Christian Civilization depends on Biblical Law (Jerusalem) Not "Natural Law" (Athens)
And it will come about in the last days
That the mountain of the House of the LORD
Will be established as the chief of the mountains
And it will be raised above the hills
And the peoples will stream to it.
And many nations will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD
And to the House of the God of Jacob,
That He may teach us about His ways
And that we may walk in His paths."
For from Zion will go forth the Law
Even the Word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
Micah 4:1-7
Rushdoony's critique is based on Van Til's "Theonomy-Autonomy" dichotomy, and Van Til's critique of "natural law." Background on "natural law" is essential to understand why non-Theonomic Reformers and Puritans were unBiblical.
Suppose a civil magistrate seeks to draft a criminal code regarding sexual conduct. Should the government's laws be based on Leviticus 18, or on the latest thinking from the Harvard Law School? Tragically, many Reformers and Puritans opted for Harvard, speaking in terms of "natural law" or "the law of Nations." This means the laws of Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans.
Leviticus 18 says that the gentile nations would be judged and destroyed if they did not act Theonomically. God's Law was not just for Israel. But the gentile nations didn't always agree with God's Law. Here is some evidence that the gentiles did not agree with God's Law on sexuality:
The Biblical Source of Western Sexual Morality
This might not surprise even anti-Theonomists, but the same is true for non-Christian political thought:
Greek Mythology: The Myth of Classical Politics
Getting government laws from these people is not just a "practical" mistake, it is rebellion against the Authority of God in His inscriptured Word.
This philosophical conflict has long been described as the conflict between Jerusalem (Christianity) and Athens (the Enlightenment). That was the title of Van Til's festschrift.
Gary North explains the foundational worldview assumptions of Roman culture:
(1) The legitimacy of homosexuality, especially the seduction of teenage boys by men over age 30;
(2) warfare as a man's supremely meaningful activity;
(3) polytheism;
(4) a personal demon as a philosopher's source of correct logic;
(5) slavery as the foundation of civilization;
(6) politics as mankind's only means of attaining the good life, meaning salvation;
(7) the exclusion of women from all aspects of public religion;
(8) the legitimacy of female infanticide.
The Harvard Law School contends that all of this "natural law" thinking is light-years more advanced than the "primitive" and "oppressive" laws of God in the Bible. And too many Reformers and Puritans agreed.
From the earliest church fathers to the most recent "process philosophy," Van Til built a body of work showing the compromise of Christians with unbelieving thought, primarily in the fields we call "philosophy" and "theology." Rushdoony applied Van Til's work to the State, and Gary North has done the same in the field of economics.
This is the big question in the "Theonomy Debate":
Is Natural Revelation Sufficient to Govern Culture?
Biblical Law versus Natural Law – Ezra Institute
Gary North,
Cooperation and Dominion: an Economic Commentary on Romans
Chapter 2, "The Work of the Law and Social Utility"
Natural law theory originated after the conquest of the Greek city-states, first by Alexander the Great and then by Rome. Stoic political philosophers had to replace their theory of the autonomy of the polis and its laws. They wanted to find some theoretical foundation for their ethical system, which had previously relied on intellectual defenses based on the sovereignty of the polis. Natural law theory was their solution.(7)
Natural law theory assumes that there is a common logic among men. This common-ground logic is said to bind all men, so that by adopting it, we can persuade all rational men of truths regarding social and political ethics. Christian philosophers have adopted this idea. They have confused it with the work of the law written on all men's hearts, which is a doctrine of common-ground ethics, not common-ground logic. The main effect of natural law theory today has been to persuade Christians to abandon the Bible as the basis of civil law and to begin a quest for common civil laws and common civil sanctions.
The theoretical problem with natural law theory is that covenant-breakers suppress the truth in unrighteousness.(8) Their powers of reasoning have been negatively affected by sin. They begin with the assumption of their own intellectual autonomy. They cannot logically conclude from this assumption the existence of the absolutely sovereign God of the Bible and His binding law.(9) Natural law theory is a logical system that begins with the assumption of man's autonomy, which means that natural law theory has nothing in common with the assumption of God's sovereignty. Natural law theory assumes that covenant-breaking men can build and sustain a just society on the basis of natural laws, natural rights, and universal logic.
|
Natural law theory also assumes that sin and its effects have not adversely distorted the image of God in man. It assumes that fallen men do not actively suppress the truth. These two errors lead to a false conclusion, namely, that an appeal to common-ground logic can persuade fallen men. But if Paul was correct, how can natural men be persuaded to obey God, based on natural law theory? Paul entertained no such hope. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14). God's law is spiritually discerned, but only by those who are spiritual -- and not even by very many of them, as the history of Christian political theory indicates. The work of God's law is naturally discerned to a degree sufficient to condemn men for disobeying it, but not sufficiently to enable them to build a biblically moral society. Paul makes it clear in Romans 1 that the natural man suppresses the testimony of creation regarding God the Creator, reinterpreting God to conform to his covenant-breaking interpretation of reality. Why should Christians believe that the natural man will not do the same thing with the work of the law written on his heart? Why should Christians believe that an appeal to natural law should be any more successful in bringing men to judicial truth than to theological truth?
