# Is the concept of natural rights biblical?



## Mr. Bultitude (Mar 16, 2016)

I'm talking about the idea that God has given mankind "inalienable rights." Such rights have been enumerated in writings such as the US Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, the related French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I'm not asking whether all the rights that each of these documents claim are things you would agree we have a "right" to, I'm simply asking about the _concept_ of "rights." I wonder if, for example, you could derive the idea of natural rights by good and necessary consequence from verses about the dignity of human life.


----------



## Toasty (Mar 16, 2016)

Mr. Bultitude said:


> I'm talking about the idea that God has given mankind "inalienable rights." Such rights have been enumerated in writings such as the US Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, the related French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> 
> I'm not asking whether all the rights that each of these documents claim are things you would agree we have a "right" to, I'm simply asking about the _concept_ of "rights." I wonder if, for example, you could derive the idea of natural rights by good and necessary consequence from verses about the dignity of human life.



They are inferred from God's commandments. For example, God commands people not to murder so that there is a corresponding right to protect your life if another human being is trying to murder you.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 16, 2016)

Every person is still made in the image of God, despite our fallenness. Therefore, we retain a dignity that should be appreciated and protected. 

The only alternative - if our rights do not come from God - is to say that other men or gov'ts give them to us (and can also take them away).


----------



## Ed Walsh (Mar 16, 2016)

Mr. Bultitude said:


> Is the concept of natural rights biblical?



I would say that the ten commandments give us natural rights. Remember that the Law of God, although marred by sin, is written on the heart. Rights such as:

The right to worship the one true God. - “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
The right to private property. - "Thou shalt not steal."
The right to truth in matters of judgment. - "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
The right to protection under the law to enjoy monogamous marriage. - “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
The right to enjoy the fruits of your labor unmolested. - “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, etc.”


Rights along these lines. Any ideas?


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 16, 2016)

I would echo what the brothers above have said concerning rights being rooted in the moral law, and will only add that the moral law is revealed not only in Scripture, but also in nature. Thus, the rights are properly natural in the same way that the law is natural.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 16, 2016)

It's a fairly complex question.

For instance, Hobbes (1585-1679) started with a belief in a state of nature before civilized gathering. Natural rights were grounded in individual autonomy (literally, "self-law"). The counter to this natural claim was the same right of others, resulting in what he called _Bellum omnium contra omnes_ ("war of all against all").

So the social contract comes into play: people bargained for safety and gave up some claims to autonomy.

This is sort of the background theory found at the time of the American Revolution. Note well, the fundamental source of "natural rights" is the concept of unfettered autonomy voluntarily bargained away for some manageable sense of order.

So, that form of "natural rights" have more in common with "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." ( Jdg 21:25) than with principle.

Grotius (1583-1645), on the other hand, introduced a different form of individuals' natural rights. He began with self-preservation and derived other natural rights from this. This is consistent with the three posts above.

But Grotius was trying to establish moral consensus in the presence of religious plurality. He sought a set of fundamental laws common to all people, that "even if we were to concede what we cannot concede without the utmost wickedness, that there is no God, these laws would still hold." In the 16th and 17th centuries, this was a radical concept because it implied that the people themselves were sovereign. As time went on, however, the idea took hold, especially in the period leading up to the American Revolution.

I think we see the same debate keep coming up over time. Theonomy, to a large extent, was a reaction against empirical Hobbesianism. So-called R2K discussions echo Grotius. The preamble to the US Constitution seeks to accommodate the social contract theory and the Grotius theory by emphasizing (among other things) common defense and blessings of liberty:



> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



The Declaration of Independence is more explicit in steering away from Hobbes and grounding rights on Creation by asserting a "self-evident" truth that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." It also draws on the term of art "law of nature and nature's God," which to the trained ear of the time, meant the Law of God as articulated in Scripture.

So it's a mixed bag, and in our time there is a lot of baggage contained in the term "natural rights." I suspect that most folks nowadays prefer the antinomian-autonomy notion.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Mar 16, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> and will only add that the moral law is revealed not only in Scripture, but also in nature.



I agree.


----------



## Reformed Fox (Mar 17, 2016)

Rights language as used today emerged after Biblical times, so strictly speaking rights are not Biblical in the same was a presbyterian polity is not Biblical.

