RE: Agreeable to the Natural Law
W.H. Chellis
Ok… now to finish that but.
Here are the three main reasons why a Reformed approach to natural law is superior to a theonomic ethic.
First, natural law recognizes that its usage of biblical precedent is analogical rather than univocal. That is to say that no geo-political nation-state can ever presume to be like the Israelite theocracy in terms of a one to one application. As I noted in The True and Only Theocracy, Israel’s former theocratic status can only be enjoyed today by the Church catholic.
The exact contours of Israel’s peculiarity are a matter of exegetical and theological discussion but no one can doubt that there are important discontinuities between Old Covenant Israel and New Covenant Christendom. These discontinuities are ignored at our peril.
Second, the Christian nation that is informed by God’s law does not receive them from Sinai through Moses but from Zion through Christ. Of course, moral law is moral law whether given to Adam at creation, delivered to Moses at Sinai, or expounded by Christ on the mountain. Moral law is moral law and reflects the unchanging character of God. Yet, not all of God’s revealed law is moral is it. Now, Peter Leithart has wisely pointed out that Paul can find hidden moral principles behind laws of a ceremonial nature (i.e. 1 Cor. 9:8 citing Deut. 25:4). But, it would seem that this actually helps make the point. Paul is not binding the Corinthians with a binding application of the Mosaic law but arguing a precedent from a like case. Here natural law is a better explanation of Paul’s use of the law than a theonomic ethic. Even theonomy recognized that the ceremonial laws had been abrogated. Yet, the principles of natural law equity are eternal.
Third, we must remember that we are not discussing canon law (church law) but civil law. Psalm 146:3 reminds not to put our trust in princes. The state needs to be moral guidance of the church lest it degenerate into a beast. Yet, the church should neither presume to dictate civil law nor should it give the state the right to interpret Biblical application. Good legislatures should be godly men known for their prudence. An legislature filled with exegetes is not my desire. Look how hard it is for those of use in the the church to agree about the use of biblical law.
The great danger of modernity is ideology. Theonomy is strong medicine. Instead of calling us to shore up a weakening Christendom it calls for radical reconstruction. My conservative instincts tell me that theonomy empowered could easily degenerate into Calvinistic Jacobinism (this could also be true for natural law interpreted to abstractly). Rather, legislative prudence lies in the way of tradition, custom, and prescription normed by revelation of God in Holy Scripture. Wild eyes exegesis will simply not do for the civil realm. The stakes are just to high.
As a theonomist I have no disagreement with most of your post, nor would Bahnsen. Regarding your first paragraph, theonomy is in full agreement.
RE second paragraph: aside from the natural law *assertion* at the end of it, I again fail to see how it relates to theonomy. Theonomy *can* (see Bahnsen’s reply to Longman) modify itself to allow for changes, provided they come from God’s word and not prevaling culture (Dr Clark has repeatedly argued on Puritanboard that Christendom is a mistake because it can’t work; an *is/ought* fallacy). I don’t see how the natural law assertion followed.
Regarding the third paragraph: full agreement. No theonomist advocates the church calling the shots.
Regarding the last paragraph: this is extremely anti-climactic. With all the dangers to the church today (dispensationalism, feminism, liberalism, postmodernism, socialism, defection from the NT, defection from the WCF) and then for people to harp on theonomy as a danger is to really miss the mark. Is the real danger that some people want to obey God?
Mr Chellis: I was extremely excited when I first heard of this blog. I thought, “wow,” real, reflective thinking on what a Christian society would look like. And there was that…for a while. Why all the concern over theonomy? We are on your side.
I have more to say, especially regarding your comments on reconstruction, but I have said to much at the moment. I apologize to some of the readers if I am hogging the bandwith.
I would like to offer my appreciation for Mr Howe’s last comment on the other post. I now see where he is coming from and respect what he just said. I, for one, would like to see some simplification of Oliver O’Donovan and how it would apply to modern day society.
C.C.,
Thanks for the comments. I want to be clear. I am not trying to attack Theonomy as much as I am trying to offer a friendly corrective.
The purpose of the discussion is to have various views on the relationship between Christ and Culture represented. This blog enjoys a number of differing views. On one extreme are men like Darryl Hart and Scott Clark on the other are the theonomists. I get to defend national confessionalism and correct both where I think they are wrong.
Trust me when I tell you that Theonomy is not on the topic of my enemies list. Still, I am critical. If you agree with me that nations should “Kiss the Son” it is necessary that we talk about what that will mean for a Christian nation’s jurisprudence. Theonomy is one answer. It is just not mine. That said, I am happy to hear from as many defenders of theonomy as can be found. That is part of the fun.
true,
I have much to work out in my own system (this is as close to a weak moment as I can get. LOL!)