Today, Christian scholars are among the few remaining defenders of natural law theory. Darwinism has undermined faith in natural law theory among most humanists. Autonomous, evolving nature is widely believed to offer no moral standards. Even the survival of a species is not a moral imperative. Darwinian nature has no moral imperatives. For Darwinism, there is no permanent natural law. Everything evolves, including ethics. Because man's social and physical environments change, says the Darwinist, any ethical standards that do not promote the survival of humanity must be abandoned if mankind is to survive, yet survival is not an ethical imperative of nature unless man somehow represents nature on behalf of . . . whom? Man? God? Nature?(10) There is no agreement among Darwinists regarding either the existence or the content of fixed ethical precepts that are derived from nature. Darwinian ethical systems are shaped by mankind's uniquely perceived requirement to survive in a constantly changing environment. This is the creed of social Darwinism, whether statist (e.g., Lester Frank Ward) or individualist (e.g., Herbert Spencer).(11) This is also the creed of free market economists, Rothbard excepted.(12)
Natural law theory is always an attempt to fuse Jerusalem and Athens. It is an attempt to reconcile autonomous man and the God of the Bible. No such reconciliation is possible. Because of God's common grace, covenant-breaking men are restrained in their suppression of the work of the law in their hearts. But, as they think more consistently with their presuppositions regarding God, man, law, consequences, and time, they become more hostile to the work of the law in their hearts. Logic does not persuade them.
7. Sheldon S. Wolin, Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought (Boston: Little, Brown, 1960), pp. 77-82. ^
9. This was a major argument in the philosophy of Cornelius Van Til. ^
10. The deeply religious movement known as the deep ecology movement specifically rejects the idea that mankind in any way represents nature or possesses legitimate authority over nature. A clear statement of this movement's views is Bill McKibben, The End of Nature (New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1989). The book became a best seller. It has been translated into at least sixteen languages. ^
11. Gary North, The Dominion Covenant: Genesis (2nd ed.; Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987), Appendix A. ^
12. Rothbard defended the idea of permanent ethical standards, which he believed are derived from Aristotelian natural rights theory. Rothbard broke with Mises' utilitarianism and Hayek's social evolutionism. Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (New York: New York University Press, [1982] 1998). On Hayek, see North, Dominion Covenant, Appendix B. ^
Natural law theory was born in a time of breakdown: the breakdown of faith in the Greek city-state. Alexander and then Rome had conquered them all. Stoic philosophers sought a substitute theory of the local religious rites-based theory of the city-state.
The substitute was a theory of universal mankind, an idea foreign to classical Greek politics. This universal humanity possesses a common reason, they argued. Common reason allows men to come to agreement about ethics and law. Natural law theory was an attempt by philosophers to provide legitimacy for a world empire.
Natural law theory died as a widely believed social philosophy when Darwin's theory of evolution through unguided natural selection destroyed intellectuals' faith in an ethically normative nature.
Today, only a few conservative social thinkers, a few Protestant conservatives, and followers of Murray Rothbard still proclaim faith in natural law theory as a ground for ethics and society.
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
Natural law theory has always suffered from the dualism of all Greek thought: law vs. change. The unchanging pure logic of Parmenides cannot be reconciled to the constant historical flux of Heraclitus. Greek philosophy never resolved this dualism. No humanist philosophy ever has, either.
The problem today is that the tiny handful of natural law theory defenders are trying to breathe life into a long-dead horse. They are wasting precious time. Natural law theory has never worked as the basis of any social order, but after Charles Darwin, the academic community abandoned natural law theory. arwin taught that nature is impersonal and not normative. There is no universal ethics. There is only a constant struggle for personal survival. I have written about this in Appendix A of my book, The Dominion Covenant: Genesis.
Natural law theorists have yet to come up with a solution to this inconvenient fact: reason, meaning the never-proven, always sought-for "right reason" of natural law theory, has not led masses of people to adopt the same system of philosophy, ethics, or religion. Yet the theory rests on the assumption -- never proven -- that rational people can agree on these issues sufficiently to enable society to function both ethically and predictably, meaning rationally.
If the vast majority of men refuse to accept a concept of a fixed, universal common logic, let alone fixed, universal social and ethical laws, we cannot build a society based on natural law. This has always been true, but after Darwin's theory of natural selection, it has become more obvious to all but a handful of natural law defenders. They defend the idea of a universal theory of ethics and social order, the details of which have yet to be presented in a form that more than a few social theorists are willing to accept. Natural law theory requires logical universality to be true, yet the supposedly universal practical details of the system have never gained anything like a simple majority.
Christian social theorists (there are not many) are among the few remaining defenders of natural law theory. This is ironic, because natural law theory cannot be defended biblically. Paul wrote, "The natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God" (I Corinthians 2:14a). He wrote that natural men turn to false Gods and suppress the truth that is in them (Romans 1:18-22). This undermines any theory of natural law for a consistently Christian society.
Natural law theory rests on these presuppositions, all of which are denied by the Bible: (1) the autonomy of man's mind; (2) the sufficiency of reason; (3) the autonomy of the universe; (4) the common ethics of all revealed religion. In short, the natural man does not need to receive the things of the spirit in matters of social theory and policy. In these areas, men do not need the things of the spirit, which are divisive. Natural men are therefore autonomous, and natural law theory rests on this presupposition.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
We need a detailed history of natural law theory that reveals the perpetual conflict between fixed law ("Parmenides") and changing circumstances ("Heraclitus"). The book should demonstrate that natural law theory has always been afflicted by this unresolved dualism: law vs. flux, logic vs. history.
The Greeks did not solve this problem. The Greek city states exhausted themselves in continual warfare. Alexander the Great conquered them. Then Rome conquered the remains of his empire. Natural law theory was an attempt to provide meaning and hope in a world without the autonomous local Greek polis.
Show from the sources that Christianity imported natural law theory and tried to make it correspond to the Bible's revelational ethics. Show how the attempt failed because of (1) the conflict between biblical ethics and natural law categories, and (2) the inherent dualism of fixed rational law and historical flux.
The culmination of this failed attempt was Thomas Aquinas' philosophy. Show why the system he developed inevitably broke down: the Greek law vs. flux dualism and the Bible vs. Greek philosophy dualism.
Show why modern social theory since Edmund Burke has suffered from dualism: universal natural rights (French Revolution) vs. the constitutional rights of Englishmen or whoever (conservatism).
