Before we begin to explore the application of the commandments to the civil realm, it is important that we begin by setting down some words of caution.
First, we must recognize that the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not apply beyond the holy realm of the Kingdom of God. In other words, the Church is regulated by the Bible but the state has no such infallible guide. That is not to say to that Bible has nothing to say about politics, but it does mean that Bible was not given as a handbook for the political philosopher.
Second, without an infallible guide the statesman who wants to know God’s “will” should be begin by looking to prescription, tradition, and the ancient constitution. Although the natural law is universal in principle its applications are as diverse as the the nations themselves. The rationalist demands universal applications and universal rights. The end of such demands is universal tyranny. It is prattle t0 talk of God given “rights” that have no historical incarnation among a people. God governs providence. He rules the nations. History, prescription, and tradition are, as Mel Bradford reminded us, a surer guide than reason when it comes to discerning the natural law.
Of course, we must not become such reactionaries as to demand that whatever “is” must be Divinely approved. Order within the city of God will always fall short of justice. But the point remains… there are no infallible guides to reform, and the best laid plans will have unforeseen and potentially horrific consequences.
Beware of the social reformer.
Shun the transformationalist.
Bill, I’m sorry to be tedious (if I am), but I would like you to define a few of your terms for me (if not for the audience).
1) what do you mean by “prescription”?
2) what do you mean by “transformationalist” (or previously mentioned “anti-Augustinian transformationalist”)?
3) what do you mean about “God-given ‘rights’ with no historical incarnation”?
(You mention “justice” of which an order will always fall short. Do you not mean by “justice” that which is due to each? And is not “that which is due” ones “right”? And if any given order falls short of that which is due to each, then there are rights without historical incarnation, are there not? And how can there be a universal justice and no universal rights, since what is due is ones right?)
4) not a definition, but a request for a reference:
Most non-theocrats (and non-G.H.Clarkians) agree that sola scriptura is not a rule for the non-ecclesial, and that general revelation (or perhaps some construal of natural law) is a legitimate source of various non-ecclesial norms/laws/principles.
Where do you find the case for such a “gen.rev.” position best articulated? (eg. a certain writer or school of thought)
Thanks.
Greg, not tedious at all. I am happy to have some help sharpening my thought.
1. By prescription, I mean ancient use going back time out of mind. A well settled practice with deep roots.
2. By transformationalist I mean those who offer an ideological blueprint for change.
3. I believe that God gives us rights but have no way to discern what they are beyond the historical development of a people. Hence, Americans have God given rights that the people of Iraq and Russia do not have… and cannot be given by American military adventures.
4. By justice, I do mean to each his own. My point is not what should be but what is… and those two things cannot be perfectly reconciled in this age. To much “change” can have disastrous unforeseen consequences. So be careful.
5. The case for general revelation applied might best be articulated by Cicero, Hooker, and Burke… with Russell Kirk various defenders of the Old Whig position.
I have not picked up VanDrunnen’s new book but am looking forward to it.
I Ching’s categories on natural laws are the best source of reference in evaluating natural right on practically all issues.