I used to be a firm critic of Scott Clark’s natural law theory, but the more I read of natural law, the more I realize that they have as many variations as do theonomists. The more I read of his understanding of natural law, the closer I realize I am to his position. The following link from his blog shows just how close I am to his position, but there are still a few differences. As I’ve suggested elsewhere, I think the real reasons that theonomist reacted unfairly to natural law is: 1) they didn’t understand the position, 2) then-current scholarship advocating natural law was terrible (think Norman Geisler’s dispensationalism and Roman Catholicism’s pop-Thomism), and 3) many of the critics didn’t have any coherent ethical position, which led Gary North to (unwisely) call it “natural law,” thus poisoning the well. If you read North’s Westminster’s Confession, he labels all of his critics as natural law adherents. Of the 16 chapters in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, maybe a mere handful advocated natural law (remember this is in the late 80s/early 90s where Reformed thought hadn’t yet rediscovered Reformed natural law sources).
There are other issues involved which I do not plan to deal with right now. RSC is a Van Tillian; I am not (not in the apologetic sense anyway. If Reformed scholasticism is true, and Turretin and Co., held to a principia form of epistemology which sort of coincides with the Common Sense Realism of Thomas Reid, then wouldn’t it be more consistent to go with principia over TAG? Just thinking out loud.) Further, there are other disagreements on ethics. I am still nervous about the Klinean intrusion ethic. While I’ve come to appreciate more and more of Kline’s system, I just don’t think intrusionism is logically or biblically coherent.
Back to Clark’s post.
The Bible is not intended to be used as a textbook for civil policy any more than it is intended as a “playbook” for sports. That does not mean that God’s law does not apply to contemporary social and civil issues but it is not faithful to Scripture to use it in a way that it does not intend to be used. That is one of the great differences between the confessional Reformed appropriation of Scripture and the non-confessional.
I can agree with this on surface level. Whether the Bible is to be used as such or not, any application thereof has to take in account of current situations which suggest how the Bible is to be applied. In any case, I would certainly agree with him that facile applications aren’t helpful. Applying God’s law takes wisdom, even kingly wisdom, and the average Christian America evangelical does not have this.
The law obligates civil authorities to preserve and pursue civil justice as God’s ministers but Scripture does not spell out exactly how that is to be done. The Apostle Paul did not prescribe civil policy to those civil rulers with whom he spoke but he did preach the gospel of the resurrection. Nowhere does the NT advocate a particular form of civil polity nor does it advocate specific civil policies.
I mostly agree. I think a lot of American Reformed need to realize that the Bible, outside of a few suggestions in 1 Samuel, does not mandate a Constitutional Republic. That’s why Calvin and Rutherford were fine with limited monarchies.
I did write, “that some of us really do take the Scriptures as a guide to civil government and moral renewal for American society and not chiefly as the infallible and inerrant revelation of God’s saving work and Word in history. This episode is an example of the attempt to achieve epistemic and moral certainty on questions that are properly matters of liberty.”
I agree, but I want to add something else, and this might be my conspiratorial vein: Simply quoting 2 Chron. 7:14 is not enough. If you want to reform America, then you need to begin with what is wrong at the systematic, foundational level: Trilateral Commission, IRS, Council on Foreign Relations, and the list goes on. This suggests another problem with the Christian America folk: there are problems in American government and simply electing Reagan II without addressing these problems is putting a band-aid on a tumor.
Let’s make matters worse: America is too big. I realize these points aren’t germane to Clark’s article, but they point out how woefully under-thought out the average right-wing Kuyperian vision is (and I hasten to remind readers that a leading Kuyperian, Ralph Reed, speaks at Bilderberg Conferences).
I have no confidence that, after the death of Christ, God has any specific, special relationship with any nation or civil entity. Your letter seems to assume that if a nation will obey God’s law, he will bless it materially etc.
This is perhaps where I offer mild dissent. Isaiah 19 does say that nations will covenant with God. Is there a 1:1 causal relation on material blessings? Kind of. Calvin in his sermons on Deuteronomy 27 held out the possibility that God will bless, but also reminded believers that we are mature in the New Covenant and sometimes God sends us difficulties as well. It is a fact, I think, that the land rebels when covenant-breakers reign and sin against the land (we can probably even offer a natural law argument to the effect!). If natural law is better known as the Creation Ordinance, with its own built-in teleology, the breaking of which is sin, then it stands to reason that sinful rulers will see a cursed land.
In conclusion I think I am largely in agreement with Professor Clark. It must be admitted that the Reformers were natural law adherents and not merely in an incidental way, as Gary North maintains. They worked it in their system (think of all the times that the Confession refers to the light of nature).