Show how Darwinism destroyed the acceptability of natural law theory among evolutionists.
WHERE TO BEGIN
Begin with the works of Cornelius Van Til. Start with In Defense of the Faith: A Survey of Christian Epistemology (In Defense of Biblical Christianity, Vol. 2). Then go to A Christian Theory of Knowledge. Or buy his CD-ROM, which is searchable: The Works of Cornelius Van Til.
For a survey of the dualisms in Greek, medieval, and modern (post-Kant) philosophy, consult Herman Dooyeweerd, In the Twilight of Western Thought (1960). For detailed discussions of specific philosophers and issues, consult his 4-volume study, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought (1953--58).
On the local religious rites-based origins of the Greek city-state, see Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City (1864).
On the breakdown of Roman philosophy, a standard treatment is Christianity and Classical Culture (1940), by Charles Norris Cochrane. It has been reprinted by Liberty Fund.
For late-medieval philosophy, a good introduction to its inherent dualism is the little-known book, Bradwardine and the Pelagians (1957), by Gordon Leff.
Then go to Otto von Gierke's standard book, Natural Law and the Theory of Society, 1500 to 1800 (1957).
On the substitution of the theory of evolution for natural law theory in economic theory, see my book (on-line, free), The Dominion Covenant: Genesis (1987), Appendix B.
Gary North
Boundaries and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Leviticus
Chapter 14: Impartial Justice vs. Socialist Economics
The issue of the absolute authority of God's specially revealed civil law challenges the competing theoretical structure of natural law, natural reason, and natural revelation. We need to ask: Can these three theoretical ideals serve as sufficient guides for establishing God's legal requirements? Or is direct revelation from the God of the Bible mandatory covenantally in the civil realm?
Let us take the easiest case to analyze. God told Adam that he was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If natural law, natural reason, and natural revelation were sufficient to inform mankind of the judicial boundaries established by God, then why did God reveal to Adam this single binding law and its single negative sanction? Adam was morally perfect. His eyes were not yet blinded by sin. The creation was without blemish in Genesis 2. It did not yet provide misleading information to mankind. But God nevertheless revealed His law verbally to Adam. Why? Because natural law, natural reason, and natural revelation alone are not sufficient to enable men to know God's binding covenant law in its entirety. If this was true for Adam, then it is surely true today, since men possess only fallen reason, and the creation itself is under a curse.
Had God's civil laws been revealed in some way other than through direct verbal revelation to Moses by God, such as through the universal reason of mankind, there would have been no need for God to require that the whole law be read publicly in Israel every seventh year (Deut. 31:10-13). Men would already have known this requirement "rationally." But they did not know.(5) Then what do men know? They are responsible before God, so they must know something about God's law. Men always know enough about God's covenant law to get themselves condemned by God eternally -- the work of the law (not the law itself) written in their hearts (Rom. 2:14-15)(6) -- but not enough to enable them to build the kingdom of God in history. This is why those Christians who affirm natural law rather than biblical law as the sole authoritative moral standard for society almost always also explicitly deny that it is either possible or required by God that Christians build the kingdom of God in history as God's designated judicial agents.(7)
A Question of Judicial Subordination
The inherent ethical dualism of natural law theology has had catastrophic effects in history. The dualism between Bible-revealed personal Christian ethics and religiously neutral, universally perceivable civil law inescapably demobilizes Christians in society and simultaneously anoints pagans as the lawful interpreters of natural law. Ethical dualism inevitably places God's designated judicial agents -- Christians -- under the civil and cultural authority of Satan's designated judicial agents. Why? Because it places natural law, natural revelation, and natural reason above God's revealed law, His progressively restored creation,(8) and the mind of Christ (I Cor. 2:16).(9) There is no neutrality; there is always judicial hierarchy. Some law-order must be on top. Some transgressors of this law-order must be on the bottom. Christian natural law theorists in principle place a hypothetically neutral natural law on top and Christians on the bottom.
In the early stages of this cultural conquest by covenant-breakers, natural law theory is a highly useful tool for covenant-breakers in their epistemological and political disarming of Christians. The infiltrators applaud ethical dualism: separate ethical standards for believers and skeptics, but a common civil law-order for all. This common law-order must not be based on some "narrow" appeal to standards uniquely revealed in the Bible, an ethical handbook for covenant-keepers only. Dualism keeps Christians happily subservient to politically successful pagans in the name of Jesus. That is to say, dualism keeps Jesus covenantally subordinate to Satan on earth and in history. When Norman Geisler asks, "Whose ethical standard shall we use?" and immediately answers, "a moral law common to all men"(10) -- natural law for the natural man -- he has in principle delivered society into the hands of Satan's designated judicial agents in history. The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit (I Cor. 2:14); therefore, the ethical dualist is logically compelled to affirm, the Holy Spirit has nothing judicially binding to say or do with society and politics. If He did, then the natural man, not being able to receive the things of the Spirit, would be spiritually unreliable to exercise civil authority. Political pluralism rests philosophically on ethical dualism, for it asserts the legitimacy of common citizenship based on religiously neutral civil law. Ethical dualism necessarily asserts the judicial irrelevance of the Holy Spirit to both social theory and political theory. For almost two millennia, ethical dualism has been the dominant outlook of the church's main spokesmen.(11)
There is no neutrality. The ethical dualist denies this with respect to civil law. By elevating natural law, natural reason, and natural revelation above God's inspired word for the purpose of establishing social and political theory, the Christian ethical dualist has anointed the covenant-breaker as the lawful master of the covenant-keeper in every area of life outside the four walls of the Christian church and the Christian family. But the consistent covenant-breaker is not about to honor these two fragile, judicially unprotected institutional boundaries, any more than Pontius Pilate honored the innocence of Jesus Christ against the Pharisees' court.