However using rights language to express the attributes of man in society and in relationship with his fellow man is perfectly in accord with what the Bible teaches.


----------



## Mr. Bultitude (Mar 17, 2016)

Thank you everyone. I feel much enlightened.

Victor, thank you for the historical overview. Gives some good perspective.



VictorBravo said:


> The preamble to the US Constitution seeks to accommodate the social contract theory and the Grotius theory by emphasizing (among other things) common defense and blessings of liberty



The US's Founding Fathers are commonly said to have been greatly influenced by John Locke when speaking of rights. Do you know whether his perspective was closer to Hobbes or Grotius?


----------



## Reformed Fox (Mar 17, 2016)

If the choice is between Hobbes and Grotius the founders would have been closer to the latter, but not because of the thinkers perspectives on rights, but rather due to the perceived relation between a society and the state. Hobbes would never have condoned the rebellion that led to the United States, whereas Grotius (probably) would have been able to reconcile the U.S. founding to his perception of natural law.

As to rights, the founders (if they can be aggregated) were in near total agreement with Locke. Beyond natural rights, and the legitimacy of rebellion, Locke's influence on the U.S. founding has been overstated by some of the Whig historians.

As to whether Locke was closer to Hobbes or Grotius, it is difficult to say. Politically both Hobbes and Locke were operating under a social contract paradigm, so one could say that they were structurally similar. Establish a contract and if one party breaks the rules, all bets are off. Similarly their take on rights was similar, as Grotius was operating under an older paradigm.

The problem is that Hobbes and Locke has almost opposite views on human nature. Hobbes was willing to sacrifice just about everything in the name of security whereas Locke had an almost romantic view of human innocence. His great epistemological phrase was the "tabula rasa".


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 17, 2016)

Mr. Bultitude said:


> The US's Founding Fathers are commonly said to have been greatly influenced by John Locke when speaking of rights. Do you know whether his perspective was closer to Hobbes or Grotius?



I don't see the need to add much more than what George (Reformed Fox) set out above.

I think Locke's tabula rasa perspective turns him away from Scripture.

I will add that Blackstone's commentaries were also very influential. Blackstone sounds a lot more like Calvin. Blackstone is also the one who distinguished "law of nature" from "natural law."

Law of Nature: God's law as revealed in Scripture.

Natural Law: Man's attempt to discern God's law by looking at nature (i.e., looking at the way things are).

Blackstone held that the Law of Nature was always superior to Natural Law because it was based on God's special revelation rather than man's faulty observation. He would tend to base legal rights ultimately on what God set out for an ordered society. I think you could say he resonated with the general equity principle found in the Westminster Confession.


----------



## Reformed Fox (Mar 17, 2016)

Indeed. Locke was an antitrinitarian. 

Though it may be pedantic, I would like to push back against using the term "law of nature". "Revealed law" works better ("Summa Against the Gentiles"). 

It is true that Blackstone was more widely read by the founders. As were more enlightenment figures like Montesquieu. Locke's main contribution to the U.S. founding was his rights language. Some, like Jefferson, also went for the empiricist epistemology of Locke as well, but this was far less common.

I suppose the real question is what we mean by "the founders".

EDIT: I was actually thinking of the "Summa of Theology" (Qu. 91 to be exact). And the term Aquinas uses is "divine law" but I prefer "revealed law".


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 17, 2016)

Reformed Fox said:


> Though it may be pedantic, I would like to push back against using the term "law of nature". "Revealed law" works better ("Summa Against the Gentiles").



Not pedantic; in fact, much clearer. Very few people talking about natural law these days seem to understand the distinction Blackstone made. Almost all I've read in the past 40 years seem to equate Law of Nature with Natural Law, which means they may not have caught the distinctions in 18th century discussions.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 23, 2016)

Reformed Fox said:


> so strictly speaking rights are not Biblical in the same was a presbyterian polity is not Biblical.




Side note: Horrible analogy. 1) Presbyterian polity IS biblical (Acts 15 is the best place to start). 2) you need to read classical works like Samuel Rutherford's "Due Rights of Presbyteries" and "The Divine Right of Church Government". Both these works lay out the biblical foundation for Presbyterianism. Not only this, but how it is the only right form of church government.


----------

