# David Chilton on Natural Law



## Anton Bruckner

Days of Vengeance pg 157-158& 400

"
There is no such thing as Nature. God has not given any inher- ent power of development to the universe as such. God created the universe and all life by immediate actiorw, not by mediate processes. When God withdraws His Breath (which is the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life), death follows immediately (Gen. 7:22). The idea that God wound up the universe and then let it run its course, so that there is such a thing as Nature which has an intrinsic power, is Deism, not Christianity. Theistic evo- lution is Deism, not Christianity. To the extent to which the pro- cesses of Nature replace the acts of God in any system, to that extent the system has become Baalistic.�23 �Because of the influence of neo-Baalism (secular human- ism) in our modern culture, we tend to think that God, when He made the world, installed certain �natural laws� or processes that work automatically and impersonally. This is a Deistic, not a Christian, view of the world. What we call natural or physical law is actually a rough approximate generalization about the or- dinary activity of God in governing His creation. Matter, space, and time are created by God, and are ruled directly and actively by Him. His rule is called �law.� God almost always causes things to be done the same way, according to covenant regularities (the Christian equivalent of natural laws), which covenant regulari- ties were established in Genesis 8:22. Science and technology are possible because God does not change the rules, so man can confidently explore the world and learn to work it. Such confi- dence, though, is always a form of faith, faith either in Nature (Baal) and natural law, or faith in God and in the trustworthi-ness of His commitment to maintain covenant regularities.�zd

There is no such thing as natural �law�; rather, as Auguste Lecerf has said, �the constant relations which we call natural laws are simply �divine habits�: or, better, the habitual order which God imposes on nature. It is these habits, or this habitual proc- ess, which constitute the object of the natural and physical sciences.�9 This is what guarantees the validity and reliability of both scientific investigation and prayer: On the one hand, God�s angels have habits � a cosmic dance, a liturgy involving everyaspect of the whole universe, that can be depended upon in all of man�s technological labors as he exercises dominion under God over the world. On the other hand, God�s angels are personal beings, constantly carrying out His commands; in response to our petitions, He can and does order the angels to change the dance. 10 There is, therefore, an �Angel of the Waters� (in terms of St. John�s zodiacal progression, this is presumably the cherub of the fourth quarter, Aquarius); I� he, along with all of God�s personal creation, rejoices in God�s righteous government of the world. God�s strict justice, summarized in the principle of lex talionis, is evidenced in this judgment; the punishment fits the crime."

The above is totally radical in my opinion. Consider the following from the Catholic Encyclopedia, "In its strictly ethical application–the sense in which this article treats it–the natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us."

Can you guys give me your definitions, and which you think is best.


----------



## RamistThomist

Although I note the hyper-irony in what I am about to say, John Robbins has an excellent rebuttal to natural law.


----------



## Peter

I think Chilton and the Catholic Encyclopedia are using 'natural law' in two different (but related) senses. According to Chilton's usage natural law refers to the order by which God governs the universe (although he dislikes the term I dont think he contradicts the traditional meaning). The CE is refering to the ethical principles man can collect by reason (aided by grace) from this order. (Roman 2:14)

[Edited on 10-18-2006 by Peter]


----------



## RamistThomist

One of the problems in discussing natural law is there several different definitions of it. 
Is one referring to looking at natural order and inferring ethical principles from it (a logical fallacy)?
Is one referring to the moral law written on the heart? This one is better but really begs the question along Christian lines--a position which the unbeliever will not for a moment grant. But the whole point of it was to find neutrality with the unbeliever. I do find it odd that some van tillians are extolling neutrality-which is the very thing van til sought to deny. 

The second one is better but insufficient standing alone. Can one develop a penalogy from "the work of the law written on the heart?" etc.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

An even greater irony is that many Reformed folk have taken a Barthian position (denying the existence of natural law) without realizing it.

It's odd too that we knew what natural law was for several thousand years, until the 20th century when it simply evaporated.

Read Calvin. Read Bullinger. Read Bucer. Read virtually any Reformed thoelogian of the 16th or 17th century and they can tell you what natural law is.

True, Wollebius, Voetius, Turretin, Witsius, Owen, Calvin, Ursinus, aren't David Chilton, but we shall have to muddle through anyway.

rsc


----------



## crhoades

Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics (Emory University Studies in Law and Religion) (Paperback) 
by Stephen J. Grabill 

Contents
Acknowledgments ix
Introduction 1
1. Karl Barth and the Displacement of Natural Law
in Contemporary Protestant Theology 21
2. Development of the Natural-Law Tradition
through the High Middle Ages 54
3. John Calvin and the Natural Knowledge of
God the Creator 70
4. Peter Martyr Vermigli and the Natural Knowledge of
God the Creator 98
5. Natural Law in the Thought of Johannes Althusius 122
6. Francis Turretin and the Natural Knowledge of
God the Creator 152
Conclusion 176
Notes 193
Bibliography 263
Index 299

Brief Description
Is knowledge of right and wrong written on the human heart? Do people know God from the world around them? Does natural knowledge contribute to Christian doctrine? While these questions of natural theology and natural law have historically been part of theological reflection, the radical reliance of twentieth-century Protestant theologians on revelation has eclipsed this historic connection. Stephen Grabill attempts the treacherous task of reintegrating Reformed Protestant theology with natural law by appealing to Reformation-era theologians such as John Calvin, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Johannes Althusius, and Francis Turretin, who carried over and refined the traditional understanding of this key doctrine. Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics calls Christian ethicists, theologians, and laypersons to take another look at this vital element in the history of Christian ethical thought.


Best Price on the Web - Acton $20.00

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802863132/ref=wl_it_dp/102-7664806-1257760?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3NKI5IN92DI6U&colid=35D52DT7RC8SC]Amazon link[/ame]
I know Amazon is still showing preorder but I saw a copy in my local bookstore.

Here is his blog:
http://commonnotions.blogspot.com/index.html

Many, many posts on natural law. I haven't had time to peruse so I can't say if I endorse him or not. Relevant to the discussion though.

http://anthonybradley.worldmagblog.com/anthonybradley/archives/026365.html
Post with comments

http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/article.php?id=337


[Edited on 10-19-2006 by crhoades]

[Edited on 10-19-2006 by crhoades]


----------



## crhoades

A Biblical Case for Natural Law 
by David VanDrunen
Acton Price $6.00

Brief Description
This monograph is for Christians who are perplexed about the biblical standing of natural law. It offers an explicitly biblical defense for the existence and practical importance of natural law. If natural law is taught in Scripture, it should certainly be affirmed in Christian theology. The Studies In Christian Social Ethics and Economics series compiles topical studies of issues in Christian social ethics and economics integrating biblical studies, theology, economics, political theory, history, and various Christian traditions as centered in the Scriptures. The primary objective is to bring practitioners in these fields together to focus on the implications and applications of Christian social ethics in the church and society.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> An even greater irony is that many Reformed folk have taken a Barthian position (denying the existence of natural law) without realizing it.



I would assume you are on the same page as Daryl Hart, who maintains that we should seek neutrality in the political sphere with the unbeliver. I maintain that if you say this while affirming yourself to be a Van Tillian, you have a logically incompatible argument. You are affirming and denying the same premise: neutrality. This introduces a contradiction in the argument, rendering the conclusion nil (see Frame's book on Van Til). 



> It's odd too that we knew what natural law was for several thousand years, until the 20th century when it simply evaporated.
> 
> Read Calvin. Read Bullinger. Read Bucer. Read virtually any Reformed thoelogian of the 16th or 17th century and they can tell you what natural law is.
> 
> True, Wollebius, Voetius, Turretin, Witsius, Owen, Calvin, Ursinus, aren't David Chilton, but we shall have to muddle through anyway.
> 
> rsc



1. I don't deny the position of natural law, I just think the question is begged along Christian presuppositions.
2. Didn't Calvin and Co. advocate, also, the enforcement of both tables of God's law? 
See this infamous thread? My favorite one is by John Knox affirming the penal sanctions of the old testament in defiance of a tyrant king. Your right. We don't need Chilton telling us these things. Knox will work fine. 



> John Knox 1514-1572
> [A petition " to the Quenis Majestie, and Hir most Honourable Privey Counsall etc."].
> " The secound that we *requyre*, is punishment of horrible vices, sic as ar adultery, fornicatioun, open hurdome, *blasphemye*contempt of God, of his Word, and Sacramentis; quhilkis in this Realme, for lack of punishement, do evin now so abound, that syne is reputed to be no syne. And thairfoir, as that we see the present signes of Goddis wrath now manifestlie appear, so do we foirwarne, that he will stryck, or it be long, yf his law without punishement be permitted thus manifestlie to be contempned. Yf any object, that punishementis can nott be commanded to be executed without a parliament; *We answer that the eternall God in his Parliament has pronounced death to be the punishment for adulterye and for blasphemye*; whose actis yf ye putt not to executioun, (seeing that Kingis ar but his lieutennentis, having no power to geve lyefe, whair he commandis death,) as that he will reputt you, and all otheris that foster vice, patronis of impietie, so will he nott faill to punishe you for neglecting of his judgements."
> 
> works of John Knox; collected and Edited by David Laing. vol.2 (Edin.1864) pp.339-340.



[Edited on 10--19-06 by Draught Horse]

[Edited on 10--19-06 by Draught Horse]


----------



## crhoades

Does revealed/Scriptural law contradict natural law ? 

Same or different in content? Is one more robust? Sure? Detailed?

Should we seek lowest common denominator with the unbeliever in "natural" law or should we lift them up toward Scripture and not give them a way out on their own presuppositions - i.e. natural without recourse to God?

Random questions to discuss regarding natural law. I ordered both books above - should be interesting reading. The law of nature is telling me that I need sleep right now...g'night all.


----------



## rjlynam

Matthew 10:29-31 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. 
Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. 

I don't understand why there should be a problem with most of the Chilton quote. I'm not quite sure of the Aquarius reference or the role of the angels as mentioned, but, don't we serve an awesome God? And could it be that our finite, sin-stained minds struggle to grasp the omnipotence and omnipresence of our God? 






> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> Days of Vengeance pg 157-158& 400
> 
> "The idea that God wound up the universe and then let it run its course, so that there is such a thing as Nature which has an intrinsic power, is Deism, not Christianity. Theistic evolution is Deism, not Christianity. To the extent to which the processes of Nature replace the acts of God in any system, to that extent the system has become Baalistic. Because of the influence of neo-Baalism (secular humanism) in our modern culture, we tend to think that God, when He made the world, installed certain natural laws or processes that work automatically and impersonally. This is a Deistic, not a Christian, view of the world. What we call natural or physical law is actually a rough approximate generalization about the ordinary activity of God in governing His creation. Matter, space, and time are created by God, and are ruled directly and actively by Him. His rule is called law.



Psalm 104 is an excellent passage to bounce this view off of.


----------



## Peter

Maybe the problem is Van Til then?


also, maybe you're misinterpreting a simple affirmation of the 2,000 year principle as support of some kind of pluralistic political movement.

fyi, I believe in the OT penal sanctions too, I don't see what that has to do with natural law (red herring?).

[Edited on 10-19-2006 by Peter]


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Maybe the problem is Van Til then?
> 
> 
> also, maybe you're misinterpreting a simple affirmation of the 2,000 year principle as support of some kind of pluralistic political movement.
> 
> fyi, I believe in the OT penal sanctions too, I don't see what that has to do with natural law (red herring?).
> 
> [Edited on 10-19-2006 by Peter]



I don't have the quotes on me right now, but I looked last night and Van Til was critiquing Barth on his denial of natural law, so I don't think that is it. Van Til was pointing out that believers and unbelievers will mean different things by the term. 

As far as politics and penal sanctions are concerned, there are reformed brethren that want to only have the nations ruled by natural law with no recourse to revelation.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Maybe the problem is Van Til then?
> 
> 
> also, maybe you're misinterpreting a simple affirmation of the 2,000 year principle as support of some kind of pluralistic political movement.
> 
> fyi, I believe in the OT penal sanctions too, I don't see what that has to do with natural law (red herring?).
> 
> [Edited on 10-19-2006 by Peter]



Most natural law advocates in the Reformed world today deny that we can apply the OT penal sanctions.


----------



## RamistThomist

This is neat: I see that David VanDrunen wrote an article in _Journal of Law and Religion_ XXI no. 1 on "The Use of Natural Law in Calvinist Resistance Theory." 

Ok, that puts me into sympathy with him. I haven't read the article yet (and won't until tomorrow) but it does highlight a few ironies:

As most of you know on this board, most of my posts have been about killing tyrants, Christian Resistance, and the evils of the Messianic State. The biggest opposition to my thoroughly Reformed outlook (since I pretty much quoted the Puritans, Knox, and Calvin) came from the "Two Kingdom" Klineans. And lo and behold, I am finding one saying thigns that I had been saying.

Now, there is some difference. I can agree with VanDrunen on historical grounds: yes, the Reformers used a natural law argument in resisting tyranny. That is a descriptive claim that appears to be historically validated. The important thing, however, contra those who say we should be good statists and just obey Romans 13, is that the article notes the Reformers advocated resisting tyranny.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

See also R. S. Clark, "Calvin and the Lex Naturalis," Stulos Theological Journal 6 (1998): 1–22. (available via ILL).

Both VanDrunen and Grabill have criticized my juxtaposition of Calvin and Thomas. I'm a little closer to VanDrunen. Grabill's criticisms were stronger and, I think, a little unfair in places. Calvin is no Thomist.

I do have some difficulty with some of CVT's language about natural law.

Read DVD, Grabill, and my piece on Calvin and then we'll talk.

Barth's rejection of natural law created a lot of problems. It's part of how we lost the covenant of works.

"Neutrality" is a loaded word in our circles so it has to be defined carefully in this context.

Remember, in the two-kingdoms scheme, Christ is lord over everything -- I'm not waiting for him to _really_ become Lord in some glorious age on this earth before the consummation -- in distinct ways.

So, there can be no "neutrality," in sense in which CVT usually used the word, relative to the KOG.

CVT, however, did have a vigorous doctrine of common grace which many transformationalists and reconstructionists overlook or reject explicitly (e.g., Gary North wrote a book rejecting CVT's doctrine of common grace AND his eschatology in the mid 80s) which requires a sort of "neutrality" in civil life or in the civil kingdom.

Is road paving "neutral?" Sure. As I've said before on this board there is more neutrality in less ultimate issues and less neutrality in more ultimate issues. Christians and non-Christians need not agree on ultimate issues, nor should they, to pave roads or perform many civil functions. 

One of the problems with the Barthian and conservative denial of natural law is that it risk losing the category "nature." Everything becomes "grace" or "redemption," hence the language about "taking back" (right wing) or "redeeming" (left wing) x. What does this mean? 

If Jesus is Lord of all, and he is, then why does anything need to be "taken back?" Where in Scripture is Jesus said to have "redeemed" anything but the elect? 

This whole discussion misses the Reformed view of grace _renewing_ nature. It partakes of the Anabaptist view of grace _obliterating_ nature. 

Is there such a thing as creation? Was creation "good?" Yes. Did it ever become anything other than that? No. Did God institute a law in creation? Yes. What was it? It was the substance of the decalogue. Did that moral law ever go away? No. Do all men know it? Yes. How do I know this? It's the clear doctrine of Rom 1-2. 

As I show in the natural law essay, the lit. on this topic is massive and I can't repeat it all here. Do the work and then we'll talk. 

rsc



> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> An even greater irony is that many Reformed folk have taken a Barthian position (denying the existence of natural law) without realizing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would assume you are on the same page as Daryl Hart, who maintains that we should seek neutrality in the political sphere with the unbeliver. I maintain that if you say this while affirming yourself to be a Van Tillian, you have a logically incompatible argument. You are affirming and denying the same premise: neutrality. This introduces a contradiction in the argument, rendering the conclusion nil (see Frame's book on Van Til).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's odd too that we knew what natural law was for several thousand years, until the 20th century when it simply evaporated.
> 
> Read Calvin. Read Bullinger. Read Bucer. Read virtually any Reformed thoelogian of the 16th or 17th century and they can tell you what natural law is.
> 
> True, Wollebius, Voetius, Turretin, Witsius, Owen, Calvin, Ursinus, aren't David Chilton, but we shall have to muddle through anyway.
> 
> rsc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I don't deny the position of natural law, I just think the question is begged along Christian presuppositions.
> 2. Didn't Calvin and Co. advocate, also, the enforcement of both tables of God's law?
> See this infamous thread? My favorite one is by John Knox affirming the penal sanctions of the old testament in defiance of a tyrant king. Your right. We don't need Chilton telling us these things. Knox will work fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Knox 1514-1572
> [A petition " to the Quenis Majestie, and Hir most Honourable Privey Counsall etc."].
> " The secound that we *requyre*, is punishment of horrible vices, sic as ar adultery, fornicatioun, open hurdome, *blasphemye*contempt of God, of his Word, and Sacramentis; quhilkis in this Realme, for lack of punishement, do evin now so abound, that syne is reputed to be no syne. And thairfoir, as that we see the present signes of Goddis wrath now manifestlie appear, so do we foirwarne, that he will stryck, or it be long, yf his law without punishement be permitted thus manifestlie to be contempned. Yf any object, that punishementis can nott be commanded to be executed without a parliament; *We answer that the eternall God in his Parliament has pronounced death to be the punishment for adulterye and for blasphemye*; whose actis yf ye putt not to executioun, (seeing that Kingis ar but his lieutennentis, having no power to geve lyefe, whair he commandis death,) as that he will reputt you, and all otheris that foster vice, patronis of impietie, so will he nott faill to punishe you for neglecting of his judgements."
> 
> works of John Knox; collected and Edited by David Laing. vol.2 (Edin.1864) pp.339-340.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [Edited on 10--19-06 by Draught Horse]
> 
> [Edited on 10--19-06 by Draught Horse]
Click to expand...


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> See also R. S. Clark, "Calvin and the Lex Naturalis," Stulos Theological Journal 6 (1998): 1–22. (available via ILL).
> 
> Both VanDrunen and Grabill have criticized my juxtaposition of Calvin and Thomas. I'm a little closer to VanDrunen. Grabill's criticisms were stronger and, I think, a little unfair in places. Calvin is no Thomist.



Were their criticisms in print? Do you follow KARL-HEINZ ZUR MUHLEN's entry of Two Kingdoms in the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation? 



> Calvin. As in the city republic of Zurich, the city council of the city republic of Geneva claimed authority for the external religious peace in the city. By the same token, Calvin was even more strongly concerned than Zwingli to see church discipline as a task of the congregation. Civic government and the church are essentially not in tension but complement one another. According to Calvin, a dual regiment of God prevails among humans, namely, the regimen spirituale and the regimen civile. *Calvin did not take over the Augustinian dualism of two kingdoms.* Rather, he spoke of two regiments that rule over humans spiritually and politically. Accordingly, Calvin placed alongside the regnum Christi ("reign of Christ") or the regnum coeleste ("reign of heaven"), the ordinatio civilis ("civic ordination") or thepol-itiae ratio ("political manner") and distinguished the rule of Jesus Christ, on the one hand, and the civic political order, on the other. Each has different tasks. Christ's spiritual regiment is concerned to instruct consciences in piety and in the adoration of God, while the task of civic government is to demand the fulfillment of civic duties. According to Calvin, both regiments must be considered sui generis. The spiritual regiment does not dissolve the civic order, even as conversely the civic law must not rule over consciences. "Both regiments in no way contradict one another." According to Romans 13:1, government has a function legitimized by God, namely, to care for peace and law and to "cultivate external worship, protect it, and to defend the wholesome teaching of piety and the good estate of the church." Such care for external piety included, according to valid heresy laws, also the persecution of antitrinitarians and Anabaptists. The trial against the antitrinitarian Michael Servetus was not only prompted by Calvin but was also the application of heresy law in a city republic with a medieval constitution. In case the state transgressed its proper competencies, Calvin argued for a right of resistance against tyrants. However, this right of resistance is legally regulated and does not apply to individuals, who only have a passive right of resistance and are to implore God for help. The so-called lower authorities—specifically the "lower authorities" in France—have an active right of resistance and are entitled to resist royal injustice. Collectively, church and state form the externa media vel adminicula ("fundamental supports") "with which God in Christ invites us to live in community and retains us in it."