Here is the problem: Christian ethical dualists keep insisting, century after century, that the Pilates of this world are judicially reliable. The Pilates of this world are supposedly not in need of personal regeneration and the revelation of the Bible in order to carry out their lawful and judicially neutral cultural mandate in history. On the contrary, we are assured, they need only be faithful to "ancient Hindu, Chinese, and Greek writings," to cite Dr. Geisler's recommended primary sources.(12) This is why Christian ethical dualists are at war with biblical civil law, biblical civil sanctions, and covenantal postmillennialism.(13) Christian natural law theorists implicitly offer this daily prayer to God: "Thy kingdom not come, thy will not be done in earth as it is in heaven." (Unless, of course, they become really consistent and argue that natural law in principle should rule in heaven, too. Then their prayer becomes: "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done in heaven as it is on earth." We do not find such consistent ethical dualists.)
6. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1959), I, pp. 72-76.
7. I have in mind all Protestant ethical dualists, from Martin Luther to Norman Geisler. Luther was amillennial; Geisler is premillennial-dispensational; both deny that God's kingdom can triumph in history through the Spirit-backed efforts of Christians. On Luther's ethical dualism between Christian ethics and civil ethics, see Charles Trinkaus, "The Religious Foundation of Luther's Social Views," in John H. Mundy, et al., Essays in Medieval Life (Cheshire, Connecticut: Biblo & Tannen, 1955); Gary North, "The Economics of Luther and Calvin," Journal of Christian Reconstruction, II (Summer 1975), pp. 76-89. On Geisler's equally dualistic ethics, see Norman L. Geisler, "Natural Law and Business Ethics," in Richard C. Chewning (ed.), Biblical Principles and Business: The Foundations (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1989), pp. 157-74. Geisler explicitly identifies the work of the law (Rom. 2:14) with natural law: ibid., p. 158. God holds all men responsible for their acts; hence, Geisler concludes, if some men do not know about God's revealed law, God cannot lawfully condemn them. "If there is no natural law," Geisler says, "God is unjust." Ibid., p. 160. Geisler misunderstands biblical justice. Natural law, natural reason, and natural revelation are sufficient to condemn every sinful person to hell and the lake of fire, but they are insufficient to enable people to build the kingdom of God. God's system of sanctions for the reprobate is simple and clear: "Heads, I win; tails, you lose." For proof, see Romans 9:10-21.
8. Gary North, Is the World Running Down? Crisis in the Christian Worldview (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1988).
9. The mind of Christ is imputed to His people at the time of their conversion, and it is progressively revealed in history, both individually and corporately, through their covenantal faithfulness. Anyone who denies this progressive, corporate, intellectual sanctification must also deny the progress of the church's various theological confessions. I know of no Christian who is willing publicly to deny the progress of the confessions at least through 1647 or 1788.
10. Geisler, "Natural Law and Business Ethics," p. 157.
11. The main exceptions historically were the New England Puritans of the first generation, 1630-60. On their theocratic legal theory, see Charles Lee Haskins, Law and Authority in Early Massachusetts: A Study in Tradition and Design (New York: University Press of America, [1960] 1985).
12. Geisler, "Natural Law and Business Ethics," p. 158.
13. Gary North, Millennialism and Social Theory (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), ch. 12: "Our Blessed Earthly Hope in History."
See this: Little Things Everywhere
Greek Mythology: The Myth of Classical Politics
There is no such thing as "judicial law" in the Bible.
James Jordan, "Appendix E: Salvation and Statism," in The
Law of the Covenant, 240-42 (1984), This Book in PDF, HTML
|
James B. Jordan, “Calvinism and ‘The Judicial Law of Moses': An Historical Survey,” Journal of Christian Reconstruction 5(1978-79):19:
|
Gary North, THEONOMY: AN INFORMED
RESPONSE, p. 259-60
|
North's suggestion does not go far enough. He's basically just renaming the categories:
Everyone agrees that "the ceremonial law" can be fulfilled only in Christ. The requirement to bring a lamb to the temple can be obeyed only by faith in Jesus, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).
The problem is with the "judicial" or "civil" category.
There was no "civil government" in Israel until 1 Samuel 8, which expressly declares that the desire for a "civil" government is a rejection of God, who alone should be our King, Lawgiver, and Judge (Isaiah 33:22).
Since there was no "civil government," Moses gave no "civil law" or "judicial law." When Moses predicted that Israel would apostatize and ask for a king like the pagans (Deuteronomy 17), he did not legitimize their apostasy by handing down a corpus of "civil law." He gave a few commands to the king which would not be obeyed and would only serve to confirm the depth of Israel's rejection of God as King. God had His purposes for allowing this apostasy. Some kings, like David, served as a type of the coming Messiah. But it was not one of God's purposes to create a permanent "civil service" structure.
It is helpful to incorporate North's insights in his distinction between three kinds of religion (in Moses and Pharaoh):
In the Bible, the original social structure is Patriarchy: the Family. To the Family was given the command to "exercise dominion" (Genesis 1:26-28). When one "nuclear family" ("patria") engages in commerce with another "nuclear family," a market emerges: "agora." We might speak of this as "patriagora" — family + market
Franz Oppenheimer, in his book The State: Its History and Development Viewed Sociologically, distinguishes between "Economic Man" and "Political Man."
These categories match North's religions:
"Escapist Religion" emerges when "economic man" seeks to evade the responsibilities of dominion and God's Law, and he retreats into "Escapist
Religion."
Escapist Man is easily seduced by the claims of "Political Man" that the "civil government" created by "Political Man" will take care of
"Escapist Man."
