A Biblical Case for Natural Law: A Response Essay

[ChristianTrader]

by Nelson D. Kloosterman

Ordained Servant

Introduction

This response expands upon material published in New Horizons, vol. 28, no. 6 (June 2007), pages 22-23. Found here: Book Reviews
Since that review of Dr. VanDrunen's monograph omitted any detailed exploration of the exegetical and theological nuances of a Reformed response to his work, I am grateful for this opportunity to expand and deepen that analysis in these pages. Once again, however, space limitations compel me to be far more concise than I wish. This essay has two parts, the first of which offers an exegesis of relevant key texts, while the second provides a theological analysis of VanDrunen's two-kingdom proposal.

 

[ReadBavinck]

And here is VanDrunen's response:

VanDrunen in the Hands of an Anxious Kloosterman: A Response to a Review of A Biblical Case for Natural Law

 

[ChristianTrader]

That VanDrunen actually puts forward the view that his idea of two kingdoms was found anywhere before the Enlightment is utterly mindblowing.

Just for one example, let us look at Turretin. He was an ardent Geo-centrist after Galileo. He probably would have attempted to kick you out of his church if you came down in favor of such a hypothesis, because such militates against what the Bible clearly teaches. Is there anyone from the Two-Kingdom group of today that believes that such is not a blatant blurring of the kingdoms?

CT

 

[RamistThomist]

That VanDrunen actually puts forward the idea that his idea of two kingdoms was found anywhere before the Enlightment is utterly mindblowing.

Just for one example, let us look at Turretin. He was an ardent Geo-centrist after Galileo. He probably would have attempted to kick you out of his church if you came down in favor of such a hypothesis, because such militates against what the Bible clearly teaches. Is there anyone from the Two-Kingdom group of today that believes that such is not a blatant blurring of the kingdoms?

CT

Oliver O'Donovan, arguably one of the top Christian ethicists in the world, demonstrated that much original two kingdoms talk presupposed a uniform standard of morality, Christendom (Desire of the Nations).

And O'Donovan isn't a theonomist. So that means he is right by definition.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

And here is VanDrunen's response:

VanDrunen in the Hands of an Anxious Kloosterman: A Response to a Review of A Biblical Case for Natural Law

Hey man, judging by your Avatar you are a bit young to be on the Puritan Board.

 

[Thomas2007]

That VanDrunen actually puts forward the idea that his idea of two kingdoms was found anywhere before the Enlightment is utterly mindblowing.

Just for one example, let us look at Turretin. He was an ardent Geo-centrist after Galileo. He probably would have attempted to kick you out of his church if you came down in favor of such a hypothesis, because such militates against what the Bible clearly teaches. Is there anyone from the Two-Kingdom group of today that believes that such is not a blatant blurring of the kingdoms?

CT

Can you explain what you mean more by the statement regarding his statement of of his idea being found anywhere before the Enlightenment mindblowing? Also the last sentence of your second paragraph.

I'm not familiar with this fellow, and I just briefly scanned the articles in question, it appears upon a cursory examination that he is basically arguing that the civil realm is a "Bible Free Zone," magnifying this secular vs sacred concept, hence the Bible only speaks about the Kingdom of God being defined as the Church. Did I understand the jist of it?

Cordially,

Thomas

 

[RamistThomist]

That VanDrunen actually puts forward the idea that his idea of two kingdoms was found anywhere before the Enlightment is utterly mindblowing.

Just for one example, let us look at Turretin. He was an ardent Geo-centrist after Galileo. He probably would have attempted to kick you out of his church if you came down in favor of such a hypothesis, because such militates against what the Bible clearly teaches. Is there anyone from the Two-Kingdom group of today that believes that such is not a blatant blurring of the kingdoms?

CT

Can you explain what you mean more by the statement regarding his statement of of his idea being found anywhere before the Enlightenment mindblowing? Also the last sentence of your second paragraph.

I'm not familiar with this fellow, and I just briefly scanned the articles in question, it appears upon a cursory examination that he is basically arguing that the civil realm is a "Bible Free Zone," magnifying this secular vs sacred concept, hence the Bible only speaks about the Kingdom of God being defined as the Church. Did I understand the jist of it?

Cordially,

Thomas

Yes.

 

[ChristianTrader]

That VanDrunen actually puts forward the idea that his idea of two kingdoms was found anywhere before the Enlightment is utterly mindblowing.

Just for one example, let us look at Turretin. He was an ardent Geo-centrist after Galileo. He probably would have attempted to kick you out of his church if you came down in favor of such a hypothesis, because such militates against what the Bible clearly teaches. Is there anyone from the Two-Kingdom group of today that believes that such is not a blatant blurring of the kingdoms?

CT

Can you explain what you mean more by the statement regarding his statement of of his idea being found anywhere before the Enlightenment mindblowing? Also the last sentence of your second paragraph.

My point is that people before the enlightenment used the phrase "two kingdoms" differently than a number of people after it. So for a person to claim continuity with those before the Enlightenment requires more than showing that a person used the phrase "two-kingdoms", but also that they use it in the same way.

I'm not familiar with this fellow, and I just briefly scanned the articles in question, it appears upon a cursory examination that he is basically arguing that the civil realm is a "Bible Free Zone," magnifying this secular vs sacred concept, hence the Bible only speaks about the Kingdom of God being defined as the Church. Did I understand the jist of it?

Cordially,

Thomas

I think that you do understand the jist.

CT

 

[Thomas2007]

My point is that people before the enlightenment used the phrase "two kingdoms" differently than a number of people after it. So for a person to claim continuity with those before the Enlightenment requires more than showing that a person used the phrase "two-kingdoms", but also that they use it in the same way.

This is the same issue, then, that the term "natural law" means something different in terms of a consistently Reformed and historical perspective as it means to the humanist, for example. Likewise, then, liberty to the Christian is freedom under God, but to the humanist it is freedom from God.

So, we have this same definition problem in American history, for example, where the humanist will interpret "law of nature" in our Declaration of Independence completely contrary to it's Christian definition referencing Blackstone's Commentaries from which the term of art "law of nature and of nature's God" is derived.

 

[VictorBravo]

So, we have this same definition problem in American history, for example, where the humanist will interpret "law of nature" in our Declaration of Independence completely contrary to it's Christian definition referencing Blackstone's Commentaries from which the term of art "law of nature and of nature's God" is derived.

Ah yes. I get another opportunity to flog my pet peeve. Hardly any scholars these days is even aware of the shift.

They have forgotten that Blackstone distinguished "law of nature" from "natural law", calling the first the revealed and express law of God and the second man's attempt to imagine the law:

"Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is of infinitely more authenticity than that moral system, which is framed by ethical writers, and denominated the natural law. Because one is the law of nature, expressly declared so to be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but, till then, they can never be put in any competition together."

Blackstone's Commentaries. Book I, Part I, Section 2