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.

Bottom Up or Top Down?

Many are the Christians who will state that which I heard on a “conservative” Christian podcast today; “The change we need has to start from the bottom up.”

I do not agree with this. At least I do not agree that the change we need has to start solely from the bottom up. The premise behind the idea is that change has to come as from the hoi polloi before it can take hold among the leadership so that the leadership implements the change from the top down that is already existent from the bottom up.

It is my conviction rather that change in a Biblical direction has to be both bottom up and top down at the same time. Indeed, change in any direction has to be both bottom up, top down, and inside out simultaneously. It really isn’t the case that one can divide this all out and say it has to start as a grass roots movement alone before it can take hold among the intelligentsia and the elite. Throughout history there have been numerous occasions where the change was top down and bottom up simultaneously. Often God ordains that the man, the movement, and the moment rise together.

Think of Cromwell overthrowing King Charles II. That was not solely a bottom up movement. Think of Charlemagne Christianizing his Kingdom. Think of Alfred the Great and his book of doom. In all these case one can easily argue that top down and bottom up occurred simultaneously.

If Christian leadership waits for bottom up alone before it presses the Crown Rights of King Jesus in the halls of power those rights will never be pressed. Change has to come bottom up, down down and inside out concurrently. If we wait for any one to lead without the others I suspect the end result will be defeat.

Independence Day Reading List

There are a plethora books on subjects surrounding America’s founding. This list is only comprised of books that I have read on the subject. I am confident there may be finer books one could read but these are some of the one’s I have read and found quite delightful. I will be adding to this list over the next few days as I have books in my head but I can’t remember the author. One should not conclude that I agree with everything in every book. I try to be a discerning reader. However there are times in reading when a author can get something wrong in such a way that it can help the reader get it right in his own head.

1.) Mitre & Sceptre — Carl Bridenbaugh

2.) This Independent Republic — RJR
3.) The Nature of the American System — RJR
4.) Theological Interpretation of American History — Singer
5.) Our Federal Government: Its True Nature and Character —
Abel Parker Upshur
6.) Defending the Declaration: How the Bible and Christianity Influenced the Writing of the Declaration of Independence — Gary T. Amos
7.) From Union to Empire: Essays in the Jeffersonian Tradition
by Clyde N. Wilson and Joseph R. Stromberg
8.) Bringing Back the Black Robed Regiment Vol. I & II — Dan Peters
9.) The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates
10.) A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution — by M. E. Bradford
11.) A Better Guide Than Reason: Federalists and Anti-federalists (The Library of Conservative Thought) — M. E. Bradford
12.) Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution — M. E. Bradford
13.) The Genevan Reformation and the American Founding — David W. Hall
14.) The Roots of the American Republic — Rev. E. C. Wines
15.) The Federalist Papers — Hamilton, Madison, Jay
16.) The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution — Bernard Bailyn
17.) George Washington; Sacred Fire — Pete Lillback
18.)Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution — Forrest MacDonald
19.) Fountainhead of Federalism — Charles McCoy

 

1964 Civil Rights Bill; The Warnings Issued Then and the Reality Now

“Two former Presidents of the American Bar Association, Lloyd Wright, and John C. Satterfield, candidly described the 1964 Civil Rights Bill — now Public Law 88-351 as it neared the end of Congressional debate, they said,

 

‘If it is enacted the states will be little more than local government agencies existing as appendages of the central government and largely subject to its control. The legislation assumes a totally powerful national government with unending authority to intervene in all private affairs among men, and to control and adjust property relationships in accordance with the judgment of government personnel.

It is impossible to prevent Federal intervention from becoming an institutionalization of special privileges for political pressure groups. This must lead eventually not to greater freedom, but to ever diminishing freedom.

The civil rights aspect of this legislation is but a cloak; uncontrolled Federal executive power is the body.'”

