Category: Natural Law

Van Til Concisely States Presuppositionalism … McAtee Attacks Natural Law

“By his hatred of God the natural man is bound to repress the truth of revelation given him. He does not want to be confronted with the demands of the God against whom, ever since the day of Adam at the beginning of history, he is in rebellion. Even in the field of philosophy this opposition to God appears. Everywhere, in man’s own constitution as well as in his environment, God speaks to man. But everywhere too man  the sinner, seeks to suppress the truth about himself and his relation to God his creator. Even when God in his grace speaks redemptively to man through Christ, and then Christ speaks redemptively to man through the Scriptures, the natural man again seeks to repress this revelation. He uses his scientific and philosophic as well as his theological systems in order to keep under the challenge of the revelation of God to him. Everywhere God meets man and everywhere asks man to answer. Man is inherently a covenantal being. He is one who cannot help but answer to God. He can give the right answer to God only through Christ’s atoning blood and through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. Once Christ has become a curse for him on the cross, and once Christ has risen from the dead for his righteousness and he has by the Spirit’s power accepted this salvation wrought for him in history, then he seeks at every point to be a covenant-keeper. He then seeks to be a covenant-keeper in the field of science and philosophy no less than in the field of theology. The great presupposition of all his efforts at interpreting himself and the world about him is the fact that he and the world are first interpreted by God in Christ as revealed in Scripture.

On this basis human self-awareness is awareness of self in relation to what God has revealed himself as being for man through Christ. On this basis God speaks to man from above and man answers to God as a scientist, as a philosopher and as a theologian. All his predication constitutes one great answer of covenant gratitude to his redeemer through whom he has been brought back to God the father.”

Cornelius Van Til
Christianity & Barthianism – p. 432

This provides a succinct explanation by CVT on presuppositionalism. In the explanation of it we see why Thomistic Natural Law theories are not and can not be true. Man as fallen, is out of covenant with God and as out of covenant with God fallen man seeks to interpret all reality in relation to himself as the prime epistemological authority. Man, as it were, takes himself as God and seeks to interpret all reality is light of his own legislative word. As such, fallen man, necessarily interprets the totality of reality amis.

That fallen man, necessarily interprets the totality of reality amis does not mean that fallen man does not manage to get some micro matters of reality aright but when he does get some micro matters of reality aright it is always in service of his worldview that is determined that “we shall not have this God rule over us.” At those points when fallen man gets micro matters aright in service of his rebellion against God and His reality fallen man can never account for how it is he was able to get micro matters aright. As Dr. Greg Bahnsen was fond of saying; “Fallen men can count but they cannot account for how it is they can count.”  It should be noted though that over the course of time as the anti-thesis works itself out in history fallen man get fewer and fewer matters touching reality right. For example, fallen man in the West pretty much once understood that boys were boys and girls were girls but as time has passed and as the anti-thesis has developed now there is uncertainty about the answer to the question; “What is a woman.”

Fallen man, then, will use stolen capital from God’s reality to get his denial of God’s reality off the ground and flying.  This is necessary to fallen man because there is no way to have a perfectly God hating worldview and still remain alive, for a perfectly God hating worldview is the worldview of a graveyard. It is at the point of stolen capital that the apologist must challenge fallen man. For example, natural law has stolen capital from God’s worldview by saying that man is a knower. Fallen man is indeed a knower however what Natural Law does not take into consideration is that fallen man as a knower is committed, a-priori, to not knowing the one reality that would make fallen man a knowing knower. Natural law admits that all ground is common ground but it refuses to acknowledge that no ground is neutral ground and it refuses to admit that fallen man is not neutral to the matter of knowing. Knowing man may be a sharp blade but he is a sharp blade that cuts at the wrong angle every time.

Wolfe’s Accurate Appraisal Of Today’s Clergy Work

“Theology and sentiment are being used (by clergy) to shore up the prevailing system of the day.”

