VanDrunen's Natural Law: Thomistic or Calvnistic?

Discussion in 'The Law of God' started by brandonadams, Feb 12, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. brandonadams

    brandonadams Puritan Board Freshman

  2. MW

    MW Puritan Board Doctor

    For natural law to be "natural" it must be (1) according to the principles of human nature and its creaturely condition, and (2) be accessible to all people, whether they have received special revelation or not. There is no "Thomistic" or "Calvinistic" natural law per se. There are some basic principles of human life which are natural to every man. Once the concept is granted we are obliged to engage in a discursive examination of these basic principles in order to know the difference between good and evil.

    On the other hand, natural law has to fit within a broader theological framework, especially where the authority of Scripture is concerned. This is where the terms "Thomistic" and "Calvinistic" become meaningful. Thomism argues that what is natural can lead us to special revelation, whereas Calvinism insists that special revelation is needed in order to understand the natural aright.

    DVD is neither. He is separating the civil sphere and claiming that natural law functions apart from special revelation in this sphere. Neither Aquinas nor Calvin would have sympathised with this view. The issue is not with natural law but with the way it is made to function independently of special revelation in the civil sphere.
  3. mvdm

    mvdm Puritan Board Junior

    Excellent summary, Rev. Winzer.
  4. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    I wonder if DvD is separaing himself from the Thomist idea of "grace perfecting nature."
  5. MW

    MW Puritan Board Doctor

    The acceptance of the so-called "common grace covenant" would be inimical to it.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page