POSTED

Nov 18, 2024

Share

Natural [Law] Apologetics

A Christian and a Pagan walk into a Bar . . .

“Does not nature itself teach you”[1]

For when Gentiles . . .  by nature do what the law requires”[2]

“[B]y nature children of wrath”[3]

I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words.[4]

One question that often arises is HOW should we take the TxC analytics to the unconverted world.  How can we engage the world with the Truth – and the consequences – when that Truth has been exchanged for the Lie?  Some say TxC is too “Biblicist” – it roots things overtly in the Scriptures in general and Romans 1:25 in particular.  Guilty as charged!   However, . . . 

Some today contend that the natural law tradition, rooted in medieval thinking and the early magisterial Reformers, is better suited for engaging with today’s fallen world.  This, folks contend, should be retrieved.  Citing the Bible, and its cosmology, they claim, is simply is a tone deaf non-starter to this post-modern hostile “negative” world.[5]  The Reformed world divides on this question, mostly in a good-natured way – (see what I did there?)  Let’s get to the gist.

The Use and Utility of Natural Law

What is Natural Law?

First, what is the natural law?  Natural law (“NL”) stems from the claim – which Thomas, Luther, and Calvin all affirmed – that when God created, He imbued the world with a moral order that man may apprehend by reason.  It’s “natural” because it is inherent to the created order; it’s “law” because it reflects general moral categories.[6] However, natural law is not like a compendium of rules nor a legal code.  NL generally is deemed to reflect the Decalogue’s broad ethical notions:  taking innocent life is wrong, stealing is wrong, lying is wrong etc.  Moreover, these ideas are not “Christian” ideas in the sense that they reflect creation and thus apply universally.[7] NL ideas have been noted by pagans such as Cicero,[8] Aristotle,[9] Sophocles (particularly in his play Antigone[10]) and certain Eastern traditions.[11]

The Christian tradition also has utilized natural law when advancing various moral claims.  This is the method C.S. Lewis uses in his Abolition of Man with his concept of the Tao.  So, does the existence of NL present a binary choice for Christians when engaging unbelievers?  In other words, should Christians just use the Bible exclusively or just use NL principles exclusively when evangelizing and pressing Christ’s ethical claims?  Well, this is a false dichotomy.

Considering How to Use Natural Law

Consider this analogy:  Two of our sons are Commissioned as USMC Infantry Officers.  When they are deployed “down river” and chaos ensues, if their weapon jams or lacks ammo and they see a dead enemy’s functional weapon, they don’t say: “well, that’s an AK-47, not what we use, so forget it” . . .  No, they pick it up and use it to ventilate the enemy even with its inherent limitations and defects.  In the same way, while my training[12]and conviction view NL skeptically, that in itself does not mean NL lacks value, nor that it cannot “advance the ball” in the fallen world.  However, we need to understand the obstacles and limits to applying NL, which I will outline later.

But at the outset, we need to keep in mind some crucial distinctions.  A difference exists between the fact of NL and theories regarding that fact.  The fact is that “the work of the law is written on the hearts” of men.[13]  The theories explicating that fact are many and differ at several points and sometimes contradict:  Thomistic NL; the Classical Synthesis, the so-called “New” Natural Law, and various pagan notions.

Next, we need to understand the function of NL:  it’s not the “theory of everything” – rather, it’s a tool and a means, not an end.  In other words, we may grab a hammer to build a fence, but the goal is having a fence, not persuading people to believe in hammers.  In other words, we “make knowledge acceptable”[14] in order that God’s Spirit, if He is so pleased, will convert them to Christ – not so that they profess some preferred or arcane theory of NL.  NL can assist us in this task of making moral knowledge acceptable.

