Can pressupositionalists believe in Natural Law?

[Hamalas]

I was talking with a friend the other day and he said that no pressupositionalists believed in natural law. Which got me a little worried because I consider myself to be a pressupositionalist and I believe in Natural Law! Is there some sort of inconsistency between these two (I am just now beginning to understand the nuances of these things) or are there respected pressupositional thinkers who hold to Natural Law?

 

[MW]

All true presuppositionalists believe in the necessity, authority, sufficiency, and perspicuity of the light of nature. Without this one could have no foundation upon which to think.

Natural law is slightly different, as it supposes a discursive process from "light" to "law." This process is obviously liable to the suppression tendency of sinful man and therefore requires correction by Scripture light.

 

[Hamalas]

All true presuppositionalists believe in the necessity, authority, sufficiency, and perspicuity of the light of nature. Without this one could have no foundation upon which to think.

Natural law is slightly different, as it supposes a discursive process from "light" to "law." This process is obviously liable to the suppression tendency of sinful man and therefore requires correction by Scripture light.

Interesting! Could you elaborate a bit more? (Or point me towards some good articles?)

 

[discipulo]

Ben

in my opinion, there is no conflict between accepting the Biblical doctrine of

Natural Law and being a pressupositionalist, quite on the contrary,

Van Til wrote extensively on how all of God’s Creation bears the Natural Revelation

of His Attributes and His Will, there is in the hearts of fallen man an inner knowledge

of God’s Moral Law, like we can read on Romans 2:15 the law written in their hearts.

David VanDrunen wrote a great article,

Natural Law and the Works principle under Adam and Moses

There is more debate though of Van Drunen’s defense of the relation of Natural Law to

the Covenant of Works with Adam, and the Mosaic Covenant incorporating a

Republication of the Covenant of Works or its influence on Civil Law and 2
Kingdoms Theology

(as for me I think he is sharp on the point, as it clears ambiguities on the

Mosaic Covenant and 2Ks is my “dutch” reading of Romans 13).

I just encourage you to get the book, it has several other great articles.

Amazon.com: The Law Is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant (9781596381001): Bryan D. Estelle: Books

 

[mvdm]

All true presuppositionalists believe in the necessity, authority, sufficiency, and perspicuity of the light of nature. Without this one could have no foundation upon which to think.

Natural law is slightly different, as it supposes a discursive process from "light" to "law." This process is obviously liable to the suppression tendency of sinful man and therefore requires correction by Scripture light.

Matthew makes the key distinction missed by natural law proponents, i.e., between the existence of the natural "light", and the insufficiency of "natural law" due to the suppression principle. This distinction is in line with Calvin's commentary on Ephesians 4:17:

I answer, with respect to the kingdom of God, and all that relates to the spiritual life, the light of human reason differs little from darkness; for, before it has pointed out the road, it is extinguished; and its power of perception is little else than blindness, for ere it has reached the fruit, it is gone. The true principles held by the human mind resemble
sparks; but these are choked by the depravity of our nature,
before they have been applied to their proper use. All men know, for instance, that there is a God, and that it is our duty to worship him; but such is the power of sin and ignorance, that from this confused knowledge we pass all at once to an idol, and worship it in the place of God. And even in the worship of God, it leads to great errors, particularly in the first table of the law.

As to the second objection, our judgment does indeed agree with the law of God in regard to the mere outward actions; but sinful desire, which is the source of everything evil, escapes our notice. Besides, Paul does not speak merely of the natural blindness which we brought with us from the womb, but refers also to a still grosser blindness, by which, as we shall afterwards see, God punishes former transgressions. We conclude with observing, that the reason and understanding which men naturally possess, make them in the sight of God without excuse; but, so long as they allow themselves to live according to their natural disposition, they can only wander, and fall, and stumble in their purposes and actions. Hence it appears in what estimation and value false worship must appear in the sight of God, when it proceeds from the gulf of vanity and the maze of ignorance

It is further in line with the Canons of Dort, III/IV article 4:

There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and shows some regard for virtue and for good outward behavior. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and hinders in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.

 

[Philip]

I think your friend may be referring to the fact that many Van Tillians (though not Van Til himself) are theonomists and that no non-presuppositionalists take this approach. I would say that while this is certainly a logical conclusion, it is not a necessary one.

 

[CDM]

WCF I.1

I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.​

As B.B. Warfield outlined, Natural Revelation is Sufficient to Leave Man Inexcusable and Insufficient for Knowledge of God [unto salvation].

 

[jwithnell]

There's a huge difference between natural revelation (the heavens declare the glory of God ...) and natural law which led to empiricism and other attempts to divide actions from moral authority.

 

[Hamalas]

There's a huge difference between natural revelation (the heavens declare the glory of God ...) and natural law which led to empiricism and other attempts to divide actions from moral authority.

That's a helpful distinction. So are there pressupositionalists who believe in natural law? (As opposed to natural revelation.) If you can find specific quotes that would be great!

 

[discipulo]

Ben

I'm not sure if this is what you are lookin for, but Guy Waters makes

a very good exegesis of Romans 2:14, on the book I mentioned above.

Basically he shows how in spite of the Gentiles not having the Mosaic Law

Romans 2:14 as a moral standard, they are not less accountable before God

then the Jews.

Because God Who created them wrote His Law on their hearts, Romans 2:15,

Romans 1:32

and since God is coherent, this moral law written on men's hearts can't be

totally different from the Mosiac Law given by Special Revelation.

The Nomos, is Normative to all men, that's why Paul applies the Law on

Romans 1 and 2 to both Gentiles and Jews.

I suspect Gordon Clark brings in the logic and the law of non contradiction,

but Van Til wound't susbcribe that.

But both agree on Natural Revelation and Natural Law, suppressed it may be

by the hardening of hearts, precisely as the reason why men are accountable

before God.

 

[MW]

Interesting! Could you elaborate a bit more? (Or point me towards some good articles?)

See Mark's excellent post, and especially the quotation from Calvin.

On the use of natural revelation, one might profitably consult Van Til's essay in "The Infallible Word" or Berkouwer's essay in "Revelation and the Bible."

 

[Christusregnat]

I was talking with a friend the other day and he said that no pressupositionalists believed in natural law. Which got me a little worried because I consider myself to be a pressupositionalist and I believe in Natural Law! Is there some sort of inconsistency between these two (I am just now beginning to understand the nuances of these things) or are there respected pressupositional thinkers who hold to Natural Law?

Ben,

How do you define "natural law"? Natural law is easily interpreted in several different ways, so depending on your definition of natural law, it would be either compatible or incompatible with presuppositionalism.

Cheers,

-----Added 9/29/2009 at 04:46:47 EST-----

As B.B. Warfield outlined, Natural Revelation is Sufficient to Leave Man Inexcusable and Insufficient for Knowledge of God [unto salvation].

One might also add that whatever man does to the glory of God may only be done by the rule God has given for man to glorify and enjoy Him forever: Sacred Scripture.

Cheers,