The reformed or Calvinist thinker Johannes Althusius (1557–1638) identified natural law (or common) as that law which God inscribed on the heart. Hence, it is common to all people, as God’s law in nature. God then uses our conscience to excuse or excuse us (Rom 2).
It is important to realize that this is the near-universal view of reformed thinkers from Amandus Polanus to John Calvin to whomever.
Natural law is not some law inside nature and apart from God, as Rushdoony believed, but rather it is the law of God inscribed upon our hearts as Paul the Apostle believed (Rom 2:14-15).
Where the rubber meets the road, however, is when it comes to obedience to God’s law.
The antinomian impulse, that is, the impulse to strive against God’s law occurs when we deny natural law, and the light of nature to discern the law of God.
This is what some have recently done to push back against complementarianism, for example. They deny natural law as a construct of Patriarchy (or something along those lines).
Some fundamentalists too took this view since they believed natural law which is not found in the Bible somehow made their piety less or the like. But that’s odd since the Bible tells us about the law of nature; and God created nature—so of course his law, his reason, his imposition must be everywhere. Why in the world would we want to deny reality? I cannot fathom it. But I lived it. I saw it. I even believed it at one point. Shame on me.
Interestingly, in some reconstruction circles, natural law is either pigeon-holed (e.g., John Frame, one sympathetic to reconstructionism, believes natural exists but in a very limited way), or denied it (Rushdoony, e.g.). The impetus among some reconstructionists (not all, I am sure) is to ensure that biblical (mosaic) law has pride of place over natural law, which at least in Rushdoony’s argument is a form of divinization of nature, in which nature has a law, apart from God.
This is exactly wrong. The law of nature is what God imposes on his creation, part of his eternal law, identical to the Ten Commandments (or nearly so).
When the Reformed and most Puritans talk about the law of God, then often mean the Moral Law, that is, the Ten Commandments, which is (nearly) identical with the Natural Law.
This is why every reformed thinker might be called a theonomist. I might be too. I argue that all must obey God’s law for human flourishing and to honour the Lord. By which I mean, God’s eternal law (identical to his being) as manifest in nature and Scripture.
But I would be completely wrong to obey some laws found in the books of Moses, which Scripture tells me have been abrogated—ceremonial laws and civil laws unattached to natural law. This I learn from the Bible itself as well as Calvin, Luther, and others.
That would mean I obey law NOT according to Scripture. I would be guilty of a form of legalism. Almost everybody—even those who take the name theonomist recognizes this. This is not meant to be a potshot.
The real difference here is how the civilly orientated laws work out today. I agree with Franciscus Junius that some civil laws, those which are necessarily attached to Moral Law, the Decalogue, persist though might need a practical application in the new era. But many are not, and some reconstructionists would want to pull in many more laws than I would.
So Rushdoony thought we should execute incorrigible children, gay persons, etc. I reject that teaching for many reasons, usually grounded in the kind of work that someone like Junius has written—he wrote “On the Mosaic Polity” to help the Netherlands use Mosaic Law in their administration of society. So this is not some anti-law person. In fact, he is a key 16th-century Reformed thinker.
But then one must also simply listen to Jesus:
“38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.”
Whatever else it means for Jesus to “fulfill” the law and prophets, it means that they centre on his teaching.
And here: we see something quite different from Israel’s theocratic society. And I suggest it strongly implies that Christians are not meant to create a theocracy as Israel had.
Of course, I do not mean we should pursue a godly society. But here is something, perhaps more controversial than, my other statements: Christ rules EVERYWHERE.
Imagine thinking that Christ only rules where biblical law is obeyed. I saw someone argue that recently on Twitter. (Yes, Twitter, but it was a prominent US theologian, so maybe it’s useful to cite here).
I cannot fathom such a notion. Christ rose from the dead and ascended to the right hand of God. His reign is universal. Christ knocked Satan to earth.
Christ rules over all by his Law. That Law of Christ, the eternal law of God, found in nature and in Scripture, evinces both natural and supernatural ends (Scripture alone gives supernatural ends, such as marriage imitates Christ’s love for the church).
All that to say, yes, to the Law of God! But don’t deny the law common to all in nature, inscribed on the heart, available to all through the Word who illumines every human being (John 1:9—see Amandus Polanus on this verse).
Don’t fall into a species of antinomianism by denying this law! Nor fall into a specifies of legalism by affirming law NOT according to Scripture, as in certain mosaic legislations which are shadows, a pedagogue, and often abrogated.
I can’t say that I disagree with you in principle. I’ll admit that I kind of choke on the term “natural law”, but the basic idea is that the law and nature both come from the same source, so they will not be at odds with one another. As far as that goes, I can’t disagree with you.
But at the core, the question that every Christian should ask themselves is “how am I to live?” Romans 10:6-8 says, ““Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);” Ultimately, it is the Spirit who leads us in what is right. He may lead us by verbal commands or (more often in these times) silently through the word of God and prayer. I think it is important as Christians to understand that we will not know what we are to do ahead of time. Oftentimes, we will be faced with challenging decisions, and only then will the Spirit make known to us what we should do.
With regard to politics (which I think is what the Reconstructionists are primarily concerned with) we face a significant challenge. The Bible doesn’t give us a framework for creating fiscal policy in a complex industrialized society (for example) nor does it tell us how we should engage a democratic government. So how do we proceed? We shouldn’t fall into the trap of thinking that we need a distinctively Christian ideology. Ideology is legalism. Rather, we should seek to obey the commands of scripture in all that we do and do whatever God gives us to do with the best of our ability. We receive the wisdom to serve, lead, and vote from the Spirit.
There aren’t any easy answers in our present time. All we can do is face each day with the faith that God will lead us through it. We all sixty-six books of the Bible to help, but even the Pharisees couldn’t discern the truth by the scriptures alone (John 5:39).
P.S. I think you (and the whole Reformed tradition) are reading Romans 2:15 wrong. Given the context, Paul seems to be referring to Gentiles who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
Thanks, Ben. Note that Romans 2:15 is not necessary for the view. Natural law as you sort of admit is basically admitting that God made the world, and so we can discern the order he has imposed upon it.
I agree 100%. Moreover, I think that some of your other posts about natural law are very insightful. My only concern is your assertion that natural law is a safe haven from legalism. I think the scriptures are clear that walking by the Spirit is the only safe haven from the two-headed dragon of legalism and antinomianism. Romans 7:6 “We serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.”
Let me try to clarify a little. If we study the scriptures carefully and determine exactly which laws we should obey and which we shouldn’t, no matter how correct we are, we are still practicing legalism if we are doing it by the flesh and not the Spirit. Paul’s point in Galatians isn’t that Christians must not practice the ceremonial laws (consider Romans 14). Paul’s point is that we must live by the Spirit. Paul never criticized Jews for following the Mosaic law (nor did Jesus or any of the other disciples), but he criticized Gentiles because they lost sight of what was really important. This is why Paul says, “That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham” Romans 4:16.