In Luke 22:25 Jesus said to His disciples, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors." According to Thayer's Greek Dictionary, "benefactor" is a
title of honour, conferred on such as had done their country service, and upon princes, equivalent to Soter, Pater Patriae.
"Pater Patriae" means "father of his country." Soter is the Greek word for "Savior."
Luke 2:11
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Soter [σωτὴρ], which is Christ the Lord.
"We're from the government. We're here to help"
is equivalent to
"We're from the government. We're here to save."
"Escapist Man" happily accepts this offer.
In practice, Luke 22:25 should read: "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called Saviors." This is the frosting on the cake of our "three branches of government" which parallel Isaiah 33:22 :
| For the LORD is our Judge, | = "Judicial Branch" |
| The LORD is our Lawgiver, | = "Legislative Branch" |
| The LORD is our King; | = "Executive Branch" |
| He will save us | = "Benefactor" |
Christians have accepted the categories of "the kings of the gentiles" -- the Emperors, Pharaohs, and Führers -- operating under "natural law" -- rather than the categories of the Bible. In the Bible there is only "moral law" and "ceremonial law."
To return to Deuteronomy 17/1 Samuel 8, it was not God's purpose to create a permanent "civil government" in Israel. The coming Messiah, Jesus the King, was "the Last Adam" who would destroy all kings [pdf] (1 Corinthians 15), end "power religion" (and escapist religion) and restore man to his original Edenic dominion mandate.
"Civil Government" is a False god.
"Civil Law" is False Law
American Vision / Gary DeMar
Question No. 6
ISN'T NATURAL LAW RATHER THAN BIBLICAL LAW
THE STANDARD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS FOR
THE NATIONS?
From Christian Reconstruction: What It Is, What It Isn't, by Gary DeMar
Norman L. Geisler, an ardent opponent of Christian Reconstruction, wants us to believe that "Government is not based on special revelation, such as the Bible." Instead, he maintains, "it is based on God's general revelation to all men.... Thus, civil law, based as it is in the natural moral law, lays no specifically religious obligation on man."1 According to Geisler, civil governments are obligated to follow only natural law.
What is natural law? As one might expect, there are numerous definitions of natural law depending on which tradition one turns to. Should we follow the natural law system advocated by Cicero, Plato, Sophocles, Aristotle, Aquinas, Montesquieu, Blackstone, Grotius, Pufendorf, or Locke? After taking all of the systems into account, the following definition adequately represents the many natural law theories: "Natural law theory rests on the assumption that man has an innate quality - reason which enables him to perceive and live by natural laws which are 'self-evident truths' manifested in our natural surroundings."2
1. Geisler, "Dispensational Premillennial View of Law and Government," in J. Kerby Anderson, ed., Living Ethically in the 90s (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990), p. 157.
2. Rex Downie, "Natural Law and God's Law: An Antithesis," The Christian Lawyer IV, 4 (Winter 1973). Republished in The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, V, Symposium on Politics, ed. Gary North (Summer 1978), pp. 81-2.
But there is a problem. While the above definition might work in a Christian context, where people generally understand (1) that rebellious man's autonomous reason should not be trusted, and (2) that there are certain absolute values. In non-Christian cultures, righteous natural law is an impossibility. The reason? As the late Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson declared, in expressing the implication of a consistent evolutionary theory of law and justice, "Nothing is more certain in modern society than the principle that there are no absolutes. . . ."3 Natural law depends on an existing theological framework that takes into account God's sovereignty and ethical absolutes.
In addition there are several other problems with a natural law ethical position. First, how does one determine what laws found in general revelation are natural laws that conform to God's will? Is it possible that Christian natural law advocates are using the Bible as a grid in the construction of their natural law ethic? But what grid is being used by non-Christians? In a consistently evolutionary system, there can be no natural law, only evolving law determined by those presently in power, usually the State.
Second, how do we get people to agree on the content of "natural law" and how these laws should apply? Do we opt for a lowest common denominator type of law like "Do good to all men"? Should we agree that murder is wrong but not war and capital punishment since each of these would violate the general law of "do good to all men"? Does natural law, for example, tell us that abortion is wrong?
Third, what if we find a common set of laws in "nature" that contradict the Bible? As we will see below, polygamy can be supported as a natural law ethic, as can slavery, since most nations from time immemorial have practiced both. Would we, if we followed natural law, give up monogamy for polygamy? Would we give up freedom for slavery?
3. Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) at 508 in Eugene C. Gerhart, American Liberty and "Natural Law" (Boston, MA: The Beacon Press, 1953), p. 17. Time magazine commented July 23, 1951, pp. 67-68): "Whatever the explanation, Kentuckian Vinson's aside on morals drew no dissent from his brethren on the supreme bench. And no wonder. The doctrine he pronounced stems straight from the late Oliver Wendell Holmes, philosophical father of the present Supreme Court." Quoted in ibid., p. 165, note 2.
Fourth, what if a "natural law" agrees specifically with a biblical law that is religious? For example, nearly all nations have some prohibition against worshipping other gods (e.g., Daniel 3:1-30). After Nebuchadnezzar realized the error of his ways in requiring the Israelites to bow down to a false god, he then made a law that prohibited anyone from speaking "anything offensive against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego" (v. 29). The penalty was pretty stiff: They "shall be torn limb from limb and their houses reduced to a rubbish heap" (v. 29). If Nebuchadnezzar turned to the Bible for the construction of this law, then his example would be proof that biblical law was applied to a non-Israelite nation. Since, as Geisler maintains, "civil law, based as it is in the natural moral law, lays no specifically religious obligation on man,"· Nebuchadnezzar must have been acting out the dictates of a natural law ethic. Therefore, magistrates, based on biblical law or natural law, could punish people for overtly religious crimes against Jehovah. But this is the one thing that natural law advocates do not want.