This means that in the arena of public ethics and law using NL principles can be a valid means to advocate and achieve just results – ends – by acceptable, if not optimal, means.  Here’s an example:  today, parental rights are increasingly under attack and are being eroded, especially in the pagan-infused area of gender ideology and so-called “gender transition.”  Children are being socially and  medically “transitioned” without informing, let alone receiving permission from, their own parents.  School districts direct teachers to deflect, deceive, or deny this reality to the parents.[15]

Legal problem:  nothing in the constitution explicitly protects “parental rights.”  Yet, using a doctrine akin to “natural law” known as “substantive due process” the Supreme Court has, for over a century, recognized and enforced the rights of parents to determine the path of their children’s upbringing, education, and virtues.  This godly result is being supported by a less-than-optimal legal rationale.  Using NL can achieve similar success – however, one must understand its limitations.

Limitations of NL 

First, NL sets forth no organized or codified set of particulars.  It does not tell us the best form comprising a political system, or how to perform heart surgery.  It does not set forth the tastiest recipes for Thanksgiving dressing or goose foie gras. In short, NL is not a legal code nor an indexed ethical cookbook.

Second, if one is not careful, using NL – not NL itself – can conflict with special revelation.  Let’s understand that the bible reveals and mankind knows, not just some general theism, but the true God, and they know him as Creator.[16] This Creator creates by His Word and then governs His creation similarly – Adam and Eve are to obey and live according to that word.[17]  The NL narrative, however, claims that mankind via reason and observation can live and function apart from special revelation.  This creates tension between special and general revelation, where in reality, none exists. Both “books” of revelation (general and special) must be consulted; distinguished but not separated.[18]

In addition, the reliance – or even a preference – for general revelation as the basis for the NL system presents another difficulty:  man today only exists in a post-Fall world.  Sin distorts our ability and accuracy of our thinking and processing natural revelation.  This is called the noetic [from Gk. nous] effect of sin.[19]  Or as Scripture puts it, natural men become “futile in their thinking”.[20]  Indeed, just viewing the natural without the correcting lens of special revelation would affirm vile practices like polygamy, child sacrifice, adultery, war, Kinism, segregation, etc.   This sort of reasoning is simplistic and simply mistaken:  “Such things and practices  exist and therefore they are ‘natural and therefore permissible”.

Third, NL lacks epistemological granularity and specificity.  This lack means that NL alone cannot solve the myriad of problems presented by a fallen world.  For example, granting that NL condemns the taking of innocent life and granting that this is known by all at some level, how does one distinguish between murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, justified killing in self-defense, excused killing via mental defect, “just war” killing?  If solving for these details means invoking and relying on fallen man’s prudence to the exclusion of special revelation, how can a society be sure that its decisions are just?  One man’s prudence may be another’s tyranny.

Fourth, even if NL could be discerned with “retail level” specificity, who decides which moral precept controls?  With respect to political and legal outcomes, is it the jurist, the legislature, the executive, all of them, some combination of them, none of them, etc. Who determines what and how NL applies to a particular situation?  NL does not tell us.

NL’s Incomplete Anthropology

When it comes to ordering society, including promoting laws and policies that encourage human flourishing, it must never be forgotten that those laws and policies apply to and affect people.[21]  NL, because it lacks theological grounding in special revelation, can at best only depict a partial anthropology.  In particular, the crucial distinctive of humanity, being created Imago Dei, is nowhere to be found in NL thinking, unless it’s smuggled into the conversation.  Yet, to fully grasp what it means for humans to flourish requires knowing people as created Imago Dei:  That they are to have dominion of the created order, subduing it to God’s glory.[22]  This implies valorizing the following creational priorities, which are difficult, if not impossible, to deduce from general revelation alone:

