The fallen man denies that he is the image of God. This is a major revelation of Natural Law and yet fallen man denies this testimony of Natural Law suppressing the truth in unrighteousness and insisting that he most certainly not God’s image bearer.
Now, if the fallen man get this most obvious of Natural Law truths wrong because of his suppression mechanism then how can Natural Law be the fallen man’s guide to life except inasmuch as Natural Law serves fallen man’s to climb up into God’s lap in order to slap God in the face.
Example – The sodomite might agree that Natural Law teaches marriage (climbing up in God’s lap) but only with the purpose of marrying his male consort (slapping God in the face).
So, it may be the case that fallen man will get natural law right from time to time but it always ends up being stolen capital in order to get his Christ denying worldview off the ground. No anti-Christ worldview can ever be perfectly anti-Christ consistent. If it were it could never last since all perfectly anti-Christ worldviews end up in the graveyard. As such all anti-Christ worldviews sneak Christian capital into them in order to be successful enough not to kill themselves.
The Jewish philosopher Spinoza (the great forerunner of the Radical Enlightenment) was one of the most brazen (and historically influential) “climbing up to God’s lap to slap him” types ever – he employed Biblical monotheistic presuppositions to entirely abstract God away from existence, or to make him identical with nature (Deus sive natura). In a sense, he was continuing and further developing the thought of medieval Jewish philosophers like Maimonides, who opposed all “anthropomorphic” thinking about God in their anti-Christian polemics.
Many thinkers both past and present have noticed how Spinoza was quite literally using the name of God to fight God, or trying to kill theology with its own weapons, or seeking to employ some attributes of God (like His immutability) against His other attributes:
https://archive.org/details/BarruelMemoirsIllustratingTheHistoryOfJacobinism/page/n549/mode/2up?view=theater
“Let the Sieur D’Alembert assert, that nothing can be more opposite to Atheism than Spinosism;17 or let Spinosa say, that, so far from being an Atheist, he converts every thing into God; will such an excuse raise pity or indignation in the reader? To deny that there is any other God than the world, is evidently denying the only being that can justly be called God. It is laughing at men, to wish to make them believe, that the person is preserved because they do not dare destroy the name, at the very time that the name of God is only used as an agent for the annihilation of every idea of a Deity.”
https://trisagionseraph.tripod.com/marxf.html
“The Kabbalah, a survival of gnosticism, splits God into multiple personalities: Spinoza’s God is ‘ein sof,’ who retains traditional divine attributes such as self-sufficiency, eternity and immutability. Since very little can be said about this god and because there is no point in talking to him, people don’t say much to or about him, and thus after one generation Deists lose any memory of him. But the God of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Kabbalists make into a joint project between the only actual God, — ‘ein sof,’ the god of the Deists, — and the people, whose praises inflate this partially man-created god, as if he were a Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade balloon, trailing behind Israel, who are dragging him along.”
It seems that Muslims also, who take such pride in their abstract monotheism, realized that excessive theological abstraction (that they had employed, with anti-incarnational intention, against Christians, for supposedly giving Deity human traits) can kill off the whole concept of God, which is why they came up with this concept:
https://archive.org/details/nativistprophets0000cron/page/322/mode/2up?view=theater
“Both the Khurramīs and the Persian Zoroastrians associated God with light, but the former did not give him a name or a personality: he was simply the great light or the highest light, the source of all the light there was. In Muslim parlance the Khurramīs were guilty of taʿṭīl, avoidance of anthropomorphism to the point of making God disappear as a person.”