Fifth, natural law "does not furnish a specific consensus of ethical judgment."5 Ultimately, it comes down to "what the individual conscience dictates; and consciences differ."6 In order for natural law to function in any rational and workable way, there must be a generally held common belief system. When Catholic scholars, the foremost advocates of natural-law theory, made the State subject to natural law, there existed, in the words of Woodrow Wilson, a "common devotion to right.'" But what is the source of that "common devotion to right"? What if that "common devotion to right" is no longer accepted by rulers and the courts?
Sixth, and finally, let us suppose that we can derive a body of law from nature. This would only tell us what the law is, or actually, what might be. Can we determine what we ought to do from what is or might be right?
4. Geisler, "A Premillennial View of Law and Government," p. 157.
5. William Aylott Orton, The Liberal 1tadition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1945), p. 95. Quoted in Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), p. 126.
6. Idem.
7. Quoted in Orton, idem.
Why have some Christians opposed biblical law in favor of "natural law"? Norman Geisler writes: "In brief, because not everyone accepts the Bible, but no one can avoid natural law, which is 'written on [the] hearts' of all men (Rom. 2:14-15). Only believers accept the Bible. But business must be done with unbelievers. Therefore, it is necessary for us to have some common ethical ground on which to engage in commercial transactions with them."8 There are numerous unproven assumptions here, but the two most glaring ones are (1) "not everyone accepts the Bible" and (2) "but no one can avoid natural law." Does everyone have to accept a standard before it is legitimate or it can be enacted into law? What if the majority of the people do accept the Bible? Would this mean that a nation could then implement biblical laws over natural laws? Aren't Christians told to "disciple the nations," to teach the nations all that Jesus commanded? Instead of avoiding the Bible, why not make it a point of discussion, showing unbelievers that the Bible has answers to all of life's problems. We could just as easily assert that not everyone accepts natural law (which is true). Does this then nullify Geisler's natural law ethic?
8. Norman L. Geisler, "Natural Law and Business Ethics," Biblical Principles and Business: The Foundations, ed. Richard C. Chewning (Colorado, CO: NavPress, 1989), p. 157.
Let us put Geisler's second assertion to the test. He would maintain that prohibitions against murder are natural laws. If "no one can avoid natural law," then why do people still murder? And when there was a prevailing biblical ethic in this nation, we had fewer murders, rapes, thefts, drug related crimes, illegitimate births, abortions, etc. People murder because they want to murder regardless what any law states, including biblical law and most certainly natural law. But because biblical law has sanctions attached to it - both temporal and eternal - there are more reasons not to murder under a system of biblical law than under natural law.
If the natural law is a law in the legal sense, what are its sanctions? ... [S]ince a law without punishment is vain, there must be another world to inflict it. Scholastics ... appear to depend on the Christian commonwealth, whose civil law is bound to reflect the natural law, to punish overt breaches. This was not unrealistic as a theory among Christian states in the days when rulers and inhabitants alike were at least technically Christian, but difficulties occurred when it came to expecting pagan kings to punish breaches of the natural law. This problem confronted the sixteenth-century Spanish Thomists, who were most unwilling to grant Christian kings rights of intervention in pagan kingdoms to punish "crimes against nature", and found themselves reduced to hoping for native kings to act in their stead in suppressing long-standing customs like human sacrifice.9
So then, it was expected that a Christian commonwealth would be necessary before such a natural law ethic could actually be implemented. No such trust could be expected of pagan kings since human sacrifice might still be considered normative by them.
9. Bernice Hamilton, "Some Arguments Against Natural Law Theories," Light on the Natural Law, ed. Illtud Evans (Baltimore, MD: Helicon Press, 1965), pp. 44-45.
We have had in our nation a prominently displayed biblical ethic that gave guidance to all citizens, Christians and non-Christians alike. America was a beacon to the world because it had an operating biblical ethic: In theory, everyone was treated as equal before the law, and that law was essentially biblical. In fact, there has been a concerted effort to move our nation away from an explicitly biblical ethical system. Regularly biblical laws are overturned and replaced with atheistic laws. This is true with sodomy and abortion. Take abortion. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade rejected Christian teaching regarding abortion, and turned instead to "ancient attitudes." These "ancient traditions" were accepted over the "emerging teachings of Christianity," teachings that were thought to have influenced the adoption of the Hippocratic Oath. The Court surmised that the anti-abortion Hippocratic Oath would never have been adopted by the medical community if Christianity had not dominated the culture. Since "ancient religion did not bar abortion," as the majority opinion in Roe determined, therefore, abortion would have to be legalized. And what were these "ancient traditions"?: Greek and Roman legal traditions that rested on natural law.10
Would our nation have Sunday as a day of rest and worship if we adopted natural law over biblical law? Even the Constitution follows biblical and not natural law in its regard for Sunday as a special religious day: "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law...." (Article I, section 7). Would a natural law ethic permit religious oath-taking? No! Florida no longer requires Notaries to affirm "so help me God" on their written oath of office. The Rev. Gerard LaCerra, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Miami understands the implications of such an action: "What are we supposed to base our commitments on if something like this is removed? The State?"11 This is where natural law leads us.
10. Curt Young, The Least of These: What Everyone Should Know about Abortion (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1983), pp. 21-23.
11. "'God' Removed from Notaries' Oath," The Kansas City Star (February 18, 1990), p. 2A "The general situation in this country is that in all court proceedings witnesses may give testimony only after they have qualified themselves by taking an oath in the usual form ending with 'So help me God,' or by making an affirmation without that phrase. The provisions for witnesses generally apply also to jurors." Anson Phelps Stokes and Leo Pfeffer, Church and State in the United States, rev. one-vol. ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), p. 490.