I picked up the works of Oliver O’Donovan this year and delighted in them. Still, even with some of his idiosyncrasies, I thought Rushdoony to be more clear. I would love for someone (maybe me) to spell out the implications of someone like O’Donovan. I believe he has much to offer.
I am also encouraged by the presence of Dr Leithart on this blog. I loved *Against Christianity.*
Sorry if I seemed combative earlier. I am really a nice guy in person.
Are there instances in the Bible where God preferred an “analogical” obedience to His commands, rather than a literal obedience to His commands?
Mr. Chellis-
Do you distinguish between natural law as interpreted by the mind of the unregenerate vs. the regenerate? In other words, if natural law exists, perhaps it would be “read” differently by those indwelled by the Holy Spirit as opposed to those who lack Him?
Sincerely,
Rusty
Yes: 1 Corinthians 9:7-11.
Rusty,
To the extent that special revelation is necessary to understand the natural revelation, yes, I think that the natural law is clearer for those redeemed in Christ.
BC
“To the extent that special revelation is necessary to understand the natural revelation, yes, I think that the natural law is clearer for those redeemed in Christ.”
So the logical result of this is that Christians always know that much more than non-. So if anyone has any questions about anything, the Christian is the one who has the answer. I mean, who would you go to if you had questions, the one who is dimmer or the one who is clearer?
This boggles me as I regularly observe unbelievers make equal or even better conclusions than Christians. How can this be if we are clearer?
How is this view you espouse different from pietistic Fundamentalist dichtomies that rigidly split the damned from the redeemed and have a simpistic worldview? To them, the good guys and bad guys are easily discerned and it’s all relatively mess-free. All you need to ask is whether one is a Christian or not. But what always trips me up is when two Christians disagree over something in natural law. Now what?
Your view always sounds oh, so good, but then when I get thinking about it, it just creates more problems. I would LOVE to believe I am clearer than unbelievers or that i have a leg up, but my own reality keeps wagging its boney finger in my face! I fear what you say above is much more narcissitic than you may want to admit!
Steve Zrim
Mr. Zrim,
Your an animal. I am glad you are passionate but it might be good to take a deep breath before you begin to type. Take a moment to light up a cigar. Relax.
Now, as to your point. You are jumping to conclusions that I have not offered.
My answer to the questons does not mean that the redeemed are always smarter than unbelievers or that unbelievers ethics are always sub-par.
Rather, I am noting the fact the natural law is, in fact, the law written on the heart of Adam at the creation. It is part of the image of God. The fall has distorted it.
Israel was given the law on table of stone to correct the problem, at least temporarily. By temporarily I mean that what God wrote on stone in the Old Covenant is now written on the heart of the believer in the New.
This does not mean that all believers share equally in this gracious restoration. Nor do all believers alike have the same intellectual capacity to aprehend what that law is telling them.
On the other hand, the Holy Spirit is at work in the midst of unbelievers. He is illuminating the truth in them through the work of common grace. Often, by that work of common grace, a particilarly discilined and intellegent pagan will see more clearly than a believer.
This does not change the fundamental fact that it is in the community of believers that God is most profoundly at work revealing His character and work.
The work of ethics should not be divorced from the task of theology and the task of theology should not be divorced from the Church.
Thus, the Church will have a great deal to say about the application of the natural law.
Should the Church legislate for the nations? Not at all. But it must be vigilent to preserve the unity between the general and the special revelation.
roar.
ok, i have just stamped out a nice stogie.
thanks for the clarification.
(deep breath)
but could you elaborate on what you mean by “special revelation is necessary to understand the natural revelation”?
i do not mean to put words in your motuh, but i wonder if you might mean: “there is nothing profound in the charge to not lie or love love one’s neighbor as oneself per se; these things are naturally known to all flesh and serve temporal purposes. but the temporal purposes are just that and there actually is a more transcendant and eternal meaning to them, namely their covenantal nature in redemption. the COG grace necessarily depends in some sense upon the COW, the former picking up, so to speak, where the latter leaves off to do something much more profound and eternal; that the natural world has all it needs from God in common revelation/grace to plod out this present, temporal age and needs no help from special revelaion/grace.”
and not: “nobody knew what it meant not to lie and love one’s neighbor as oneself until moses and jesus came along. sure glad those guys came before the chaos got too out of control!”
sz