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.

Dr. Scott Aniol’s Attempt to Rescue Wilson & Baptists Everywhere

Yesterday I wrote a piece taking on Doug Wilson’s reasoning as to why blasphemy laws should not be implemented by a Christian magistrate. Today a well known music leader and professor in the Baptist Church (Scott Aniol) decided to cross swords with me on this subject.

Here is the point I originally made;

If we are not going to give the state the responsibility to enforce God’s law on Blasphemy because it would then become the the chief blasphemer then why would we give the state the power of the sword to enforce God’s law on murder, or rape since doing so would lead to the same?

Dr. Aniol, on Twitter politely responded to my comment

“This is an understandable question, but it ultimately breaks down. Blasphemy and murder are in two different categories, thus the two tables of the law. The first involves internal heart matters and the second involves external relations between humans. No one is suggesting that government stop punishing murder. Government must punish murder because (a) the punishment of murder is the fundamental power given to human government, and (b) defining murder is a whole lot easier than defining blasphemy from an unbelieving perspective, though of course they do try. Every successful society has recognized the need to punish murder.”

Herein I now respond to Dr. Aniol;

1.) Note how Dr. Aniol reasons like a Baptist here. He assumes discontinuity between the Old and New Testament where no evidence in Scripture exists for assuming discontinuity. In the OT the Ten Commandments were seen as apply completely to the Hebrew social order. However, Dr. Aniol, as a Baptist New Testament Christian introduces discontinuity in God’s law as he tells us that all of the Ten Words don’t apply for Christian magistrates today.

2.) Because of the observation of #1 above we would ask Dr. Aniol to prove from Scripture that murder and blasphemy are in two different categories, with murder being enforceable with penalty from Christian magistrates while blasphemy is not enforceable with penalty from Christian magistrates. He can only do so by the most torturous of Baptist Gumby routines. You just can’t derive from Scripture that magistrates today are only responsible for the 2nd table of God’s law and not the first. (By the way, as an aside, the R2K clowns also make this move, demonstrating their Baptist roots.)

3.) God should have given a memo to the Hebrews about different categories so they wouldn’t have stoned those blasphemers in the day. Oh… wait, I forgot, the different categories didn’t arise until Jesus died on the Cross. Jesus died on the Cross so blasphemy could be eliminated as a capitol offense.

4.)  We would ask Dr. Scott if he realizes how novel is reading is about the two categories. With this novel reading you are saying not only blasphemy laws in the past in Western nations were wrong but so were American blue laws that existed in some part of the country up to the 1980s, since the blues laws are also part of the first table (“Remember the Sabbath, to Keep it Holy.”)


5.) The idea that 1st table isn’t applicable for modern magistrates to enforce is complete horse hockey. It is made up whole cloth. I can exhaust you with quotes from the Theologians of the past which would be laughter in your face.

We start with a quote from a Baptist so as to give Dr. Aniol’s favored denomination some air time;

“But then there were other judicial laws, which were founded on the light of nature, on reason, and on justice and equity, and these remain in full force ; and they must be wise as well as righteous laws, which were made by God himself, their King and legislator, as they are said to be, Deut. iv. 6, 8. And they are, certainly, the best constituted and regulated governments that come nearest to the commonwealth of Israel, and the civil laws of it, which are of the kind last described; and where they are acted up unto, there what is said by Wisdom is most truly verified, By me kings reign, and princes decree judgment; and if these laws were more strictly attended to, which respect the punishment of offences, especially capital ones, things would be put upon a better footing than they are in some governments, and judges, in passing sentences, would be able to do that part of their office with more certainly and safety, and with a better conscience.

And whereas the commonwealth of Israel was governed by these laws for many hundreds of years, and needed no other in their civil polity, when, in such a course of time, every case that ordinarily happens, must arise, and be brought into a court of judicature; I cannot but be of opinion, that a digest of civil laws might be made out of the Bible, the law of the Lord that is perfect, either as lying in express words in it, or to be deduced by the analogy of things and cases, and by just consequence, as would be sufficient for the government of any nation; and then there would be no need of so many law books, nor of so many lawyers; and perhaps there would be fewer law-suits.”

John Gill
Body of Divinity

Here is one from Rutherford;

” For 1.) If there be no bodily punishment to be inflicted on false teachers and blasphemers, then must Christ by his blood repeal all those laws in the Old Testament; but the Scripture shows us all our parts of Christian liberty in these places of Scripture, Ti.2:14; Rom. 14:4; I Thess. 1:10; Gal. 3:13; Gal. 1:4; Col. 1:13; I Joh. 4:18; Acts 15:10-11; Heb. 4:14, 16; Heb. 10:19,21,22; Col. 2:15-16; 2 Cor. 3:13, 17, 19; Jam. 4:12; Rom. 14:4; Act. 4:9; Act.5:29; 1 Cor. 7:23; Matt. 23:8,9,10; Matt. 15:9; and elsewhere; in all which places nothing is hinted of the false teachers patent under the seal of the blood of the eternal Covenant, that he is freed from the Magistrates sword, though he destroy millions of souls.”