Not looking for a long answer. I do want to read your article whenever I can make it Vandy's library. That is unless you have a digital copy laying around that you could email...

[edit] Just realized I confused the categories of Natural Law and Two-Kingdom theory. Anyhoo...how related are they in your mind? Did the fact that Calvin pushed for the enforcement of the 1st table of the Law make him less in the natural law camp or does he still follow natural law and go beyond it to special revelation?[/edit]

Like I said above, ordered VanDrunen and Grabill and looking forward to reading them. I really want to pick up Vermigli's work on Aristotle's Ethics but it's a tad too pricey at this point.

[Edited on 10-19-2006 by crhoades]


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Email me off-list.





> Were their criticisms in print?



Grabill's is probably in his book. I don't know how much David has said in print - a little maybe. The basic criticism is that I divorce Thomas and Calvin too sharply.



> Do you follow KARL-HEINZ ZUR MUHLEN's entry of Two Kingdoms in the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation?





> "cultivate external worship, protect it, and to defend the wholesome teaching of piety and the good estate of the church." Such care for external piety included, according to valid heresy laws, also the persecution of antitrinitarians and Anabaptists.



The survey seems fair enough. What VanDrunen, Hart, Horton (he's written on this recently, but I don't recall where) and others are seeking to do is to disentangle the _theory_ of the two kingdoms from it's 16th century theocratic setting. This setting is reflected in the bit of the encyclopedia entry preserved above. 

Yes, natural law and two kingdoms are closely related. The former is the charter, if you will, for the civil kingdom. The two kingdoms is the structure or framework within which the natural law is applied. 

So my point is twofold:

1. Natural law is an important point of the historic and confessional Reformed ethic. It's denial constitutes a rejection of important ideas and results in serious damage to Reformed theology and ethics, to wit: Barth. Like many QIRC-y Reformed types, about the only thing Barth really liked about Reformed theology was double predestination which he re-configured radically to suit his own program.

The reconstructionist movement cannot keep trashing natural law and expect NOT to become Barthian in some respects. Indeed, some of them are. They are following Barth in reconstructing Reformed covenant theology. These things are related. This is ironic because they also want to be Van Tillian and no one was more critical of Barth than CVT. See Barth's dialogue with Brunner in NEIN! 

2. The theory espoused by the tradition and embodied in the confession needs to be re-contextualized for a post- or non-theocratic setting. What does the two-kingdoms approach look like outside of Christendom? That's the question. I think Hart, Horton, and VanDrunen are doing a good job at fleshing out that answer.


----------



## crhoades

Ahh...forgot Hart in all of this. http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=19710 is a link that links to Sean Michael Lucas's review of his recent book A Secular Faith.

Thanks for the interaction. I will try to email you later today or tomorrow.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Ahh...forgot Hart in all of this. http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=19710 is a link that links to Sean Michael Lucas's review of his recent book A Secular Faith.
> 
> Thanks for the interaction. I will try to email you later today or tomorrow.



You cannot forget Hart. He is a point man in all of this, for good or for ill (Hint it is for ill).


----------



## Arch2k

Interesting discussion. I have to admit that I struggle with the idea of natural law, but I also think that my struggle is at least partially due to an unclear definition. I will try to read some of the resources provided.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Interesting discussion. I have to admit that I struggle with the idea of natural law, but I also think that my struggle is at least partially due to an unclear definition. I will try to read some of the resources provided.



Have you read John Robbins' critique of natural law?


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Interesting discussion. I have to admit that I struggle with the idea of natural law, but I also think that my struggle is at least partially due to an unclear definition. I will try to read some of the resources provided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read John Robbins' critique of natural law?
Click to expand...


I've read almost everything from the website, and have listened to all of the lectures available in audio. I have seen you make this comment several times on the board, which specific article/lecture are you refering to?

My problem is that I can see both sides. I think this is one place where my system of theology seems to contradict itself. I need to study on this more.


----------



## caddy

Scott

Are you familiar with Budziszewski's book on Natural Law ?

What We Can't Not Know: A Guide


Excellent read.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/What-We-Cant-Not-Know/dp/189062649X"]Amazon.com: What We Can't Not Know: A Guide: Books: J. Budziszewski[/ame]







> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> An even greater irony is that many Reformed folk have taken a Barthian position (denying the existence of natural law) without realizing it.
> 
> It's odd too that we knew what natural law was for several thousand years, until the 20th century when it simply evaporated.
> 
> Read Calvin. Read Bullinger. Read Bucer. Read virtually any Reformed thoelogian of the 16th or 17th century and they can tell you what natural law is.
> 
> True, Wollebius, Voetius, Turretin, Witsius, Owen, Calvin, Ursinus, aren't David Chilton, but we shall have to muddle through anyway.
> 
> rsc


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Interesting discussion. I have to admit that I struggle with the idea of natural law, but I also think that my struggle is at least partially due to an unclear definition. I will try to read some of the resources provided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read John Robbins' critique of natural law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read almost everything from the website, and have listened to all of the lectures available in audio. I have seen you make this comment several times on the board, which specific article/lecture are you refering to?
> 
> My problem is that I can see both sides. I think this is one place where my system of theology seems to contradict itself. I need to study on this more.
Click to expand...


The journal it appeared in is now defunct. I will copy the article and mail it to you.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Interesting discussion. I have to admit that I struggle with the idea of natural law, but I also think that my struggle is at least partially due to an unclear definition. I will try to read some of the resources provided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read John Robbins' critique of natural law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read almost everything from the website, and have listened to all of the lectures available in audio. I have seen you make this comment several times on the board, which specific article/lecture are you refering to?
Click to expand...


I found the most references to natural law theory in Conservatism: An Autopsy from the Trinity Review of March 2002.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Chris,

You fail to make some important distinctions, chiefly the distinction between ultimate and penultimate things. 

Without that distinction we virtually lose our doctrine of providence, i.e., God gives, in creation, human beings as image bearers, with gifts that they use. 

On a penultimate level, these gifts are "common" (universal) to humanity. 

Should human beings acknowledge their Creator? Yes! Are they in rebellion when they do not? Yes! Does that rebellion invalidate the exercise of their gifts and the benefits that accrue to all of us, believer and unbeliever alike? To say "yes" to this question is to take the Anabaptist view of things, it is to say that the "secular" (a perfectly good category and necessary to our view of worship - give it up and John Frame will be hosting dramas and you'll be singing "Shine Jesus Shine" next Sabbath) is inherently wicked. We don't think that way. 

Refuse to make the ultimate/penultimate distinctin and there is a muddle.

Lowest common denominator? Well, the moral law is a common denominator, but as it is divinely given "lowest" is not an apt adjective.

The substance of the natural law is the substance of the decalogue, i.e., that which is not Mosaic. Ergo the moral/natural/creational law requires all humans to rest one day in six. It requires humans not to murder, steal, etc. The civil magistrate has a natural/creational in enforcing some of the moral law, e.g., Gen 9 reflects the creational prohibition on murder. Whether the magistrate has an interest in enforcing 1 day in 7 would be an interesting discussion. Generally it means, in a post-theocratic, post-Christendom world the enforcement of there is or should be no civil enforcement of the second table.

I can't see how this is a "lowest common denominator" approach.

When it comes to ultimate questions as to why the world is the way it is and what what it means -- natural law is after all still only LAW and it only teaches sin it does not provide righteousness -- then we must challenge presuppositions. We can cooperate on the penultimate level without agreeing at the ultimate level. Hence the latet 2-3 ECT documents are necessary only if one accepts the transformationalist (i.e., the refusal to distinguish ultimate and penultimate or between sacred and secular or between civil and ecclesiastical kingdoms) assumptions on which it is based.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Only from the interviews on Mars Hill audio. 

rsc



> _Originally posted by caddy_
> Scott
> 
> Are you familiar with Budziszewski's book on Natural Law ?
> 
> What We Can't Not Know: A Guide
> 
> 
> Excellent read.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/What-We-Cant-Not-Know/dp/189062649X
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> An even greater irony is that many Reformed folk have taken a Barthian position (denying the existence of natural law) without realizing it.
> 
> It's odd too that we knew what natural law was for several thousand years, until the 20th century when it simply evaporated.
> 
> Read Calvin. Read Bullinger. Read Bucer. Read virtually any Reformed thoelogian of the 16th or 17th century and they can tell you what natural law is.
> 
> True, Wollebius, Voetius, Turretin, Witsius, Owen, Calvin, Ursinus, aren't David Chilton, but we shall have to muddle through anyway.
> 
> rsc
Click to expand...


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Jeff,

Natural law for most of the Reformers = the moral law which was published in creation before the fall (hence the covenant of works) and re-stated in Israelitish terms at Sinai (hence the idea of the republication of the covenant of works) and written on the hearts of all humans everywhere (see Rom 1-2). Paul elsewhere calls it the "stoicheia" (often transl. "basic principles" and often misunderstood as some reference to pagan physics). 

It's the moral DNA, if you will, embedded in every human being. It's a corollary to the natural knowledge of God that every human has and supresses. 

rsc



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Interesting discussion. I have to admit that I struggle with the idea of natural law, but I also think that my struggle is at least partially due to an unclear definition. I will try to read some of the resources provided.


----------



## ChristianTrader

So for most reformers, natural law = both tables?



R. Scott Clark said:


> Jeff,
> 
> Natural law for most of the Reformers = the moral law which was published in creation before the fall (hence the covenant of works) and re-stated in Israelitish terms at Sinai (hence the idea of the republication of the covenant of works) and written on the hearts of all humans everywhere (see Rom 1-2). Paul elsewhere calls it the "stoicheia" (often transl. "basic principles" and often misunderstood as some reference to pagan physics).
> 
> It's the moral DNA, if you will, embedded in every human being. It's a corollary to the natural knowledge of God that every human has and supresses.
> 
> rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Yes, for all the magisterial Protestants, natural law = moral law = decalogue in both tables.