Some assert, using natural law as their operating principle, that the "celebration of Eros and the unlimited pleasure of the body should be elevated to constitutional principle."12 Are any and all sexual practices legitimate under natural law? As nations become officially atheistic, a natural law ethic free from biblical influence becomes impossible to formulate, since natural law requires the existence of a Creator who has a law to deposit in the universe and in the heart of man. How can a natural law ethic be formulated when different traditions come to the formulating table with contrary presuppositions? Some are Christian, religious, agnostic, and atheistic. Those who believe in God at least have some common ground, although what god we have in common is another question altogether. When the agnostic and atheist come, the difficulties multiply in trying to prove a natural law theory, especially in the area of particulars.
12. Robert H. Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (New York: The Free Press, 1990), p. 210.
The reason for this difficulty seems to be that for those who really believe in creation and the supreme dominion of God, the principle is too obvious to need proof; whereas for those who do not believe in creation there is no basis on which to build proof.13
A natural law basis for moral behavior can be developed only when there is an already-operating biblical ethic. William Blackstone, the great English Jurist of the eighteenth century, wrote that natural law must be interpreted in terms of the revealed law, the Bible. "If we could be as certain of the latter [natural law] as we are of the former [revealed law], both would have an equal authority; but, till then, they can never be put in any competition together."14 The Bible shaped Blackstone's conception of natural law, although he rarely referred to the Bible in his commentaries.15 But this in itself might be indicative of how pervasively a biblical ethic influenced him.
13. Gerard Kelly. Medico-Moral Problems (Dublin: Clonmore and Reynolds, 1955), p. 167. Cited in Daniel Callahan, Abortion: Law, Choice and Morality (New York: Macmillan, 1970), pp. 310-11.
14. William Blackstone, Commentaries on 1M Laws of England, 4 vols. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press [1765] 1979), vol. 1, p. 17.
15. North, Political Polytheism, pp. 322-24.
Could there ever be a prohibition, for example, against polygamy based on natural law? While the Bible tolerated polygamy and established laws to govern it to protect the family unit, it never condoned it (Genesis 2: 18-24; Leviticus 18: 18; 1 Corinthians 7:2; 1 Timothy 3:2). Many in Israel, including such rulers as Gideon, David, and Solomon, adopted the polygamous practices of the surrounding nations. Of course, polygamy began soon after the fall (Genesis 4: 19, 23; 26:34; 28:9; 29: 15; 36:2; 1 Samuel 1:1-2). "Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. In common law, the second marriage was always void (2 Kent, Com. 79), and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society."16 Polygamy was denounced in Christian nations and practiced in non-Christian nations. Typically, "Asiatic" and "African" nations were non-Christian. Their practice of polygamy was "natural." With the advent of Christianity, monogamy was the practice and the Bible was the standard, not natural law.
The Supreme Court narrowly defined the legal protections of the First Amendment to exclude polygamy on the grounds that the practice was out of accord with the basic tenets of Christianity: "It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world."17 A year earlier the Court declared that "Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. . . . To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind."18
So with the above in mind, what common ground do Christians and non-Christians have regarding the law? The evolutionist knows nothing of natural law. His system will not allow it. Law is an evolving principle like the universe itself. Roscoe Pound, a former Harvard law school dean, wrote "that 'nature' did not mean to antiquity what it means to us who are under the influence of evolution."19 In "antiquity," nature was thought to have been created by God and thus ran according to certain "natural laws" (even though that god was a pagan deity). What many Christians regard as "natural laws" are in reality God's eternal decree.
16. Reynolds v. United Stales, October 1878.
17. Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1 (1890).
18. Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 341-342 (1890). Cited in John Eidsmoe, The Christian Legal Advisor (Milford, MI: Mott Media, 1984), p. 150.
19. Roscoe Pound, Introduction to the Philosophy of Law (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, [1922] 1959), p. 31. Cited in John W. Whitehead, The Second American &Revolution (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, [1982] 1985, p. 48.
The introduction of the concept of "Nature" and natural law, derived from Hellenic philosophy, led to a departure from biblical faith. Natural law spoke of a self-contained system of its own inherent law. One of the products was Deism, which reduced God to the mechanic who had created "Nature," and now "Nature" functioned independently of God. The next step was to accept the ultimacy of "Nature" and to drop God entirely.20
There was predictability in the created order because God decreed all that comes to pass. The created order, what is erroneously described as "nature,"21 was understood to be affected by the fall of man into sin. Special revelation was needed to correct the distortions of a creation disfigured by sin. With the advent of evolution, a new understanding of nature developed that supplanted the one of "antiquity." According to Roscoe Pound, "no current hypothesis is reliable, as ideas and legal philosophies change radically and frequently from time to time."22
20. Rousas J. Rushdoony, The Mythology of Science (Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1967), p. 97.
21. Rousas J. Rushdoony writes that " 'Nature' is simply a collective name for an uncollectivized reality; the myth of nature is a product of Hellenic philosophy." The Institutes of Biblical Law (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), p. 608.
22. Rene A Wormser, The Story of the Law (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1962), p. 485. Cited in Whitehead, The Second American Revolution, 48.
In addition to natural law, Geisler writes that "most premillenarians recognize that God has not left Himself without a witness in that He has revealed a moral law in the hearts and consciences of all men (Rom. 2:14-15)."23 Geisler asserts that the heart and conscience are repositories for an ethical code. But the heart of man "is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?" Jeremiah 17:9; cf. Genesis 6:5; 8:21; Psalm 14:1; Proverbs 6:14; 12:20; 14:12). General revelation may give a very clear ethical system, but man suppresses "the truth" of general revelation "in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18).