  1. Creator/Creature Distinction →
  1. Neither Man nor the State can be Creator, nor Savior – that is, the Ultimate Standard or of Ultimate Import
  2. Implies Jurisdiction and Jurisdictional Boundaries within society
  3. Life is better than non-life
  4. Death is unnatural (an enemy to be defeated), even though death in a post-fall world is ubiquitous and occurs “naturally”
  5. Man cannot be autonomous, whether in ontology or ethics

b. Imago Dei

  1. Human Exceptionalism → Creational hierarchy 
  2. Ontic Valorization of humanity, contra Kinism, tribalism, ethno-nationalism, antisemitism, misogyny, yet some today conclude the opposite purportedly using NL as their guide[23]
  3. Equality as to Dignity and Value of each human person

c. Male and Female as Immutable Ontic Categories

  1. Mankind is comprised of immutable sexual dimorphs 
  2. Pronoun usage must conform to reality as created and designed[24]
  3. There are parents, but there is no “parenting” in the ultimate sense; rather, we must recognize and preserve the essential necessity of both fatheringand mothering – comprised of duties, responsibilities, and rights → disfavoring and deincentivizing, if not precluding:
  1. Single parent fostering by design
  2. Single parent adoption by design
  3. Single parenting by design
  4. The State as parent

d. Marriage as consisting of one man and one woman

  1. Contextualizes the Proper channeling and expression of sexuality
  1. Affirms the Legitimacy of Family Governance → generating incipient principles of sphere sovereignty and subsidiarity 
  2. Requires Recognition of “the family” as a Separate Status: recognized and protected

e. Work/Labor → See David Bahnsen’s treatment of this[25]

f. Cultural Mandate implying

  1. Liberty to collaborate
  2. Communication protected and preserved
  3. Unencumbered trade
  4. Freedom to contract and negotiate and consequent legal protections, including enforcement and apt remedies
  5. Protection and promotion of wealth development contra to environmentalism
  6. Protection of fruits and labor
  7. Protection of reputation

g. Work/Rest/Worship Rhythms → Contra to notions “work/life balance”

h. “Law above Law” – Cosmology and Situating Authority

  1. Special Revelation’s Role, even in Pre-lapsation Garden
  2. The Law’s Role to order and organize a liberated people
  3. Examples:
  1. The Exodus → Ordering a newly liberated people → Law necessary to regulate a Newly Freed society
  1. Cf., Paradise in the Garden
  2. Source of Law:  God → “from Above” – God and the Mt. Sinai cf., John 19
  3. Purpose and Content of the Law:
  4. Provide Structure for Society
  1. Substantive Precepts
  2. Coordination Problems
  3. Justice interpersonally
  1. Tort Law
  2. Property Law
    • Boundaries
    • Animals
    • Crops

iv. Justice Societally

  1. Murder
  2. Manslaughter
  3. Theft
  4. Sexual assault

e. Procedural Precepts

  1. Appellant Courts
  2. Evidence and Witness Requirements – 9thCommandment
  3. Proportionality – Lex Talionis
    Just War Theory
  1. Remedies:
  1. Restitution
    1. Damages
      1. Interest for loss of use
  •  John 19:  Jesus and Pilate

3. James and Wisdom “from above”

4. Romans 13 – the State as “God’s servant”

How any of these foregoing essentials can be appropriated by reason alone, that is, relying exclusively on NL, cannot be done.  Yet, conditions for a full-orbed human flourishing require these predicates.

How to Navigate the Tension between IS and OUGHT

Under “pure” NL schemes, one constantly seeks to derive an “ought” from an “is.”  This is known as the “naturalistic informal logical fallacy.”[26]  Yet, as Christians we do affirm that creation is not “blank”.  Indeed, the creation speaks:  

      The heavens declare the glory of God,

            and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

      Day to day pours out speech,

            and night to night reveals knowledge.

      There is no speech, nor are there words,

            whose voice is not heard.

      Their voice goes out through all the earth,

            and their words to the end of the world.[27]

Moreover, there does exist scriptural warrant to “read” nature:

      Go to the ant, O sluggard;

            consider her ways, and be wise.