 

Stephen Wolfe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ4FAfBL2Bo 

The prevailing system of the day that Wolfe is rightly complaining about is the post-War/Warren Court consensus “liberalism.” Actually, by the time of the Warren court’s rise “Liberalism” was being used as a shoehorn to bring in legal Cultural Marxism. In other words, “Liberalism” was being re-interpreted through a Cultural Marxist grid. Cultural Marxism had been hard at work in these united States since the late 1930s. The Warren Court, via the civil rights revolution, implemented Cultural Marxist principles and by the civil rights revolution gave us a new Constitution. (See, Christopher Caldwell’s, “The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties .)

Wolfe’s quote is accurate. It is indeed the case that;

“Theology and sentiment are being used (by clergy) to shore up the prevailing system of the day.”

Unfortunately Wolfe’s philosophical humanist Thomism is NEVER going to overthrow what legal Positivism has built under the Warren court since each and both rely on the principle of human autonomy. Wolfe rightfully repeatedly complains about the Warren court but the Warren court was likewise merely acting as autonomous agents implementing their desire. Wolfe has a different desire than the Warren court. Most of that desire I would agree with. However, the methodology that Wolfe is seeking to leverage in order to fight off the legal positivism that juiced the Warren court (and continues to juice legal minds) is afflicted with the same humanism as that legal positivism. With both Warren and Wolfe that which is legal (or should be legal) is mere projection of man said loudly. Neither Warren nor Wolfe anchor their epistemology (source of authority) in Scripture and as neither anchor their source of epistemology in Scripture both end up with subjective routes to their desired ends. Now, as I said, I like Wolfe’s ends. I do think that for the most part they are Christian ends. However, his methodology guarantees that he will not win out. Wolfe’s Thomis is a denial of the Reformed doctrine of total depravity and so can’t be Christian.

Wolfe rightly rails against the post-War / Warren Court consensus liberalism. The problem is that his Thomism doesn’t have the anti-septic power to deliver us from the scourge of humanism, precisely because his Thomism likewise is driven and authored by Humanism. Humanism will never cast out humanism.

What is needed is the disease delivering power of Theonomy. Only reliance on God’s Word can serve as an epistemological astringent that can deliver us from the poison of the post-War Warren court consensus.

McAtee Contra Jared Lovell … The Latest Natural Law Fanboy

“Typical theonomist category confusion. Nature is the medium of the law, not the source. Law is mediated through nature and Scripture. Both agree. We learn things from Scripture that we cannot know from nature. We learn things from Nature that are not revealed in Scripture.”

Jared Lovell
Memoria Academy 
History Teacher

Bret responds,

It is irrelevant whether nature is medium or source of the law because;

1.) Nature, like man, is fallen.

2.) Even if nature wasn’t fallen and was the perfect medium the problem wouldn’t be with nature. The problem is that man himself is fallen. Being fallen man no longer has the epistemological ability (or even desire) to read a putatively unfallen natural law. The problem isn’t in the sender. The problem is in the receiver. Fallen man, having denied God all the while claiming that God is not necessary to interpreting, has denied, in principle, the essence of everything that man interprets in nature including his own being.

That fallen man can and does get things right only means that fallen man can’t be perfectly consistent in his God denying interpretations and remain alive. As such, fallen man will get various things right but those things he gets right he can’t account, given his beginning presupposition, why or how he gets them right. As Bahnsen used to say … “Man can count but he can’t account for his ability to count.”

Jared Lovell writes errantly AGAIN,

Classic Motte and Bailey. If theonomists mean only what I am saying here, they are not saying anything new at all. They want to take down the entire edifice of natural law underlying western civilization and then when pressed, back track to say nothing new and distinct. Would you affirm that there is content revealed in natural law that cannot be known from Scripture? Or do I have to know Scripture to anything in nature?

Bret responds,

Natural law has been an abysmal failure. The reason we are now at the point we are at in the West is because Natural Law was floated by well meaning but not yet thoroughly Reformed men. Natural law has given us the Marquis De Sade arguing that Sadism is consistent with Natural Law … has given us Darwin arguing that evolution is consistent w/ Natural Law … has given us the gender blenders saying Trannie-ism is consistent with Natural Law…. has given us David Van Drunen arguing that Clergy are to be silent on public square sin. Natural Law is a wax nose that is made to proclaim whatever the reader of Natural Law desires it to say.