23. Geisler," A Dispensational Premillennial View of Law and Government," p. 156.
Since man's reason is imperfect, and may be swayed by his physical and social environment, the "truths" which men "know" have been various and self-contradictory. The law of nature has been quoted for every cause, from that of Negro slavery in the United States to that of red revolution in Paris. And it has often shifted ground - or man's interpretation has shifted - on such thorny questions (for example) as private property.24
24. Herbert Agar, A Decl4ration of Faith (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1952), p. 134.
But isn't "the work of the Law written" on the heart actually the law? (Romans 2: 15). "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus" (Romans 2:14-16). The Gentiles, those without the written law found in the Bible, follow a law written on their hearts. It is the same law!
Second, general revelation contrary to Geisler, does lay a specifically religious obligation on man. According to Romans 1: 1832, which is the fullest biblical commentary on general revelation, men are guilty precisely because they "exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures" (v. 23). Where did they learn about "the incorruptible God"? "God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse" (vv. 19-20).
Third, general or natural revelation and special revelation (Scripture) have the same moral content. But because of man's sinfulness and the deceitfulness of his heart, he needs an infallible guide to read natural revelation. The Bible is that infallible guide. The only safeguard that sinful man has in not misinterpreting and misapplying natural revelation "is to test his interpretations constantly by the principles of the written word."25
25. Cornelius Van Til, "Nature and Scripture," in The Infallible Word: A Symposium, eds. Ned B. Stonehouse and Paul Wolley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953), p. 274.
Paul says nothing to suggest that there is a difference in the moral content of these two revelations, written and natural. The written law is an advantage over natural revelation because the latter is suppressed and distorted in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-25). But what pagans suppress is precisely the "work of the law" (2:14-15). Natural revelation communicates to them, as Paul says, "the ordinance of God" about "all unrighteousness" (1:29, 32). Because they "know" God's ordinance, they are "without excuse" for refusing to live in terms of it (1 :20). What the law speaks, then, it speaks "in order that all the world may be brought under the judgment of God" (3:19). There is one law order to which all men are bound, whether they learn of it by means of natural revelation or by means of special revelation. God is no respecter of persons here (2: 11). "All have sinned" (3:23) -- thus violated that common standard for the "knowledge of sin" in all men, the law of God (3:20).-
Reconstructionists take God's revelation seriously: the law of God found in both Testaments and general revelation.
Did God, as Geisler maintains, place only the Israelites under obligation to the moral demands of those commandments specifically delivered to the nation through Moses? Are Gentile nations ever condemned for violating laws specifically given to Israel? If we can find just one law that fits into this category, then all nations are obligated to submit to God's special written revelation, the Bible. I will summarize the argument for you:
God gives a series of instructions to Moses for the people: "You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes. You are to perform my judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them" (Leviticus 18:3-4). God then issues a list of Canaanite practices that were prohibited. He commands the Israelites not to engage in incest, polygamy, adultery, child sacrifice, profaning Jehovah's name, homosexuality, or bestiality (vv. 6-23). The Mosaic law outlawed all such behavior and severely punished it. Immediately following the long list of prohibitions, God's word describes what disobedience will bring: "Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. For the land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you; (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled); so that the land may not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you" (Leviticus 18:24-28).
26. Greg L. Bahnsen, "What Kind of Morality Should We Legislate?," The Biblical Worldview (October 1988), p. 9.
The transgression of the very law which God was revealing to Israel was the same law which brought divine punishment upon the Gentiles who occupied the land before them. "Israel and the Gentiles were under the same moral law, and they both would suffer the same penalty for the defilement which comes with violating it - eviction from the land."27
27. Greg L. Bahnsen, "For Whom Was God's Law Intended?," The Biblical Worldview (December 1988), p. 9.
Gary North
Modern Christianity implicitly sings this hymn: "O, how hate I thy law; O, how hate I thy law; it is my consternation all the day." It is the offense of Christian Reconstruction that its promoters call upon all men to reconsider God's Bible-revealed law. This law is the only God-given, authoritative means of evaluation: self-evaluation first, and then the evaluation of everything else. God's law tells us what God thinks of the works of self-proclaimed autonomous man: "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away" (Isaiah 64:6). It is not a pretty self-portrait, so autonomous men refuse to look at it. Meanwhile, Christians today are afraid to mention its existence, out of concern for the sensibilities of autonomous men, with whom they have an unspoken alliance.7
7. See below, Chapter 9.
Nevertheless, covenant-breakers cannot escape the testimony of God in everything they think, see, and do. They know the truth, and they actively hinder it, to their own damnation. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [back] the truth in unrighteousness;8 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are dearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen (Romans 1:18-25).
8. Murray, Romans, I, pp. 36-37.
Each person is made in God's image. This is the common ground among men - the only common ground. We are born the rebellious sons of the Creator God. We are all of one blood: "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation" (Acts 17:24-26). We are all born as God's disinherited children.
Christian Reconstructionists insist that there is no common ground among men other than this: the image of God. While all men know the work of the law (Romans 2:15), this knowledge is not enough to save them.9 It brings them under God's eternal wrath. They hinder in unrighteousness whatever truth they possess as men (Romans 1:18). The more consistent they are with their covenant-breaking presuppositions, the more they hate God's law and those who preach it. The more consistent they become with their rebellious view of God, man, law, and time, the more perverse they become. They prefer to worship creatures rather than the Creator:
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them (Romans 1:26-32).
9. Ibid., I, pp. 74-76.
This means that natural law theory is a myth, the creation of Hellenistic Greek philosophers to offer hope in a world in which the Greek city-state (the polis) had fallen to Alexander the Great and then to Rome. But if natural law theory is a myth, what can take its place? To what other standard can men safely cling if they reject the abiding authority of God's law in history? Christian Reconstructionists have an answer: none. This answer is hated, rejected, and ridiculed by Christians in our day. This answer is the offense of Christian Reconstruction.