Without having any chief,

            officer, or ruler,

      she prepares her bread in summer

            and gathers her food in harvest.[28]

Jesus too affirmed that knowledge can come from observing the created world and its cycles:[29]

And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to test him they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. He answered them, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed.[30]

And, the human person is designed and enjoys a telos or purpose.  Moral imperatives seem to be derivable from that reality.  For example, one can stare at the sun, but the eye is not designed to do so – injury will follow.  Similarly, lungs exist to oxygenate blood, yet it is possible to inhale water, but that frustrates the lung’s design and purpose.  So at least illustratively, when engaging unbelievers, these sorts of moves based on the creation’s design could prove generally valuable.  However, granularity is required for structuring society and articulating practical rules of law and policy.  Consider crafting a workable justice system.

What about Penology and Process?

Any justice system must account for procedure and consequences.  Possessing the “right answers,” in other words, must include HOW we get to them and WHAT “just desserts” means.  For example, capital punishment for parking violations would certainly deter wrongdoers, but would it be just?  How does one determine such things from NL?  Similarly, say someone stole a pack of gum 60 years ago; should that theft be prosecutable today?  How does one establish repose or statutes of limitations on NL principles?  How do we, on NL precepts, account for and establish matters like rules of evidence,[31]burdens of proof, proportionality in executing justice,[32]remedies such as restitution,[33] et al?  NL lacks the granularity necessary for doing so.

What Can NL Do?

Natural Law nevertheless does provide some key benefits for our discussions with the world and lost people.  First, using NL necessarily invokes moral categories and vocabulary.  This predicate shifts the discussion overtly to where it belongs: moral claims and moral absolutes, objective right and wrong, rather than mere opinion and preference.

Second, using NL moral language also shreds the myth of neutrality – so often invoked by secularists and pluralists.  The reality is the that every “ought” claim as to the what the law should be or how society should be ordered presents a moral claim – there can be no neutrality.[34]  No one is actually – or can be – ethically neutral.  Discussions on this level expose the reality of needing the true and living God.  Otherwise people are left with an “I say, you say” Mexican standoff.[35]

Third, these moves in turn expose the moral relativism being relied upon by the inquirer:  “Hitler was different and misunderstood, not evil and wrong”.  That sort of conclusion should be unsettling to the serious inquirer and using NL precepts can press that tension toward the necessity of having a true and knowable standard of justice.

Fourth, these foregoing NL characteristics work to shift the Overton Window regarding law and policy.  This means that moral considerations do not get ruled out in advance and sidelined.  This becomes crucial when discussing foundational matters rooted in humanity that require a correct anthropology to rebut or correct.  Consider such current cultural issues like abortion, IVF, “gender transition”, free speech, et al.  How can NL reasoning “advance the ball” on such matters?

Consider antebellum America in which chattel slavery institutionally existed in the Southern States.  Using natural law precepts, courageous lawyers like Francis Scott Key and John Quincy Adams resorted to first principles when attacking this vile institution.  Over and over again, legal claims were predicated on pre-political natural law principles:[36]  What is the nature of property?  What is the nature of humanity?  How can the spoils of war include humans as booty? What happens when the positive law gets it wrong and violates transcendent universal norms?  Don’t humans possess a right to revolt against tyranny?  Adams put it this way to the Supreme Court as he raised these sorts of questions in representing slaves:

“I will not recur to the Declaration of Independence – your honors have it implanted in your hearts.[37]

This is a classic invocation of NL principles as the foundation for his more specific legal contentions.  Surprisingly, even the Left of center secularist American Bar Association opens the ethical door for lawyers to counsel clients using moral precepts in addition to legal ones:

In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice. In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors, that may be relevant to the client’s situation.[38]

As Christians we know that moral factors are always relevant to every situation.  And, we also know from Scripture that an incremental approach works.[39]  This means that less than optimal means, like using NL with its inherent limitations, can nevertheless “move the needle” culturally and evangelistically.  In short, as to using NL precept as a tool, we should be skeptical supporters.  Why?  Because the bottom line is that God’s Word sanctifies us[40] since “man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.”[41]


[1] 1 Cor. 11:14

[2] Romans 2:14

[3] Eph. 2:3

[4] Acts 26:25

[5] It’s currently faddish to consider the current era as “negative” based on the arbitrary taxonomy crafted and promoted by Aaron Renn.  See, Aaron Renn, Life in the Negative World:  Confronting Challenges in an Anti-Christian World (2024)

[6] Natural law is thus not mechanical nor a species of physics detailing “natural” causation.