God and His Word is the precondition of all intelligibility. If one does not presuppose God and His Word then he is presupposing his fallen self and his fallen word. So yes, in order to knowingly know one must presuppose the Triune God in whom is hidden all the treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge.

The Natural Law position cannot be embraced by those who are consistently Reformed because to be consistently Reformed one MUST begin with Total Depravity and the “Reformed” Natural Law fanboys, have given up being Reformed when they argue that man is not so fallen that his epistemological apparatus (or sometimes his will) is still viable.

Look, I try to be nice. Really I do. But these Natural Law fanboys don’t get the Reformed faith.

A Few Distinctions on Christian Nationalism Concerning R2K, 2K Christian Nationalism & Theonomic Christian Nationalism

Below find an example of how there are a myriad of different readings of what exactly Christian Nationalism is. The below is correct as far as it goes but it fails inasmuch as it suggests that all Christian Nationalism is the Christian Nationalism that is described below by Doyle Matthews.

This from a chap (Doyle Matthews) who is correct on Presuppositionalism but is thorough-going hard core Alienist, which is to say that he is an inconsistent Presuppositionalist.

DM writes,

What do Christian Nationalists and R2K have in common?

1. They are both two-kingdom advocates.

BLMc responds

First, a wise person would understand that the very term “Christian Nationalist” has as many definitions as Carter’s has liver pills. As such making these kind of categorical unqualified statements is not profitable in the least.

It is true of the Stephen Wolfe / Michael Spangler school of Christian Nationalism that it is two-kingdom (2K). It is definitely NOT true of the Christian Nationalism that have been championed by Theonomist / Reconstructionist school of thought that began its strong rise in the 20th century.

Theonomists / Recons tend to talk about God’s complete sovereignty over every area of life while acknowledging that God has ordained different Jurisdictions (typically Church, State, Family – though other areas have been designated as well) and in those different Jurisdictions God has appointed Stewards in order to govern in the name of the great King of Kings, Jesus Christ. Those Stewards over the respective Jurisdictions have been Fathers over families, Elders over Churches, and Magistrates over Civil Order offices. The governance of these stewards of these different Jurisdictions must be consistent with God’s revealed Word.

So, it is just not true, as Mr. Matthews wrongly asserts that all Christian Nationalism is 2K. It is not even close to being true.

DM writes,

2. They are both natural law advocates.

BLMc responds,

It is true that both 2K and Christian Nationalism, as it falls from the hands of 2K advocates that their version of Christian Nationalism is based on Natural law. However, again, 2K doesn’t own the idea of Christian Nationalism.  Theonomy/Reconstructionism has long advocated for Christian Nationalism before the recent revival of Thomistic Natural Law Christian Nationalism.

So, Christian Nationalism of the Theonomy/Recon schools abominates the methodology of 2K Christian Nationalism though at the same time it is certainly the case that there are conclusions that 2K and Theonomy can agree upon in their mutual but distinct advocacy of Christian Nationalism. Whether or not there can be some kind of rapprochement between these two schools of thought as pursuing the same goal is yet to be seen.

DM writes,

3. They both believe that “right reason” is how one arrives at natural law.

BLMc responds;

Again, it is true that the Thomistic Natural Law school that is informing the 2K version of Christian Nationalism does indeed insist upon the fatuous idea of “right reason.” However, all because 2K Christian Nationalism is Thomistic does not mean that all Christian Nationalism is dependent upon the idea of “right reason” as dependent on Natural Law categories. The theonomic understanding of Christian Nationalism looks to God’s Law-Word to inform of laws that should govern a social order. The theonomic understanding of Christian Nationalism realizes that fallen men starting from himself as his own point of reference in order to name and understand the very real reality of Natural Law (Psalm 19) will always twist Natural Law in order for it to reveal his beginning presuppositions. This is because the Natural man following natural law is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1) and due to the fact that his carnal mind is at enmity (warfare) with God (Romans 8). The presuppositions of 2K Christian Nationalism are extremely flawed but those presuppositions of 2K Christian Nationalism does not define the Christian Nationalism movement as a whole. (And there are many more disagreements to hash out besides this one we are concentrating on in this thread.)