Samuel Rutherford
A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience etc. — pp. 233-234

And one from Richard Vines;

“For the blasphemous and seditious Heretics, both Lutherans and others of the Reformed Churches do agree that they may be punished capitally, that is for their blasphemy of sedition; but the Socinian stands out here also, and denies it; alleging that the punishment of false Prophets in the Old Testament was speciali jure but by special law granted to the Israelites, and therefore you must not look (saith the Socinian) into the Old Testament for a rule proceeding against false Prophets and blasphemers: Nor (saith Calvin and Catharinus) can you find in the New Testament any precept for punishment of Thieves, Traitors, Adulterers, Witches, Murderers and the like, and yet they may, or at least some of them be capitally punished: for the Gospel destroys not the just laws of civil policy or Commonwealths.”

Richard Vines — English Puritan
The Authors, Nature, and Danger of Heresy
Laid open in a sermon preached before the honorable house of Commons…March – 1646 – pp. 64

In the words of Captain Steve Rogers, “I can do this all day.” Suffice it to say that Aniol’s position is completely modern and so completely novel. Aniol’s position smells more of the Endarkenment thought than it does of Christian thought.

 6.) We would ask Dr. Aniol to prove from Scripture that punishing the crime of murder is the fundamental power of government. This is just not true. The fundamental power of government is justice across the board as God defines justice in God’s gracious Law-Word. As we have seen, God defines justice as punishing blasphemers as well as murderers and that has never been overturned.

7.) Every society has defacto or dejure blasphemy laws. We have them. Try saying the word that sounds like “niggardly” in public and see how one is punished. So, blasphemy laws still exist. We still can’t take the name of our gods in vain. We just hide it from ourselves.

Well, more might be said but we have said enough for those with eyes to see the egg that Dr. Aniol has on his face.

Interrogating Dr. Stephen Wolfe & His Book, “The Case For Christian Nationalism” V

“Pastors as pastors are no more competent to analyze or make civil law than any other person.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe
The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 275

We might first add here that while it may be true that Pastors as pastors are not competent to analyze or make civil law neither is it the case that, typically speaking, lawyers, legislators, nor politicians are likewise competent to analyze or make civil law.

The above is true now but it has not always been true. Indeed, in our now most pastors are  incompetents at both analyzing civil laws and shepherding their flock.

However, this should not be true today since the political/governmental jurisdiction is constantly now invading the ecclesiastical realm with their immorality and death dealing. Today Pastors should be equipped to analyze civil laws as interpreting them and so reading them through a Biblical grid.
We are at the point that neither the greater or lesser magistrates are going to help the Christian people/Church and so the principle of interposition has to fall to the Elders in the ecclesiastical realm to correct the legislators in the civil realm. As such the clergy need the ability to analyze legislation.

We should note that once upon a time the clergy did have this ability. Samuel Rutherford wrote the masterpiece Lex Rex and George Gillespie with him wrote the Civil Government section of the WCF. John Calvin, who was a law school graduate before theology, wrote most of the laws of Geneva, and a number of them are still in place today, and Geneva and the cantons have largely been peaceful and civil ever since. Many of the leaders in cause for American Independence were members of the clergy. Pastors in Puritan America were the most wise and educated people in the community. The fact that the clergy has fallen so far should not be used to excuse the necessity of pastors once again being competent.

Another point to be made here is that if would only give our clergy a thorough worldview training it would be a far less strenuous reach for them to analyze law since law is such a religiously oriented discipline. Once upon a time, pastors took it upon themselves to master the workings of the world to the best of their abilities in order that they might rise above it. Now they just believe whatever CNN tells them and focus on exclusive psalmody.

Let’s keep in mind that St. Paul said that the Church ought to be able to adjudicate in the affairs of this world;

“If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!”

II.) “Modern theonomy provided both a universalist alternative to prevailing visions and promised to reverse moral decay.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe
The Case for Christian Nationalism – p. 269

1.) All who contend for any unique law order project are offering a universalist alternative. Indeed, Wolfe’s own plea for Natural law likewise offers a universalist alternative. There is no shame in offering a universalist alternative to paganism.

2.) Do keep in mind that Rushdoony, while eschewing movement Libertarianism, did advocate for a law order that was decentralized in terms of Governmental enforcement. This mitigates against Wolfe’s “universalist” accusation that suggests that Rushdoony was going to force Theonomy on the world.

3.) It is true that an acceptance of God’s law by a redeemed people would indeed reverse moral decay. Nothing else will. Certainly not Wolfe’s Natural law Humanism.

Stephen Wolfe’s book “The Case for Christian Nationalism,” is unlike any other book I’ve ever read in my whole life with its pillar to post statements. Sometimes I want to stand and cheer Dr. Wolfe. Other times I wonder where in purgatory he will spend time.