They were all, more or less, theocrats, even Luther! They did not always distinguish clearly between their own circumstances (as heirs of 1000 years of Christendom their context made it nearly impossible for them to imagine things any other way) and those of national Israel.

That's why I say that we must re-contextualize the 16th century _theory_ of two kingdoms in a post-theocratic, post-Christendom world. The first colonial Synod of the Presbyterian Church in 1729 recognized this fact implicitly. 

As I understand the pre- and post-theocratic obligations of the civil magistrate, they do not entail enforcement of the second table. Only the Israelite theocracy was authorized to enforce the second table. 

rsc




> The substance of the natural law is the substance of the decalogue, i.e., that which is not Mosaic. Ergo the moral/natural/creational law requires all humans to rest one day in six. It requires humans not to murder, steal, etc. The civil magistrate has a natural/creational in enforcing some of the moral law, e.g., Gen 9 reflects the creational prohibition on murder. Whether the magistrate has an interest in enforcing 1 day in 7 would be an interesting discussion. Generally it means, in a post-theocratic, post-Christendom world the enforcement of the civil enforcement of second table.


----------



## ChristianTrader

So the real fight is over whether or not there needs to be a recontextualization for today's circumstances vs. the magisterial reformers getting it completely right instead of denial vs. acceptance of natural law.



R. Scott Clark said:


> Yes, for all the magisterial Protestants, natural law = moral law = decalogue in both tables.
> 
> They were all, more or less, theocrats, even Luther! They did not always distinguish clearly between their own circumstances (as heirs of 1000 years of Christendom their context made it nearly impossible for them to imagine things any other way) and those of national Israel.
> 
> That's why I say that we must re-contextualize the 16th century _theory_ of two kingdoms in a post-theocratic, post-Christendom world. The first colonial Synod of the Presbyterian Church in 1729 recognized this fact implicitly.
> 
> As I understand the pre- and post-theocratic obligations of the civil magistrate, they do not entail enforcement of the second table. Only the Israelite theocracy was authorized to enforce the second table.
> 
> rsc


----------



## Peter

I think we need to restore theocratic Christendom. 



> As I understand the pre- and post-theocratic obligations of the civil magistrate, they do not entail enforcement of the [first?] table. Only the Israelite theocracy was authorized to enforce the [first] table.



Dr. Clark, how can you be so hard on the Theonomy boys for impudently rejecting the wisedom of our confessional reformed fathers and then do it yourself?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Peter said:


> I think we need to restore theocratic Christendom.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Clark, how can you be so hard on the Theonomy boys for impudently rejecting the wisedom of our confessional reformed fathers and then do it yourself?



That's a fair question.

1. The confessional era folk weren't theonomic, they were theocratic. There's a difference.

2. The confessional era folk were, in my view, wrong about science and politics in certain respects. This changed, however, through the 17th century. I find threads in the 16th and 17th centuries on which we can capitalize today.

It was very difficult for them to see beyond Christendom. I think it became possible after the end of the 30 years war. This war doesn't mean much to us because kings aren't drafting our sons to fight for Rome or the Protestants and because soldiers aren't tramping across our front lawns. If they were, we might see the point of re-thinking whether there really is a post-canonical state that effectively becomes a new Israel. 

Certainly the folk who came to the New World gradually realized that there is no civil "city shining on a hill." Remember too that the 17th century saw the rise of chiliasm and strong eschatological expectations that were disappointed and that also led to re-evaluation. 

I do believe in doctrinal progress and I think the realization that, in this epoch of redemptive history, between the advents, we are not to re-establish a civil theocracy is that sort of doctrinal progress. 

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

ChristianTrader said:


> So the real fight is over whether or not there needs to be a recontextualization for today's circumstances vs. the magisterial reformers getting it completely right instead of denial vs. acceptance of natural law.



No, I don't think that's quite right.

1. Many theonomic/reconstructionist types agree with Chilton's utter rejection of natural law. If, however, there is such a thing as we used to think, then we have a resource for Christian ethics and social engagement beyond either theonomy or right-wing transformationalism (e.g., "taking back" whatever). 

2. The doctrine of natural law, however, just like the doctrine of the two-kingdoms must be extracted from it's context in Christendom and re-applied today. The attempt, even theoretically, to re-establish Christendom is a mistake and a non-starter.

rsc


----------



## ChristianTrader

So it seems that the answer to Peter's question is that you are hard on those who disagree with the confession when you believe the confession to be correct but then go ahead and disagree with the confession where the confession is in your view, wrong.

With this stance you cannot use the confession/historal theology as a battering ram, all you are left with is using the Bible as a battering ram.



R. Scott Clark said:


> That's a fair question.
> 
> 1. The confessional era folk weren't theonomic, they were theocratic. There's a difference.
> 
> 2. The confessional era folk were, in my view, wrong about science and politics in certain respects. This changed, however, through the 17th century. I find threads in the 16th and 17th centuries on which we can capitalize today.
> 
> It was very difficult for them to see beyond Christendom. I think it became possible after the end of the 30 years war. This war doesn't mean much to us because kings aren't drafting our sons to fight for Rome or the Protestants and because soldiers aren't tramping across our front lawns. If they were, we might see the point of re-thinking whether there really is a post-canonical state that effectively becomes a new Israel.
> 
> Certainly the folk who came to the New World gradually realized that there is no civil "city shining on a hill." Remember too that the 17th century saw the rise of chiliasm and strong eschatological expectations that were disappointed and that also led to re-evaluation.
> 
> I do believe in doctrinal progress and I think the realization that, in this epoch of redemptive history, between the advents, we are not to re-establish a civil theocracy is that sort of doctrinal progress.
> 
> rsc


----------



## ChristianTrader

R. Scott Clark said:


> No, I don't think that's quite right.
> 
> 1. Many theonomic/reconstructionist types agree with Chilton's utter rejection of natural law. If, however, there is such a thing as we used to think, then we have a resource for Christian ethics and social engagement beyond either theonomy or right-wing transformationalism (e.g., "taking back" whatever).



Actually it looks like a case can be made that the attempt to recontextualize is an utter rejection of natural law and just an attempt to keep the name.



> 2. The doctrine of natural law, however, just like the doctrine of the two-kingdoms must be extracted from it's context in Christendom and re-applied today. The attempt, even theoretically, to re-establish Christendom is a mistake and a non-starter.
> 
> rsc



I think the reformers might disagree and believe that it is a starter.


----------



## Peter

I think it's worth noting that the idea of non-theocratic state is a thoroughly modernist error. Very few nations in the history of mankind have been so impious as not to attempt to enforce the first table of the law in some form; Christian, heathen or otherwise. The "non-religious" state is a blip on the radar and it will inevitably pass into oblivion because it plainly attacks the natural law implanted in every man's breast that tells him his creator's rights deserve the same protection as his. (where's the 2 cents smilie?)


----------



## crhoades

Peter said:


> (where's the 2 cents smilie?)


----------



## Peter




----------



## R. Scott Clark

So, the only way to be Reformed is to be a theocrat?

I doubt this proposition very much on the same grounds I've given before. That's like saying that the only way to be faithful to the Reformation or post-Reformation theology is to agree with their view of science, to be a geocentrist.

It's a matter of distinguishing between substance and accidents. The "system" of Reformed theology (the three covenants, doctrines of Scripture, God, man, Christ, salvation, church, eschatology) are essential to being Reformed and those essentials are confessed by the churches in the Reformed confession.

Few of the American Reformed or Presbyterian churches have adopted the confessions without revising them re the state.

I don't know of any major Reformed theologians in the modern period who were theocrats including Mr Murray, Van Til, Machen or the Old Princeton fellows.

As to Peter's charge that to be non-theocratic is heresy, well, that's not a particularly responsible way to use the word and it condemns just about every NAPARC denomination to eternal condemnation. I doubt that's what he intends, but heresy is a strong word.

As for battering rams, I'm not sure what that means. I've criticized the moralists for abandoning the Reformed confessional doctrine of justification and the historic doctrine of covenant theology because those things are essential to being Reformed. 

The same case cannot be made for views of politics or science. The odd thing is that some seem to be quite liberal on essential matters such as justification and quite illiberal on accidental matters such as civil politics and science. The reversal of priorities is exaclty what's wrong with contemporary Reformed theology, piety, and practice. It's QIRC-y. 

rsc



ChristianTrader said:


> So it seems that the answer to Peter's question is that you are hard on those who disagree with the confession when you believe the confession to be correct but then go ahead and disagree with the confession where the confession is in your view, wrong.
> 
> With this stance you cannot use the confession/historal theology as a battering ram, all you are left with is using the Bible as a battering ram.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

ChristianTrader said:


> Actually it looks like a case can be made that the attempt to recontextualize is an utter rejection of natural law and just an attempt to keep the name.



I don't understand this criticism at all. 

If I say that there is such a thing as natural law (as I've argued) but that it has two tables and that the civil magistrate has one relation to the second table and another relation to the first table, it does not follow that I'm denying natural law.

I don't accept the premise of the criticism, i.e., there there is only one kingdom in this world. 

There are two divinely ordained kingdoms. The civil and the ecclesiastical. Only the the latter can "enforce" the first table in the post-theocratic (i.e.,m after Christ's fulfillment of the Israelite theocracy) world, and that, as Paul shows in 1 Cor 7, only through the means of ecclesiastical and not civil diiscipline.

Rejection of the theocratic application of natural law is not rejection of natural law. 

You speak of appealing to Scripture as if it were a problem or a mistake? I doubt you mean to say this. As has been pointed out on this board, our confession is not incorrigible. The Scripture is the norm that norms the confession. The problem with the revisions proposed by the moralists (in answer to the implciit question, how can Clark oppose covenant moralism on one hand and criticize theocracy on the other) is that they attack the essence of the Reformed confession, the thing without which nothing (sine qua non). So, in the 18th and 19th centuries, Reformed churches recognized the error of theocracy or civil enforcement of the 1st table. That's progress. That's _semper reformanda_ because it's a better application of the _principle_ of the two kingdoms articulated in the 16th century (by Calvin) than was made then just as Galileo's application of the _principle_ of accommodation relative to science was a more thorough application of it than Calvin made.

