orders should be arrived at. Wolfes schematic is inherently humanistic.

________

But (the Mosaic Law) is not thereby a suitable body of law for all nations, for every nation’s circumstances are different; it would not be good for every nation. For this reason, as the Reformed tradition has almost universally affirmed, the Mosaic law, taken as a whole, is not binding on all nations, even Christian nations. Yet because the Mosaic law perfectly follows from the natural law (albeit suited for a certain people), it can serve as a guide or source of law for all nations. The Mosaic law, therefore, remains relevant to all civil polities.

Stephen Wolfe

1.) The Reformed tradition has indeed affirmed that the Mosaic law taken as a whole, is not binding on all other nations — even Christian nations but it affirmed this not by appealing to the kind of Natural law that Wolfe is appealing to but did so by insisting on the reality of general equity. In other words if a civil law order was to negate some aspect of the Mosaic civil code it had to do so by arguing that the general equity did not apply and so some law belonging to the Mosaic should not be enforced by a contemporary civil law order.

2.) In this paragraph above Wolfe lifts Natural law (an unstated amorphous reality) above God’s special revelation so that special revelation has to serve Natural law. In such a situation is God really God?

_______

The “ancient” division (as Calvin called it) of the Mosaic Law divides it into moral, ceremonial, and civil (or political) law. The moral law refers to “nothing else than the testimony of natural law, and of that conscience which God has engraven on the minds of men.”

Stephen Wolfe

1.) The problem here though is that the civil law was the incarnation of the Moral law as applied to specific instances. The civil law was the instantiation of the Moral law as teased out with specificity.

2.) There is nothing in Scripture that requires me to read the Moral law as being merely the testimony of natural law. If God had wanted to say that He could have easily said just that. Wolfe is adding a layer to God’s Word regarding the character and nature of the Moral law.

3.) Even the three-fold distinction (which I embrace) is not per Scriptural Revelation. It likewise is forced upon the Scripture. The law can just as easily be argued to be one law without these subdivisions. We know that the ceremonial law has since been altered because the Scripture comments so. However, the Scripture if anything reinforces the ongoing validity of God’s moral/civil law.

Conclusion

Stephen Wolfe tries to cloak is standard Natural Law theory in theonomic jargon in order to peel off weak theonomists from theonomy. Wolfe calls his Natural Law theory, “classical Reformed theonomy.”

Classical Reformed theonomy my arse. Wolfe offers this up as a half-way house between R2K theorizing and Bahnsenian Theonomy. It is a half way house no theonomist worth his salt is ever going to consider taking up residence.

Certainly Wolfe’s arrangement is far superior to R2K (which he is fighting against) but at the end of the day it remains laced with the same kind of subjectivity wherein R2k is laced.

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.

2 thoughts on “Fisking Wolfe on His Appeal to Classical Natural Law Theory to Overturn R2K”

  1. Thanks for this analysis. I have been wondering about this position and those similar for a while. Lots of R2K Reformed guys are now starting their articles/pods with “I have a lot in common with Rushdoony/Theonomic people, but…” and then you get the same kind of talking points. They are trying to make it harder to tell that they reject God’s law applied today.

    Reply

    1. Hello Ben

      Trust you and I trust you and the Family are doing well.

      One thing to keep in mind is that R2K has always been BIG on Natural law but only for the so called “common realm.” The only difference that Wolfe is bringing, near as I can tell, is that he (I think) would be open to clergy pronouncing God’s Natural Law to God’s people from the pulpit. If so, Wolfe would say Natural law teaches that Natural law can be proclaimed in the pulpit while R2K says that Natural Law as it pertains to the common realm cannot be proclaimed from the pulpit.

      How does Natural Law decide who is right and who is wrong?

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *