Natural Law and Positive Law in Calvin's Thought
Gregory Johnson • Covenant
Theological Seminary • April 1996
John Calvin, the greatest of Reformation theologians, studied law before he studied theology. And in the first edition of his Institutes on the Christian Religion in 1536, Calvin included a final chapter on the topic of civil government. Despite significant growth in knowledge through his years of ministry, this chapter remained almost unchanged in his completed and revised 1559 edition. Placed at the end of his fourth book dealing with the church, Calvin demonstrated that civil government was not to be divorced from God or from Christian theology. Jesus was risen as Lord, not merely over the church, but over all of society-- including civil government. Thus God's law was to be the foundation for the state's law. No human law could stand on its own, autonomous from the God who had created society and government in the beginning, the God who was now recreating through the work of his Son. For Calvin, the specific laws of the state—positive laws—must be grounded in God's law revealed in nature, written on the human heart. This natural law served for Calvin as the foundation for activity in the political arena, and I propose that it can serve today as a vehicle for resurrecting positive and responsible civic engagement in North America today.
PART ONE:
Natural Law
The Content of Natural Law:
While some Medieval interpreters had separated natural law and biblical moral law, Calvin, following Gratian and Thomas, identified the two as being essentially the same. He writes:
It is a fact that the law of God which we call the
moral law is nothing else than a testimony of the natural law and of that
conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men. Consequently, the entire scheme of this
equity of which we are now speaking has been proscribed in it. Hence, this equity alone must be the goal
and rule and limit of all laws.[1]
The law of God, the moral law, the natural law, the conscience engraved by God on the human mind, equity—all are here equated as having essentially the same content. And this natural law is the same as what Calvin calls the "perpetual rule of love" summarized in the Decalogue, and is seen manifest in the "common laws of the nations." This natural law includes both the love of God and of neighbor, and is "eternal" and "unchangeable."[2] In short, the natural law consists of God's universal moral norm as revealed in nature.
For
Calvin, this natural law is innate upon the human heart, rather than being
merely a set of first principles from which men are to reason.[3] Regarding government, Calvin writes:
Since man is by nature a social animal, he tends
through natural instinct to foster and preserve society. Consequently, we observe that there exist in
all men's minds universal impressions of a certain civic fair dealing and
order. Hence, no man is to be found who
does not understand that every sort of human organization must be regulated by
laws, and who does not comprehend the principles of those laws. Hence arises that unvarying consent of the
nations and of individual mortals with regard to laws. For their seeds have, without teacher or
lawgiver, been implanted in all men.[4]
This natural law is an instinctive, universal impression of justice, an implanted knowledge of the principles of and need for laws, manifest in an unvarying consent, both at the individual and at the collective level.[5] While reason may play a role in discerning such "universal consent," the thrust of Calvin's doctrine of natural law is clearly that it is "engraved upon men's hearts," that is, innate.[6]
The Fall & Natural Law in Earthly Matters:
Calvin argues that humanity's Fall into sin has greatly affected our comprehension of and obedience to the natural law; "But man is so shrouded in the darkness of his errors that he hardly begins to grasp through this natural law what worship is acceptable to God."[7] But while the Fall has left man unable to clearly discern the natural law in all of its fullness, the Fall has not left man blinded with respect to horizontal, earthly matters. Having affirmed that "human knowledge fails entirely as regards the First Table of the law," Calvin continues, "men have somewhat more of the precepts of the Second Table because these are more closely concerned with the preservation of civil society among them." Calvin writes, "There is one kind of understanding of earthly things; another of heavenly....In the arrangement of this life, no man is without reason."[8] Thus, Calvin distinguished between inability in "heavenly things" and substantial ability in "earthly things." "There is nothing more common than for a man to be sufficiently instructed in a right standard of conduct by natural law."[9] Nevertheless, this ability is with regard to the external, "They have reference to those which are outward and manifested by grosser signs. They take no account of the evil desires that gently tickle the mind."[10] Peter J. Leithart writes:
Calvin distinguished those capacities that have to do with heavenly things from those that have to do with earthly things. Earthly abilities are of a technical, academic, or socio-political character: government, household management, mechanical skills, the liberal and fine arts. In these areas, the fallen understanding appears to have little or no impairment. Calvin rhapsodized about the rich gifts that God has given to the world through the agency of unbelievers. These abilities, however, never enable men to rise above the present life.[11]
Human inability within Calvin's system does not imply either that man cannot know the law of God through nature, nor that man cannot do the law of God on a horizontal level. Rather, human inability implies only that man is unable to incline his heart toward God. To this degree, Cornelius Van Til was correct in arguing that man always uses his natural abilities to further his rebellion against God; man has complete inability in the vertical sense of pleasing God. The mistake of many subsequent followers of Van Til, however, is to assume that human ability on the horizontal plane is incompatible with inability on the vertical plane.[12] Or to put things another way, the mistake is to assume that external obedience to God's law in nature cannot be a means of "furthering one's rebellion against God." Calvin affirms both a "total depravity" whereby unregenerate man is unable to incline his heart savingly toward God, and a substantial moral knowledge and ability in human affairs.[13]