So there is continuity in principle and discontinuity in application. It's the organic link via principle that keeps my proposal from being revolutionary of Reformed theology. This is what the covenant moralists lack: continuity in principle. They appeal to Scripture often in a naively biblicst way: "I'm just following the Bible," in a way that is not too distant from the Socinian hermeneutic. Indeed, they are reaching Socinian conclusions in some cases (attacking the covenant of works, the necessity of merit etc).

rsc


----------



## tewilder

R. Scott Clark said:


> It's a matter of distinguishing between substance and accidents. The "system" of Reformed theology (the three covenants, doctrines of Scripture, God, man, Christ, salvation, church, eschatology) are essential to being Reformed and those essentials are confessed by the churches in the Reformed confession.
> 
> Few of the American Reformed or Presbyterian churches have adopted the confessions without revising them re the state.
> 
> I don't know of any major Reformed theologians in the modern period who were theocrats including Mr Murray, Van Til, Machen or the Old Princeton fellows.



Well, Murray took exception to the confessions on the covenant. Van Til was a revolutionary in amost everything. Certainly these guys are far from any model of confessionality. When will you begin to see that you have a choice to make here?




> As for battering rams, I'm not sure what that means. I've criticized the moralists for abandoning the Reformed confessional doctrine of justification and the historic doctrine of covenant theology because those things are essential to being Reformed.
> 
> The same case cannot be made for views of politics or science. The odd thing is that some seem to be quite liberal on essential matters such as justification and quite illiberal on accidental matters such as civil politics and science. The reversal of priorities is exaclty what's wrong with contemporary Reformed theology, piety, and practice. It's QIRC-y.
> 
> rsc



Really? You entered this thread by criticizing Chilton's view of natural law in science as not being that of the reformers. So just the other day you were being illiberal on science. Today you say that that is to have priorities backwards.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

tewilder said:


> Well, Murray took exception to the confessions on the covenant. Van Til was a revolutionary in amost everything. Certainly these guys are far from any model of confessionality. When will you begin to see that you have a choice to make here?



This is overstatement isn't it? Actually Murray affirmed the covenant of works in some places in his writing. He wasn't entirely consistent and he never took an ecclesiastical exception. I do think that when he published his qualms about it his views should been tested in the courts of the church, but it was in the middle of the fight with modernism and folk were happy just to have a faculty that believed the Bible and predestination. I get the impression that, for a long time, there was a sort of minimalist approach to Reformed theology in the USA in what is now NAPARC. I guess we have freedom now to try to recover the older theological categories.

As to CVT, most of what he did theologically was quite traditional. He simply re-described a lot of Reformed theology in new (most idealist) categories. His language about the Trinity was unhappy but I don't know where else he was revolutionary. His generic survey of Reformed theology in _Defense of the Faith_ is pretty straightfoward, isn't it?



> Really? You entered this thread by criticizing Chilton's view of natural law in science as not being that of the reformers.



No, I criticized his language as an example of the sort of rhetoric that has caused any number of folk in the modern period to reject the very notion of natural law.



> So just the other day you were being illiberal on science. Today you say that that is to have priorities backwards.



As I think I've shown, this is a non sequitur.

rsc


----------



## ChristianTrader

R. Scott Clark said:


> So, the only way to be Reformed is to be a theocrat?



If I was to invent a time machine and I took you back to the Westminster Assembly, Calvin's Geneva etc. and you asked them that same question, what do you think their response would be?



> I doubt this proposition very much on the same grounds I've given before. That's like saying that the only way to be faithful to the Reformation or post-Reformation theology is to agree with their view of science, to be a geocentrist.



I actually believe that one would need to be a geocentrist to be able to hold to the Reformational view of science, now you can just reject that view of science but then have the decency to call your view of science something other than the Reformed view.

Let us say that we took the time machine back to see Turretin and friends. What would they say if you said you have the same Reformed view of science as they did?



> It's a matter of distinguishing between substance and accidents. The "system" of Reformed theology (the three covenants, doctrines of Scripture, God, man, Christ, salvation, church, eschatology) are essential to being Reformed and those essentials are confessed by the churches in the Reformed confession.



I have no problem with this paragraph, but would just point out that Turretin and others would fight you on your view of scripture, and it perspecuity on various matters.



> Few of the American Reformed or Presbyterian churches have adopted the confessions without revising them re the state.



And this sentence is supposed to have what power exactly as far as this discussion goes? Is it an appeal to numbers or majority? I have no problem saying that the errors concerning the state and the church have been in the system and have propogated for a long time.



> I don't know of any major Reformed theologians in the modern period who were theocrats including Mr Murray, Van Til, Machen or the Old Princeton fellows.



See above.



> As to Peter's charge that to be non-theocratic is heresy, well, that's not a particularly responsible way to use the word and it condemns just about every NAPARC denomination to eternal condemnation. I doubt that's what he intends, but heresy is a strong word.



Actually from how I understand the word, heresy has various stronger and weaker connotations. The word can be used without condemning the target of its use, to hell.



> As for battering rams, I'm not sure what that means. I've criticized the moralists for abandoning the Reformed confessional doctrine of justification and the historic doctrine of covenant theology because those things are essential to being Reformed.



I point to what was written above, would the Reformed Ancestors have recognized the positions that you expoused as being within the pale of Reformed Orthodoxy. I would say no, but you have to come to your own conclusion on that.



> The same case cannot be made for views of politics or science. The odd thing is that some seem to be quite liberal on essential matters such as justification and quite illiberal on accidental matters such as civil politics and science. The reversal of priorities is exaclty what's wrong with contemporary Reformed theology, piety, and practice. It's QIRC-y.
> rsc



One is not saved from having to fix one's own errors by pointing out the errors of others.

CT


----------



## Peter

> So, the only way to be Reformed is to be a theocrat?



Actually, I'd say it's more than just Reformed. You were the one pitting all of Christendom against your view. But you're right that some things are just in the realm of accidents. So do you think our intitial reaction to Theonomy's rejection of natural law might have been a little overblown?

Dr. Clark, please entertain these questions with regard to your two kingdoms view
1. If the civil kingdom does not get to enforce the first table then does the ecclesiastical kingdom not get to enforce the second table (eg, no church discipline for adultery)?

My understanding of the divisions of the 2 kingdoms is that it is a difference of the kind and subjects of the powers not of the extent of the powers. Civil magistrate has temporal power, power over the body of his citizens while the church has spiritual power over members of the church. Both have power to enforce the whole law, limited to their respective citizens in their respective manner.

2. Getting nearer the marrow of the controversy, what is the Reformed view of the two kingdoms in anceint Israel? I thought we believed in Israel there was a general kingdom separate from the Mediatorial just the same as in the NT. You seem to contend that there was no separation of church and state so that anything and everything the Jews did in the civil sphere was typical. Didn't our fathers alledge the exact opposite the Erastians?

I changed "heresy" to "error." You're right, that term is too confusing.


----------



## tewilder

R. Scott Clark said:


> As to CVT, most of what he did theologically was quite traditional. He simply re-described a lot of Reformed theology in new (most idealist) categories. His language about the Trinity was unhappy but I don't know where else he was revolutionary. His generic survey of Reformed theology in _Defense of the Faith_ is pretty straightfoward, isn't it?



This is what your former colegue John Frame has to say about it:

<blockquote>
“But remember that all teachings of Scripture are 'limiting concepts.' All concepts of Scripture are 'mutually supplementative' in the above sense [i.e. “Since man is finite, none of his concepts exhausts the 'essence of the thing it seeks to express'” p. 326] The doctrine of justification by faith also supplements, and is supplemented by, the doctrine of divine sovereignty. The doctrine of divine sovereignty tells us what sort of God is justifying us. Thus, the doctrine of justification by faith incorporates the paradox of divine sovereignty. The doctrine of justification by faith—when fully explained in its relations to the rest of scriptural truth—is just as paradoxical as divine sovereignty.” (Frame, "The Problem of Theological Paradox" p. 327)</blockqute>

It is any surprise that the Federal Visionaries went ahead and did the doctrine of justification just this way?

And is it any surprise the the followers of Van Til, "the greatest Christian philosopher who ever lived" and who, we are told, invalided all previous apologetics, based on natural law, should go ahead in radical ways?

Finally, read what Herman Hoeksema has to say about Van Til's arminianizing. 

The problem with Van Til is that he saw a problem with Barth, but never could figure out what to do about it, and ended up playing around with Barth's ideas in a way the pollluted Reformed theology in America in the 20th century.



> No, I criticized his language as an example of the sort of rhetoric that has caused any number of folk in the modern period to reject the very notion of natural law.
> 
> As I think I've shown, this is a non sequitur.
> 
> rsc



You do realize that Chilton was talking about natural law science, i.e. the view of the physical world as containing the principles of its nature, and that his point was actually rather like that of the idea of <i>concurance</i> held by the late medieveal natural law theologians?

Chilton, unfortunately, was rather vague, as all the Tyler people tended to be when they got onto science and philosophy. What he was trying to be, though, was Vantillian. This is the cosmic personalism of the Vantiallians. No brute facts, uninterpreted being or the like.

Also, it is worth noting that Jordan went another direction. He did not like the immediacy of God in everything, so he interposed angels, who swarm all over making things happen in the physical world.


----------



## tewilder

Peter said:


> Actually, I'd say it's more than just Reformed. You were the one pitting all of Christendom against your view. But you're right that some things are just in the realm of accidents. So do you think our intitial reaction to Theonomy's rejection of natural law might have been a little overblown?



Please note that you are confusing natural law ethics with natural law science. Chilton was attacking natural law science, that is, the idea the there are laws that inhere in nature itself that account for its regularity. 

This, in fact, is what most people mean by natural law. They never think of ethics unless that went to school with Jesuits.