So, one can advocate for Christian Nationalism while not advocating for 2K Thomism.

DM writes,

4. They both reject Biblical law as the standard for civil law.

BLMc responds,

This one corresponds to #3 above. Natural Law Christian Nationalists are just terrible on the issue of what the standard for civil law is or will be. The Christian Nationalism is shut up to their subjectively arrived at conclusions about the standard for civil law as based on their subjective beginning point presuppositions. Natural Law Christian Nationalists have no “thus saith the Lord” for their positions, though admittedly some of them will try to stitch together premise upon premise from one of the Ten commandments in order to arrive at legality and illegality, or in order to arrive at the penalty that should be declared upon for crimes committed.

However, Christian Nationalism doesn’t need 2K Natural Law theory in order to get off the ground.

DM writes,

So when you come right down to it, there isn’t much difference between Christian Nationalism and R2K advocates.

BLMc responds,

This is monumentally jejune.  R2K anti-Christian Nationalists and 2K Christian Nationalists fight like dogs and cats on the issue of Christian Nationalism. My desire is for a pox to fall upon both houses (though I pray daily for a more destructive pox to fall on R2K) but despite that there are vast differences between 2K Christian Nationalists and R2K anti-Christian Nationalism.

Mr. Matthews is really exposing his ignorance with the last statement.

As bad as a Wolfean 2K Christian Nationalism would be it shines as beautiful in comparison to the R2K vision of social order.

So to be clear here …. there are three categories in this small slice of debate

1.) 2K Nationalism following Stephen Wolfe who has resurrected the errant thinking of Thomism and many Reformed lights who quit Reforming when it came to epistemology.

2.) Theonomic/Reconstruction Nationalism following Van Til, Gordon Clark, Bahnsen, Rushdoony and others who championed for God’s law being the standard in the Law-Order realm as being the norm that norms all norms.

3.) R2K Anti-Christian Nationalism following the heretical Escondido Westminster-West Seminary school. Westminster-West features chaps like David Van Drunen, R. Scott Clark, Michael Horton, and other historical misfits. (I say historical misfits because nobody until these descendants of Meredith Kline ever suggested the kinds of things these blokes champion in terms of Christianity and social order.)

Exposing Natural Law For The Cheat It Is (II); A Conversation

Joshua writes;

Fallen man distorts and suppresses special revelation too, but still understands it well enough to aggravate his condemnation. The Jews heard Christ preach and understood Him well enough to make their condemnation worse than Sodom and Gomorrah.

Bret responds;

Nobody denies that fallen man suppresses all God’s revelation. However, with Special Revelation there is a specific text to which we can point and appeal. Natural Law has no such text. Nobody can tell you what Natural Law is. What library do I go to in order to check out a volume of Natural Law? Is it Wm. Paley’s Natural Law? Rousseau’s Natural Law or De Sade’s Natural Law? Is it Idealism’s Natural Law? Romanticism’s Natural Law? Is it Deism’s Natural Law? Anaximander’s? Heraclitus’? Zeno’s? Plato’s? Why should Aristotle via Aquinas be prioritized in terms of what Natural Law is?

“Natural” laws must be accessible and definable if we are going to apply them to society as civil law. Since everyone disagrees over what is or is not a “natural law,” how do we determine who is right? If we appeal to the Bible as the “higher law” by which we judge “natural laws,” then the basis of “natural law” is overturned.

Scripture itself teaches in the context of Israel looking for other sources of knowledge;

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they (the other false sources of knowledge) do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Here is what the author of the Heidelberg Catechism thought of Natural Law.

