Natural Law, 2K, and then some.

[Andrew P.C.]

So, there has been a lot about the 2k talk lately, as well as Natural Law. I've found some very good threads on the discussions and I've listened to at least to of the lectures so far from WSC of "Christ, Culture, Kingdom" and a few articles.

Natural Law on the other hand I've found difficult to find things written or spoken about. I did how ever find Dr. Clark's essay on Calvin, a few threads, and some dozen essays on Natural Law (2 I found more helpful, one being from Horton and the other from DVD).

There was one thread I just recently found though that I think helped me understand something concerning Natural Law. Basically, how I see it(correct me if I'm wrong), the argument goes like this: if we as Christians don't help in the making of laws and separate ourselves from the "cultural mandate" then the unbelieving society will digress; that is, if there are no laws, the natural man will act as if there are no laws i.e. that there really isn't a law written on their hearts(then why did God make man with a conscience? what's it's purpose?)

So, if I have gotten those concepts wrong let me know.

Here is my question though, what is the relationship of the two and how as Christians should we view the world we live in?

Edit: I just saw that this post needs to be moved since I posted in wrong section.

 

[Covenant Joel]

There was one thread I just recently found though that I think helped me understand something concerning Natural Law. Basically, how I see it(correct me if I'm wrong), the argument goes like this: if we as Christians don't help in the making of laws and separate ourselves from the "cultural mandate" then the unbelieving society will digress; that is, if there are no laws, the natural man will act as if there are no laws i.e. that there really isn't a law written on their hearts(then why did God make man with a conscience? what's it's purpose?)

So, if I have gotten those concepts wrong let me know.

Here is my question though, what is the relationship of the two and how as Christians should we view the world we live in?

Edit: I just saw that this post needs to be moved since I posted in wrong section.

I don't know that this is really the point of the natural law approach taken with the Two Kingdoms View. Transformationalists like Frame would agree that Christians ought to help make laws to keep unbelieving society from digressing. Frame (and others) would even agree that God's law is written on the hearts of men, so that they are without excuse.

What the 2 kingdoms view says regarding natural law is this: (1) God is sovereign over both kingdoms, civil/state and spiritual/church. (2) God rules these kingdoms in different ways. (3) God rules the church by special revelation (his written Word). (4) God rules the civil realm by general revelation/natural law.

I personally find it difficult to support 2-4, but I am still learning about all of this.

 

[jwright82]

My take on Christ and Culture is a somewhat unique position but I maintain that it is only a logical extension of a more or less Dutch Reformed take on things (my primary influences here are Bavink, Dooyweerd, and most of all James K. A. Smith). I believe that a view that is more along the lines of my trajectory would diffuse a lot of disagreements between the more reasonable approaches in this area. So I will attempt to explain my view and hopefully it makes sense to someone other than me.

First I take a more or less Dutch Reformed view on creation vs. direction. By this I mean that something that is creational is good in its essence, like culture. Culture is a creational element that is a good thing. The particular directions that cultures have been taken by sinful human beings are not always good; Sodom and Gomorrah are good examples. So culture itself can be taken and developed along sinful paths and thus produce sinful and evil cultures. Another example would be economics, a creationally good thing, and particular directions taken by economies, capitalism, socialism, etc.

Next I take into account the doctrine of common grace, meant primarily as a restraining of sinful man’s desire for evil. God is at work bending and moving His creation as He sees fit and using us as secondary causes to facilitate these ends. This doctrine is primarily one of hope for the Christian, God is in control so don’t worry.

Lastly comes a correct, in my opinion, distinction between Christ and Culture. Where in our first point does the disagreement over the correct relation of the Christian to culture come about? I say it is on the second level of direction a culture has taken and the not the first level of creational goodness so to speak. What I mean here is that we can all agree on level one and disagree on level two and still all be Reformed. It is when we fail to make a distinction between level one and level two that we can be disagree with one another for essentially no reason. So a particular view of Christ and Culture can fail to make this distinction and make level one and two both good or bad at the same time all the time, as I understand a radical 2K view versus a radical Transformationalist view. It is only when we get this basic distinction right that we can see that the Reformed camp may be more pluralistic in this regard than we thought, not to include radical views of course and federal vision which has been condemned by all NAPARC church bodies.

A corollary of the last point is this: the different views take on a more practico-theological nature than before. Think about it does a theonomist need to make a solid stand in a culture like say the New England puritan one? No his or her view would be that status quo there would be no need to say anything really, so everyone could be 2K people and get along just fine. Also would a more radical view of 2K be the best response in a democratic culture that was like Sodom and Gomorrah? Probably not and in fact all groups would practically be theonomists at the poles in such a culture anyway. So the Christian/Church needs to accept all views here and judge which one would practically bring about the most Godly conclusion.

In conclusion I hope that I showed that the best way to deal with this subject is to accept my first point on the distinction between creation and direction and accepting that our disagreement is on a second level basis and not a first level basis. I know that all sides feel that their point of view is the most Biblical one but I say that if that were true than we would not disagree on it.