----------



## Peter

tewilder said:


> Please note that you are confusing natural law ethics with natural law science. Chilton was attacking natural law science, that is, the idea the there are laws that inhere in nature itself that account for its regularity.
> 
> This, in fact, is what most people mean by natural law. They never think of ethics unless that went to school with Jesuits.



I'm aware of the difference. See my first post in this thread.


----------



## ChristianTrader

R. Scott Clark said:


> I don't understand this criticism at all.
> 
> If I say that there is such a thing as natural law (as I've argued) but that it has two tables and that the civil magistrate has one relation to the second table and another relation to the first table, it does not follow that I'm denying natural law.



Okay, I'll modify the criticism to a certain extent. Your version of natural law is different enough from the reformers to need a new qualifying term if not a new term altogether. How about Neo-Natural law theorist?



> I don't accept the premise of the criticism, i.e., there there is only one kingdom in this world.



To this, I would just reply that I stand with the reformers on the issue. If the civil magistrate enforcing both tables makes me, one kingdom, I will be one kingdom like they were. If it makes me two kingdoms, then I will be two kingdoms like they were.



> There are two divinely ordained kingdoms. The civil and the ecclesiastical. Only the the latter can "enforce" the first table in the post-theocratic (i.e.,m after Christ's fulfillment of the Israelite theocracy) world, and that, as Paul shows in 1 Cor 7, only through the means of ecclesiastical and not civil diiscipline.



Where does Paul say anything about what the civil magistrate "can" or "should" do in relationship to the first table in 1 Cor. 7?

But looking at the bigger picture, your objection would have more force if the Theocrats did not have 1 Cor. 7 in their Bibles. They did and they did not read it as you do now. Since this is the case, How can you claimed to be within the Reformed view on this matter? 



> Rejection of the theocratic application of natural law is not rejection of natural law.



Actually this leads to an interesting question that I have had running through my head for a while. At what point does one go from accommodating scripture to something outside of scripture to an outright rejection, and does it in actuality matter?

For example, Christian Feminists accommodate their view of gender relation passages to their view of history etc while upholding infallibility etc.; while regular femistists just reject scripture in toto. In practice I really see little difference.

My stance on your view of natural law and the civil magistrate is based on your view of history and what did and did not work. You have accomodated your exegesis based on what you believe did not work and cannot work.

What in practice is the difference between a rejection and an accomodation that ends up in the same vicinity?



> You speak of appealing to Scripture as if it were a problem or a mistake? I doubt you mean to say this. As has been pointed out on this board, our confession is not incorrigible. The Scripture is the norm that norms the confession.



I have no problem appealing to scripture, however I do have a problem with appealing to scripture and just attempting to forget historical theology whenever it goes against whatever we want to get done. "Oh they were apart of a different era and cannot see the stuff that we see now"



> The problem with the revisions proposed by the moralists (in answer to the implciit question, how can Clark oppose covenant moralism on one hand and criticize theocracy on the other) is that they attack the essence of the Reformed confession, the thing without which nothing (sine qua non).



How did Turretin and friends defend spilling ink against the anti-geocentrists? They say the opposition as making a direct attack against scripture (which you have already stated is part of the sine qua non of the reformed faith)



> So, in the 18th and 19th centuries, Reformed churches recognized the error of theocracy or civil enforcement of the 1st table. That's progress. That's _semper reformanda_ because it's a better application of the _principle_ of the two kingdoms articulated in the 16th century (by Calvin) than was made then just as Galileo's application of the _principle_ of accommodation relative to science was a more thorough application of it than Calvin made.



Or the Reformed churches accommodated a second time which was made easier after the Galileo accomodation. Potato vs. POTATO.



> So there is continuity in principle and discontinuity in application. It's the organic link via principle that keeps my proposal from being revolutionary of Reformed theology. This is what the covenant moralists lack: continuity in principle. They appeal to Scripture often in a naively biblicst way: "I'm just following the Bible," in a way that is not too distant from the Socinian hermeneutic. Indeed, they are reaching Socinian conclusions in some cases (attacking the covenant of works, the necessity of merit etc).
> 
> rsc



Oh I am not defending any monocovenantalists or anything close. I just think that since the church has accomodated before, why is it so hard to accommodate some more?

CT


----------



## R. Scott Clark

ChristianTrader said:


> If I was to invent a time machine and I took you back to the Westminster Assembly, Calvin's Geneva etc. and you asked them that same question, what do you think their response would be?
> 
> I actually believe that one would need to be a geocentrist to be able to hold to the Reformational view of science, now you can just reject that view of science but then have the decency to call your view of science something other than the Reformed view.
> 
> Let us say that we took the time machine back to see Turretin and friends. What would they say if you said you have the same Reformed view of science as they did?



There's no question what most of them would say. That's the point. They were mostly wrong on politics and science, at least in practice. I want to keep their theology and ditch their view of politics (since 1729) and science. I think I can do it because we don't confess their view of politics and science. We confess their theology.



> I have no problem with this paragraph, but would just point out that Turretin and others would fight you on your view of scripture, and it perspecuity on various matters.



It's not a matter of perspicuity. There scripture is perfectly perspicuous on the temporary nature of the Israelitish theocracy. They didn't see that. Okay. The Patristic church didn't see justification very clearly. Every age doesn't see everything as clearly as it should. That's no argument against perspicuity. Read the WCF very carefully. It doesn't say that the pre-modern views of science and scripture are perspicuously revealed in Scripture. It says that the things necessary for salvation are perspicuously revealed in Scripture. The attempt to stretch perspicuity to cover every and anything is part of the rise of QIRC in our churches.



> I point to what was written above, would the Reformed Ancestors have recognized the positions that you expoused as being within the pale of Reformed Orthodoxy. I would say no, but you have to come to your own conclusion on that.



I don't know that very many of them would have or did make political views a matter of orthodoxy. As to their view of science and orthodoxy, that was a shifting standard through the 17th century. Voetius held one view and others held more liberal views. That's why I can make this distinction.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

ChristianTrader said:


> Okay, I'll modify the criticism to a certain extent. Your version of natural law is different enough from the reformers to need a new qualifying term if not a new term altogether. How about Neo-Natural law theorist?



I think, if you'll read the Calvin and Lex Naturalis Essay, you'll see that I hold the substance of what Calvin taught. The natural law is the decalogue. 

What's unclear about that?

I do differ with him and other 16th and 17th century folk as to its application to and by the civil magistrate. I wouldn't agree with Olevianus on the justice of executing the Heidelberg anti-Trinitarians in 1571, but I'm confident that Olevianus would recognize my theory of natural law as consistent with his. 

The problem is that we don't live in Christendom any longer. It's gone. The question is what would Olevianus do in our time? 



> Where does Paul say anything about what the civil magistrate "can" or "should" do in relationship to the first table in 1 Cor. 7?



The point is that Paul doesn't say or suggest anywhere that the magistrate has any business in punishing adultery or in handling the fellow in 1 Cor 5. These are ecclesial, not civil matters. 

[22 October: On reflection - I don't think I want to argue this exactly. I do think the magistrate has a role via natural law in punishing both and in punishing or restraining things such as homosexual acts which are also contrary to creation/nature. What I want to argue is that I think it's significant, as Mr Murray pointed out in his book on ethics, that what under Moses what required the death penalty, in 1 Cor is addressed by a ecclesiastical discipline. That's a different argument however. Relative to this discussion, I should say that the magistrate has a creational mandate to enforce heterosexual marriage, monogamy as creational institutions. -rsc]



> But looking at the bigger picture, your objection would have more force if the Theocrats did not have 1 Cor. 7 in their Bibles. They did and they did not read it as you do now. Since this is the case, How can you claimed to be within the Reformed view on this matter?



Of course they had these passage but they read them assuming the righteousness of theocracy. I don't accept that assumption. I don't read that assumption back into Paul as they did.



> Actually this leads to an interesting question that I have had running through my head for a while. At what point does one go from accommodating scripture to something outside of scripture to an outright rejection, and does it in actuality matter?



That's just it. I'm not accommodating anything. I'm trying to be faithful to the Word of God. As I've said many times, Christendom was a mistake. We should never have done it and in the providence of God we were delivered from it in the modern period. It's one of the few good things that actually accompanied the Enlightenment. I don't think it came via the Enlightenment, but it was roughly contemporaneous with it. Lots of folk who rejected the basic assumptions of the Enlightenment, as I do, agreed in the 18th century (and some before) and since that Christendom was a mistake.

So, I'm reading the Word of God in its own context. I'm not deconstructing anything! Paul was not a theocrat. He's the one who points out that Moses was temporary and nothing but a big sermon illustration pointing to Christ and the New Covenant. The Israelitish theocracy died with Christ. 

That is why one does not find the Apostles writing the Institutes of Biblical Law or Theonomy in Christian Ethics. One finds them (1 Pet 4 is the locus classicus) teaching Christians to live in quiet humility. This is not the age for "transformation" or "taking back." It is the age of waiting for the consummation and suffering and preaching Christ and administering sacraments and the like.

Theocracy is an over-realized eschatology (as all chiliasm is).



> I have no problem appealing to scripture, however I do have a problem with appealing to scripture and just attempting to forget historical theology whenever it goes against whatever we want to get done. "Oh they were apart of a different era and cannot see the stuff that we see now"



I'm not forgetting historical theology. You misunderstand what HT is and does. It describes it does not prescribe. Prescription belongs to exegetical and systematic theology. My ethics (as a discipline) and theology have to stand on their own two feet. The job of historical theology is to tell truth about the past as best one can in order to facilitate ST and BT. So, as I formulate my views, I must take into account what was taught and why. HT does not mean: repeat slavishly everything that everyone held prior. In no age of the church and certainly not in the Reformation did we function this way.



> How did Turretin and friends defend spilling ink against the anti-geocentrists? They say the opposition as making a direct attack against scripture (which you have already stated is part of the sine qua non of the reformed faith)



I don't understand this point. I don't know that Turretin commented on geocentrism. It wasn't a major theme. It was Voetius who went to war with Descartes over astronomy and blood ciruulation and the like because he couldn't distinguish between Descartes' ultimate views (epistemology and theology) from his penultimate views on medicine and astronomy. As a result the University of Utrecht was retarded for a century from the latest science.