“Furthermore, although natural demonstrations teach nothing concerning God that is false, yet men, without the knowledge of God’s word, obtain nothing from them except false notions and conceptions of God; both because these demonstrations do not contain as much as is delivered in his word, and also because even those things which may be understood naturally, men, nevertheless, on account of innate corruption and blindness, receive and interpret falsely, and so corrupt it in various ways.”

Zacharias Ursinus
Commentary on Heidelberg Catechism

Joshua writes;

So also with general revelation. Fallen man holds the truth (like the Athenians who knew there was only one God) but in unrighteousness (like the Athenians who built many altars). But holding the truth in unrighteousness does not mean fallen man has lost that truth. The Athenians worshipped many gods but still knew there was only one God.

Bret responds,

First, we must insist that general revelation does not equal Natural Law. You seem to be conflating these two distinct ideas.

Of General Revelation we can say that it is an activity of God which began at Creation and is Universal throughout the universe being continuous and unrelenting (Psalm 19). In God’s General Revelation what is witnessed are the attributes of God (Romans 1:19f) and the sinfulness of man. This non-verbal witness that is General Revelation renders all men without excuse and does not reveal the way of salvation.

Natural Law on the other hand is the activity of man warping General Revelation which began in Greece with Zeno of Citium. Natural Law, unlike General Revelation is not universal but can be found chiefly in Western Europe and America. As such, unlike General Revelation, Natural Law is not continuous and is only received by some men at some times in some places. Natural Law discusses two issue: the possible existence of god/gods and the problem of evil – anthropologically considered. The origin of Natural Law is man centered reason, subjective experience, feelings, or humanistic faith – all based on humanist philosophic discourse, yielding conflicting ways of salvation.

General Revelation is theological – God revealing to fallen man. Natural Law is philosophical – man starting from himself seeking to climb into “God’s” wisdom. Strictly speaking, man suppresses General Revelation while embracing Natural Law.

I never wrote that fallen man has “lost the truth of general revelation.” The heavens remain declaring the glory of God and the firmament remains showing forth His handiwork. God continues to reveal Himself via General Revelation, but man, using Natural Law blunts God’s General Revelation by means of suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

After his analysis of whether Natural Law should be conflated with General Revelation theologian G. C. Berkouwer wrote;

“the identification of general revelation and natural theology is an untenable position.”

Joshua writes,

Paul makes the same point in Romans 1:32, after listing all the abominable ways fallen man suppresses the truth: “Who, KNOWING the judgment of God, that they that do such things are worthy of death.” They suppress the truth, but they still know that there is one God, who will judge them for transgressing His commandments.

Bret responds;

Perhaps I have been unclear. I do not negate the idea that God is sending General Revelation. I do not deny that men are responsible. What I deny is that fallen man can use General Revelation as a means to organize his social order existence, and that is because fallen man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. So, fallen man knows but denies he knows and because he is at war with God (Romans 8:7, I Cor. 2:14) General Revelation and especially Natural Law is not a means of discerning for him.

Joshua writes,

Paul lists violations of nearly all the 10 commandments in the previous verses, showing that everyone still has some knowledge of both tables of the moral law.

Bret responds,

A knowledge that does them no good because they are suppressing that knowledge in unrighteousness. All this knowledge can do is leave them accountable for their suppression.

Joshua writes,

Natural law may be suppressed, but it is still there, and we can appeal to it when speaking to people who reject the Bible. They can’t obey it, and even if they could, it wouldn’t save them, because it doesn’t reveal an atonement for their sins in violating it. But it is still useful. The civil magistrate must punish sins against the light of nature (Westminster Confession of Faith).

Bret responds,

THIRD AND FOURTH HEADS OF DOCTRINE Of the Corruption of Man, His Conversion to God, and the Manner Thereof

Article 4 There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay, further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.

Joshua writes,

The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, i.e., the Scriptures which He inspired men to write. Paul is describing special revelation 1 Cor 2:14, not general revelation or natural law.

Bret responds;

2:15 suggests that you’re reading of 2:14 is errant.

“But the spiritual man judges ALL things, yet he is judged by no one.”

Finally, a favorite explanation of mine on the meaning of Natural Law as coming from a heathen. Start at 2:00.