[7] However, by reflecting Creation, NL rightly done does assume and rely upon theological premises, whether admitted or not.

[8] https://www.nlnrac.org/classical/cicero

[9] See, e.g., https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/aristotle-and-natural-law/

https://academic.oup.com/book/11089/chapter-abstract/159502845?redirectedFrom=fulltext

[10] https://academic.oup.com/book/11089/chapter-abstract/159502845?redirectedFrom=fulltext

[11] https://lawliberty.org/podcast/confucian-natural-law/

[12] My teachers and mentors stem from the presuppositional tradition, largely that conceived of by Corneilus Van Til.  Yet, at the same time, I commissioned and edited J. Budziszewski’s Natural Law for Lawyers (2006)

[13] Romans 2:15

[14] Proverbs 15:2 (NASB)

[15] When Students Change Gender Identity, and Parents Don’t Know, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/22/us/gender-identity-students-parents.html

[16] Romans 1:20 and Peter J Lienhart, Creator – A Theological Interpretation of Genesis 1 (2023)

[17] God directs them via special revelation – speaking to them.  Genesis 1 and 2

[18] https://godandneighbor.net/2013/02/08/gods-two-books-are-general-and-special-revelation-equal/

[19] Barry Cooper, The Noetic Effects of Sinhttps://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/simply-put/the-noetic-effects-of-sin?srsltid=AfmBOooByoejTZGPwc6YgNRgtCt-n3SAA_WjMMRe9bDmgC868qKUA3Pq

[20] Romans 1:21

[21] For a rousing and comprehensive exploration of the meaning of mankind, see, Vern K. Poythress, Making Sense of Man – Using Biblical Perspectives to Develop a Theology of Humanity (2024)

[22] Genesis 1:26-28

[23] This is the Kinist “blood and soil” cul-de-sac set forth by Christian Nationalist Stephen Wolfe and his minions.  Wolfe’s stated method rejects special revelation and is otherwise a theological dumpster fire.   See, Brian Mattson, A Children’s Crusade – Stephen Wolfe and The Great Restoration.” https://brianmattson.substack.com/p/a-childrens-crusade

[24] Jeffery J. Ventrella, https://docsandlin.com/2018/06/02/who-do-you-say-that-i-am-preferred-personal-pronouns-ethics-language-and-the-gospel-by-jeffery-j-ventrella-j-d-ph-d/

[25] David L. Bahnsen, Full Time:  Work and the Meaning of Life (2024)

[26] https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-naturalistic-fallacy/

[27] Ps. 19:1-4

[28] Prov. 6:6-8

[29] This is because of the God-promised uniformity of nature predicated on the covenant He made with Noah.  Gen. 8:20-27

[30] Matt. 16:1-4

[31] Deut. 17:6 and Deut.19:15

[32] Lex talionis, aka  “an eye for any eye” (Ex. 21:24 and Lev. 24:20)

[33] Luke 19:8 – Zacchaeus returned four-fold for his theft; Scripture records restitution of four-fold and five-fold payments (Ex. 22:1 and 2 Sam. 12:6) – Presumably, this reflects “just desserts” since God commanded it – how does one “deduce” this from NL?

[34] Matt. 12:30

[35] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/mexican-standoff

[36] For a narrative, yet somewhat technical, rehearsal of this, see, Justin Buckley Dyer, Natural Law and the Antislavery Constitutional Tradition (2012)

[37] Id. at 81

[38] ABA Model Rule 2.1

[39] Exodus 23:29, 30 and Deut. 7:22

[40] John 17:17

[41] Deut. 8:3; Matt. 4:4TxC

Scriptures

Contributors

Categories

Director's Dicta