To a certain degree, on these issues, Voetius was an example of QIRC-y theology.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Peter,




Peter said:


> Actually, I'd say it's more than just Reformed. You were the one pitting all of Christendom against your view. But you're right that some things are just in the realm of accidents. So do you think our intitial reaction to Theonomy's rejection of natural law might have been a little overblown?



Yes, I and most modern (i.e, post 1650) Reformed theologians reject theocracy. That shouldn't be a shock. I also reject a 1000 years of medieval teaching on justification! I reject most of 1000 years of teaching on monasticism and on many other things, as do you as a good covenanter! 

No, I've argued with theonomists for 20+ years over this. Most of them reject natural law ethics as Timothy does. That's why I wrote the essay on Calvin's natural law ethics, contra Barth and the theonomists. It was the theonomists who tipped me off to the issue. I read them bad-mouthing "natural law" as some sort of wickedness. I recalled reading in Calvin so I started reading Calvin more intensively for a number years. It turns out that Calvin had a vibrant doctrine of natural law along the lines that I've described here.



> 1. If the civil kingdom does not get to enforce the first table then does the ecclesiastical kingdom not get to enforce the second table (eg, no church discipline for adultery)?



That's the point of the 2 kingdoms and that's why we see ecclesiastical sanction for adultery. The church as the KOG has a responsibility for the entire decalogue. If one is committing sins against any of the commandments impenitently he should expect to face ecclesiastical discipline. It is the civil kingdom who's sphere is properly limited to only one table. The distinction does not mean there is an exact parallel between the two kingdoms.



> 2. ...what is the Reformed view of the two kingdoms in anceint Israel? I thought we believed in Israel there was a general kingdom separate from the Mediatorial just the same as in the NT. You seem to contend that there was no separation of church and state so that anything and everything the Jews did in the civil sphere was typical. Didn't our fathers alledge the exact opposite the Erastians?



My understanding, and I think the tradiitonal understanding of the Israelite theocacy is that there was no chuch/state separation. That claim is, I believe, a theonomic novelty (which novelty, Hermonta, does not ipso facto make it wrong). 

I don't think I can answer the bit about the Erastians without doing more reading.

You fellows really are asking/complaining to or about the wrong fellow. You should be reading VanDrunen and Grabill and Hart and Horton. I've only really done historical work on natural law. I'm still a newcomer to the two-kingdoms theory. I can sketch the outlines but that's about it.



> I changed "heresy" to "error." You're right, that term is too confusing.



Thanks!

rsc


----------



## crhoades

R. Scott Clark said:


> That's the point of the 2 kingdoms and that's why we see ecclesiastical sanction for adultery. The church as the KOG has a responsibility for the entire decalogue. If one is committing sins against any of the commandments impenitently he should expect to face ecclesiastical discipline. It is the civil kingdom who's sphere is properly limited to only one table. The distinction does not mean there is an exact parallel between the two kingdoms.


 
I'm sure all will grant this so I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but I don't think it is precise enough to say that the civil magistrate is to enforce the second table. I don't think it is in their jurisdiction to enforce the 10th commandment on coveting. Also, can we legislate an honoring of one's father and mother? To the 10th commandment I would argue that in no place in the OT was there a judicial law enforcing it. So I would say that what should be enforced today would mirror what was enforced in the OT. As far as the father and mother, there was no postive law to enforce that but there was one for rebellious youth. 

What about adultery? If the C.M. is to enforce it what should the penalty be? Penalties for theft? If we are allowed access to the OT, restitution makes a lot of sense. What does natural law demand and can someone show me? Bearing false witness...Penalty for it today?

If we keep it in the realm of where most of us agree regarding the enforcement of the second table (or most of it) will we be able to agree on the punishment? Or was the OT sanctions a matter of intrusion? If it was, then what are we left with?

Random musings and questions.


----------



## MW

The civil magistrate DOES make enactments with relation to both tables of the law. It is inescapable. When he makes Sunday a trading day, he necessarily prejudices the Christian who observes the Christian Sabbath, and hinders his ability to make the most of a free market. When the magistrate honours personal property according tot he Christian view of it, he necessaarily prejudices tribal religion's belief in the land as sacred. The list could be multiplied exponentially. The civil magistrate inescapably legislates concerning both tables of the law. Perhaps to the surprise of many Christians, even our Church/State separation policy is a religious establishment. The State has thereby enacted that all religious denominations shall be acknowledged as valid.


----------



## ChristianTrader

R. Scott Clark said:


> There's no question what most of them would say. That's the point. They were mostly wrong on politics and science, at least in practice. I want to keep their theology and ditch their view of politics (since 1729) and science. I think I can do it because we don't confess their view of politics and science. We confess their theology.



Here in lies the rub. If you used the neat time machine, the Reformers would have told you that that you could not separate their theology from their politics. Their theology necessitated their view of politics. It is only in modernity that the terms have been redefined to allow even the attempt to do so. The attempt at neutrality does not work here. For when someone claims that Christians should stay out of or entire into the political field, they are at base saying that God wants them to either do or not do something. There is no avoiding this. So it is not a fight over separating politics and theology it is a fight over what one thinks God is telling them to do.



> It's not a matter of perspicuity. There scripture is perfectly perspicuous on the temporary nature of the Israelitish theocracy. They didn't see that.



From reading ahead a bit, it seems that the basis of this argument is good ole fashion dispensationalism.

1)Paul wrote a letter to the church of Corinth about how to deal with evil in their midst.
2)In Paul's letter he does not tell the state of Corinth that they should Enforce both tables.
3)If Paul had wanted a theocracy he would have said so.
4)Therefore, Paul was no theocrat.



> Okay. The Patristic church didn't see justification very clearly. Every age doesn't see everything as clearly as it should. That's no argument against perspicuity. Read the WCF very carefully. It doesn't say that the pre-modern views of science and scripture are perspicuously revealed in Scripture. It says that the things necessary for salvation are perspicuously revealed in Scripture. The attempt to stretch perspicuity to cover every and anything is part of the rise of QIRC in our churches.



First, I do not think that I know what QIRC means.

Second, I never made the statement that the premodern views of science etc were ever explicitly included in any confession. (To some extent this is along the lines of the "In the Space of Six Days" debate) however certain things are implicit due to the views held by the people who crafted WCF.

I basically included the science discussion as an addendum to the explicitly theocratic Original WCF. If you asked the Divines if theocracy was perspecuiously given in scripture, they would have said yes and that is the reason that the confession defends the position.

Also I do not understand your point about the stretching of perspecuity leading to the rise of QIRC. Basically every pre modern saw scripture as "stretching" to include the scientific realm. This was not some novelty that a single person tried to introduce.



> I don't know that very many of them would have or did make political views a matter of orthodoxy. As to their view of science and orthodoxy, that was a shifting standard through the 17th century. Voetius held one view and others held more liberal views. That's why I can make this distinction.
> 
> rsc



I think it depends on how far the political view in question deviated from theirs. I think people from all sides would have been in opposition to the modern view of neutrality.

CT


----------



## Peter

Rev. Winzer is an expert in the history of the theology of the 17th century and since he has joined the conversation perhaps he can answer the question. In the traditional presbyterian view, was Israel simultaneously the church and a state or was it a nation which contained the church and had a divinely instituted state? was church and state separate in Israel? I'm thinking specifically of the controversy between Presbyterians and Erastians and what I believe I see in the book "Aaron's Rod Blosoming." If I read correctly, the Erastians maintained that there was no church distinct from the state in Israel therefore we must ignore the church of Israel. The 2 kingdomists say there was no church distinct from the state in Israel therefore we must ignore the state of Israel. 

I believe there are two kingdoms but I believe there have always been two kingdoms. I believe the bible is the only rule for the Mediatorial Kingdom and that natural law is normative for things in the general or providential kingdom of God, however, the bible perfects and corrects our understand of NL. Men are blinded by sin, as Paul said, he had not known sin but by the Law. God effectively expounds NL (properly moral law) in the Pentateuch and in the Judicial laws he applies it to the circumstances of the Jewish nation. Even in the Judicial laws we see God's will for the modern state, modified to remove the peculiarities of 15th century BC - 70 AD Jewish society.


----------



## MW

Peter, I doubt if "expert" applies to a non-academic like me, but I have read widely in reformed literature, and I am sure there is a reformed consensus on the view that Church and State in Israel were both distinct and connected. If a nation is explicitly Christian, it is regarded as being covenanted with God just as the nation of Israel was; while the church of the Jews finds its continuation in the NT church of all nations. There was an unwavering vision in the establishment of a unified Protestant Christendom, which I am afraid has been blurred in the modern day, and is probably the underlying reason why alot of theological formulation is deviant, namely, because it lacks direction.

A reading of The Harmony of the Reformed Confessions, section 19, of the civil magistrate, will leave no doubt as to the fact that there is an explicit reformed consensus on the "two-table guardian" concept. If any differ from this consensus, they have no right to call their view "reformed." I think some room is left for differences in application, especially when we consider how curtailed the modern magistrate's authority has become under democracy; but there is only one reformed view of the magistrate's duty in principle, and that is, that he is bound as a minister of God to uphold the moral law of God in the civil sphere as he punishes evildoers and protects and serves those that do well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Peter

> Peter, I doubt if "expert" applies to a non-academic like me, but I have read widely in reformed literature, and I am sure there is a reformed consensus on the view that Church and State in Israel were both distinct and connected. *If a nation is explicitly Christian, it is regarded as being covenanted with God just as the nation of Israel was; while the church of the Jews finds its continuation in the NT church of all nations.* There was an unwavering vision in the establishment of a unified Protestant Christendom, which I am afraid has been blurred in the modern day, and is probably the underlying reason why alot of theological formulation is deviant, namely, because it lacks direction.
> 
> A reading of The Harmony of the Reformed Confessions, section 19, of the civil magistrate, will leave no doubt as to the fact that there is an explicit reformed consensus on the "two-table guardian" concept. If any differ from this consensus, they have no right to call their view "reformed." I think some room is left for differences in application, especially when we consider how curtailed the modern magistrate's authority has become under democracy; but there is only one reformed view of the magistrate's duty in principle, and that is, that he is bound as a minister of God to uphold the moral law of God in the civil sphere as he punishes evildoers and protects and serves those that do well.



thank you and a hearty ditto and amen

One further note, in earlier posts when refering to church and state as separate I meant nothing near to the modern idea. I meant only distinct.