Kent Steffgen

The Bondage of the Free — p. 4

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave us a new de facto Constitution and we have since the passage of that law seen the Federal Government incrementally gain ever more power and control over the people in their respective states gathered. We are seeing this power now being exercised not only in the name of racial minorities but now we are seeing this Federal Power acting in order to give both racial minorities and sexually perverted minorities special privileges Vis-à-vis white heterosexual Christians.

The new gun laws just passed and signed into law are a example of what Lloyd Wright and John C. Satterfield warned about in the day. In that law we see again a totally powerful national government with unending authority to intervene in all private affairs among men, and to control and adjust property relationships (ownership of firearms) in accordance with the judgment of government personnel. The diminished freedom that they warned against has been routinely seen in the recent masks mandate and Feds arm twisting in relation to vaccines.

We are living under tyranny and there will  be on end to the expansion of that tyranny until the Federal Government is smacked on the snout and told to get out of the private citizens business.

Orwell & McAtee on The Feds Diminishing of the 2nd Amendment

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Bill of Rights
2nd Amendment

“The Big Brother’s endless purges, arrests, tortures, imprisonments and vaporizations are not the result of people breaking laws for there are no laws in Oceania. The punishments are merely the wiping out of persons who perhaps might commit a crime at some time in the future.”

 

George Orwell

1984

 

Hello Red Flag laws and the FEDS as Orwell’s Big Brother.

Under Red Flag laws a person not charged with a crime and having no criminal background can lose their 2nd amendment rights on the basis of “a preponderance of evidence,” that they might be a danger. This preponderance of evidence standard for seizing a judicially innocent man’s guns is a different standard then that which is required in a criminal case in a court of law where the standard is “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” The new standard for stripping away from someone their constitutional protections found in the 2nd amendment is now a matter of someone’s subjective opinion that the absent accused is 50.1% likely be a danger with their firearms vs. a 49.9% chance that they are not a danger. And this is determined completely apart from the accused being able to martial a case as to why his firearms should not be taken away because he is absent from the proceedings.

Red Flag laws, which are such a part of the new Gun Law just passed during the last week of June 2022 seem to be premised on Philip K. Dick’s book “Minority Report,” except in this case instead of three precogs in a pool of chemicals the precogs are now Justices who are now predicting the future while dwelling in a pool of random accusations from potentially vindictive parties seeking to hurt people they have a grudge against for who knows what reason and this quite apart from the protections of Due Process.

Red Flag laws deny due process. Deny someone to face their accusers. Deny the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Deny the idea of proper search and seizure laws. The gun laws just passed and signed by the Pedophile in Chief are as anti-Constitutional as they come.

The chipping away of the guarantees found in the 2nd amendment is a emboldening of the FEDS to ignore the negative charter of liberties completely that is our Bill of Rights because if citizens are limited in being able to defend themselves against a Federal Government that continues to squeeze the definition of the Bill of Rights is a Federal Government that can’t be put back into its proper place by the necessary use of force. Diminishing the force then of the 2nd amendment is to diminish the entire Bill of Rights. As such the Red Flag laws, being encouraged by the Federal Government through bribery on the States is an attack on our political Covenantal document and so by itself warrants the same kind of response seen by the Colonials as when King George III once upon a time ignored the Colonial political charters and covenants. This warranted response we now celebrate as Independence Day.

This is not the America of my forebears. This is the America of Mikhail Gorbachev’s forbears.

Oh, and while we are thinking of it, don’t ever try to argue with me again that if we just vote Republican things will be all better. Here are the Benedict Arnold Senators who voted against the clear and unmistakable language of the 2nd Amendment.

  1. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Senate minority leader
  2. Roy Blunt of Missouri
  3. Richard Burr of North Carolina
  4. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia
  5. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana
  6. Susan Collins of Maine
  7. John Cornyn of Texas
  8. Joni Ernst of Iowa
  9. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
  10. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
  11. Rob Portman of Ohio
  12. Mitt Romney of Utah
  13. Thom Tillis of North Carolina
  14. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania
  15. Todd Young of Indiana