----------



## tewilder

R. Scott Clark said:


> The point is that Paul doesn't say or suggest anywhere that the magistrate has any business in punishing adultery or in handling the fellow in 1 Cor 5. These are ecclesial, not civil matters.
> rsc



If the state has no business regulating marriage, should it simply legalize gay marriage?

Should Christians refrain from campaining against gay marriage because state regulation of marriage is illegitimate anyway?


----------



## tewilder

R. Scott Clark said:


> No, I've argued with theonomists for 20+ years over this. Most of them reject natural law ethics as Timothy does. That's why I wrote the essay on Calvin's natural law ethics, contra Barth and the theonomists. It was the theonomists who tipped me off to the issue. I read them bad-mouthing "natural law" as some sort of wickedness. I recalled reading in Calvin so I started reading Calvin more intensively for a number years. It turns out that Calvin had a vibrant doctrine of natural law along the lines that I've described here.
> 
> 
> rsc



Just for the record, I have said since the early 1990's that the theonomists were wrong on their take on Natural Law, because there is something to it. But there is not enough to it because you can't reliably recover norms from it. 

Because God created man in the world, for man to be true to his nature and thrive in the world, he needs to obey God's law. Breaking the law brings him into friction with both himself and the outer world. 

Here we should notice that Frances Schaeffer's apologetic method was based on this, and that Van Til attacked him for this. Schaeffer said that man's rebellion always brought it him into conflict with reality, so that man had to become inconsistent in order to get on with life. This inconsitency gave a point of contact for evangelism. Further, since Van Til denied this, Schaeffer said that Van Til was like Barth at this point. (The reconstructionist also denied it, following Van Til. I remember arguing with Jordan about this.)

But this nature of the world and of man, that is aligned with moral norms is not what makes those no norms normative. It is God's command that does so.

This is the point of the command in the garden, not to eat of the fruit of the tree. Adam saw that the fruit was good: that, by natural law so to speak, there was nothing wrong about eating it. 

But the tree was the tree of the knowlege of good and evil. What was this knowlege? That good and evil are determined by the word of God and not by external nature (the goodness and beauty of the fruit) or by man's internal nature (hunger, desire for nutrition, etc.). The tree, taken together with God's command, gave this knowledge without man's having to eat from it. Eating the fruit from the tree is not aquiring knowlege of good and evil but going against that knowlege.


----------



## crhoades

tewilder said:


> Here we should notice that Frances Schaeffer's apologetic method was based on this, and that Van Til attacked him for this. Schaeffer said that man's rebellion always brought it him into conflict with reality, so that man had to become inconsistent in order to get on with life. This inconsitency gave a point of contact for evangelism. Further, since Van Til denied this, Schaeffer said that Van Til was like Barth at this point. (The reconstructionist also denied it, following Van Til. I remember arguing with Jordan about this.)


 
Not to rabbit trail the thread even more, but from your perspective what did Van Til consider to be the point of contact? I thought he would argue for the same inconsistency.


----------



## py3ak

Mr. Wilder, I liked your statement at the end of the last post quite a bit, so I copied it onto my blog. http://vahskresenye.solideogloria.com/?p=76


----------



## tewilder

crhoades said:


> Not to rabbit trail the thread even more, but from your perspective what did Van Til consider to be the point of contact? I thought he would argue for the same inconsistency.



Schaeffer complained about this. He would run into it when Van Til's students came to L'Abri. They would tell people "I can't talk to you unless you accept my presuppositions." because Van Til had taught them that there was no other point of contact. If there was no other point of contact all that is left is "witness and wait for the grace of God to strike" as with Barth. But Schaeffer believed that there was always a point of contact because the nature God had created in man and outside of man has an inescapable character.


----------



## Arch2k

to your wise posts Rev. Winzer!

In discussions I have had with people regarding the civil magistrate's responsibility to regulate both tables of the law, I have often argued that a lack to enforce the first table implies a "right" to the contrary of the first 4 commandments given to the people. It is obvious that God does not give people any "rights" to worship another God, or to take his name in vain. However, to say that the civil magistrate can institute these rights to men seems to make the civil magistrate NOT an extension of God for good, but rather an autonomous institution (i.e. a law unto itself). This is not how I see the role of the civil magistrate in scripture. Even the civil magistrate has the duty to recognize Christ as King (the Proverbs!) and to submit to his law as the ultimate law for all time.

I also believe that there can be visible transgressions of the first table of the law. Blasphemy and the Sabbath are both examples.


----------



## tewilder

Paul manata said:


> *" the point of contact in man's sense of deity that lies underneath his own conception of self-consciousness as ultimate can we be both true to Scripture and effective in reasoning with the natural man."
> (Ibid., p. 58)*



The sense of deity is a different point of contact than man's humanity or outer nature. One can claim that it is there, but getting hold of it for apologetics purposes is another matter.

This distinction may never have occured to Van Til, who mostly dealt in the dialectics of abstractions.


----------



## tewilder

Paul manata said:


> But regardless of this side debate, you just admitted that Van Til had a "point of contact" with man and so you've agreed with the defeater of your claim regarding Van Til's apologetic. We thus see that this claim: "They would tell people "I can't talk to you unless you accept my presuppositions." because Van Til had taught them that there was no other point of contact. If there was no other point of contact all that is left is "witness and wait for the grace of God to strike..." looks false.
> 
> Furthermore, Van Til was well known for talking to, say, construction workers and bar flys in Philly. None of the reports of his apologetic encounters with the man in the street has Van Til saying, "I can't talk to you unless you accept my presuppositions." Indeed, Van Til's "Why I Believe in God" directly refutes this notion.
> 
> I engage unbelievers on a regular basis, and this sin't my approach either.
> 
> So, I'm not here to debate Van Til, just correct the misrepresentation. I'd say the contradictory of your claim is self-evident even from a cursory reading of Van Til's works.
> 
> best,
> PM



It's a theoretical point of contact, one you can seldom put your finger on. Schaeffer used as points of contact the difference between what people professed and their actual conduct and commitments, that is, specific and concrete points of contact. 

Van Til's point of contact is the sort of abstraction that is characteristic of his stuff in general. The sort of thing that you would have to "agree with his presuppositions" to even see as being there.


----------



## tewilder

"Van Til knew that because man was a creature of God he could not avoid the image popping up in all he says and does."

"So, if the above claim of yours is enough for a reputable point of contact, then Van Til had it. "

You still don't get the distinction.

Schaeffer was talking about meeting people where that are at, because there there will be found a point of contact.

Bahnsen and Van Til are gasbagging about what the implications of peoples' point of view really are (as seen from Vantilian presuppositions) if they only knew it.

Read any attempt of Van Til's to take on another point of view. The other point of view is never what it says it is. It is always some dialectec between two abtractions. To accept the analysis one would have to agree with Van Til in the first place. It is the apologetics of pontifications from the podium. Both abstruse and useless.


----------



## crhoades

Now that you mention it, the Bahnsen-Stein debate was a waste...Not a good apologetical encounter. No one has profited from it.


----------



## RamistThomist

Lol!^


----------



## tewilder

Paul manata said:


> The second part of the method calls for us to take exactly what _they_ say their view is, and then critique it. This was shown above with my quote from Bahnsen.
> 
> So, the method is _precisely_ contradictory to your claims. Now, you may disagree with the method. You may not like it. You may say it doesn''t work, etc. But why the misrepresentation move? If you can't critique a position correctly, then don't bother critiquing it at all.



Ignoring all the pseudo-depth psychology, let us take your new evidence that you don't get it. 

Taking some supposed viewpoint and critiquing it is precisly not a dialogue with a concrete individual and dealing with that individual's changing life and views as they are. 

The fact that you can't see the difference between that and debates and philosophical jabber shows that <<you don't get it>>. You still don't understand what it is that you are tried to claim Van Til did.

As for how good Shaeffer's philosophical critiques were, who cares? After all that is NOT what we are taking aboug here. You only think it is because <<you don't get it>>.

So what if Bahnsen was a good debater? That is not the point. It is not what we talking about, but you think it is because <<you don't get it>>.


----------



## tewilder

Paul manata said:


> If you had ever bothered to talk to old men and dude's in coffee shops, you'd know that you won't get far with "abstract dialectical language." But, since you simply care about debating _methodology_ and carrying on your well-known tradition of critiquing Van Til (even though you've been corrected many times) rather than dialoguing with men in the street, I'd not expect you to "get" these things. Tell you what, go find a construction site and start talking in abstract dialiectical language and see if (a) you're there for more the 5 minutes and (b) if you don't wind up with a shovel upside your head.



Too bad he couldn't teach it to his students instead of producing a cult of personality full of fanatics.


----------



## tewilder

From an article "The Two Tables of the Law" by Alan Reinach

http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/502/1/82/

"For centuries Protestants have found a convenient division between the first and second tables of the ten-commandment law. Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, was the first American to associate two concepts: the separation of church and state and the two tables of the law. It was Williams, not Thomas Jefferson, who coined the phrase about a hedge, or wall, separating the garden of the church from the wilderness of the state."


"Williams also conceived that the first four commandments, or the first table of the law, addressed one's obligations to worship God, while the last six commandments, the second table, addressed one's civil obligations. The American Protestant concept of separation of church and state was largely built on this distinction. Thus state law could properly address moral issues such as adultery, stealing, and murder because these were in the second table of the law."

...

"Under the American constitutional system, the state has no charge to order public morality according to the second table of the ten-commandment law, but neither is the state compelled to reject the second table. It is entirely legitimate for Americans to invoke the commandments in public policy debate, so long as the distinction between the first and second tables is observed."

So it seems that the New Confessionalism is Baptist.


----------