By understanding that the natural law accords with the nature of the world and with the nature of man as he was created, unregenerate man often finds it in his own best interest to follow the natural law—to more fully enjoy his humanness. Sinful pride, therefore, can actually encourage external obedience on the horizontal plane. And government should encourage such obedience, even while the church calls the self-righteous to more complete humanness in Christ through reconciliation with God. Within Calvin's system, natural law teaching is not incompatible with human depravity. In man's relation to God, natural law damns him, but in his relation to other men, natural law shows him how to live a more peaceful, just, humane life—be it for godly or ungodly reasons. Motivation, Calvin insists, is outside of the civil government's sphere of concern. Government is concerned only with the external.[14]
Scripture & Natural Law:
Nevertheless, it could be considered an overstatement on John T. McNeill's part to ascribe to Calvin the belief that, "within the mundane society, natural law is not secondary but controlling—and this because it is not earthly but divine in origin, engraved by God on all men's hearts."[15] Sin has deeply affected our grasp of the natural law, so that even in earthly affairs, "one sometimes detects a failure to endure."[16] Scripture is needed because of both man's dullness and his arrogance:
But man is so shrouded in the darkness of his errors
that he hardly begins to grasp through this natural law what worship is
acceptable to God.... Besides this, he is so puffed up with haughtiness and
ambition, and so blinded by self-love, that he is as yet unable to look upon
himself and, as it were, to descend within himself, that he may humble and
abase himself and confess his own miserable condition. Accordingly (because it is necessary for
both our dullness and our arrogance), the Lord has provided us with a written
law to give us a clearer witness of what was too obscure in the natural law,
shake off our listlessness, and strike more vigorously our mind and memory.[17]
Scripture is thus needed as a corrective to our perception of the natural law.[18]
And Calvin asserts that this correction is needed due to sin-- a restatement of the universal moral law through special revelation would not have been necessary were it not for the Fall. Peter Leithart disagrees with Calvin here, criticizing Calvin for not taking into account the necessity of special revelation (specifically the command not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) before the Fall. Leithart writes, "By failing to recognize the necessity of special revelation in the prelapsarian situation, Calvin granted general revelation a degree of autonomy that Scripture itself never permits. Calvin's frequent appeals to natural law in his ethical writings perhaps arose ultimately from his over-valuation of the place of natural knowledge and natural law in Eden."[19] Leithart's critique, however, would appear to be a non-sequitur. The fact that a specific command above and beyond the universal moral norm had to be specially given before the Fall does not require that men are unable to apprehend that universal moral norm itself apart from special revelation after the Fall. Leithart's argument does not prove Calvin's approach to natural law to be inherently flawed.
For the task of government, Calvin teaches, scriptural wisdom is necessary due to sin, not due to any inadequacy in natural revelation itself. And within Calvin's system, to be bound to revelation in nature leaves man no more "autonomous" than being bound to Scripture. Either way, human beings are derived and dependent upon communication from God, dependent upon revelation even for the unitary moral norm itself.[20] The civil authority exists as a part of nature, under God's law as revealed in nature. So the Christian, under the sole guidance of Scripture's clarification of the moral norm, brings that clarity to his political involvement with non-Christians, who themselves less clearly recognize the moral norm which is written on the heart and manifest in the common laws of the nations.
PART TWO:
Natural Law, Mosaic Law & Positive Law:
Calvin is emphatic in asserting that civil authorities are ordained by God and are accountable to enforce God's law.[21] For Calvin, civil government is a good part of human life as ordained, structured and preserved by God. Indeed, civil service is the "most honorable of all callings in the whole life of mortal men."
Positive Laws Based in Natural Law:
But
as has already been mentioned, Calvin locates the source of God's law over
government, not primarily in Scripture, but in nature, specifically engraved
upon the human heart. Calvin writes:
What I have said will become plain if in all laws we
examine, as we should, these two things:
the constitution of the law, and the equity on which its constitution is
itself founded and rests. Equity,
because it is natural, cannot but be the same for all, and therefore, this same
purpose ought to apply to all laws, whatever their object. Constitutions have certain circumstances on
which they depend. It therefore does
not matter that they are different, provided all equally press toward the same
goal of equity.
Equity, "the perpetual rule
of love" which Calvin equates with the moral law and with natural law, is
to be the sole goal of all laws. After
all, as has already been argued, the natural law for Calvin is God's law. There is no dichotomy between God's law on
the heart and God's law in the Decalogue.
It is precisely through enforcing
the natural law (which is psychologically and redemptive-historically prior
to Scripture) that the state enforces God's law. It is worth noting that Calvin critiques unjust laws, not as
being unbiblical, but merely as being
unjust.[22] Again, Calvin:
|
|
It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of the natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men.. Consequently, the entire scheme of this equity of which we are now speaking has been proscribed in it. Hence, this equity alone must be the goal and rule and limit of all laws. Whatever laws shall be framed to that rule, directed to that goal, bound by that limit, there is no reason why we should disapprove of them, howsoever they may differ from the Jewish law, or among themselves.[23]
Natural law, not the Mosaic judicial code, is to be the sole "goal and rule and limit" of all positive laws.
Mosaic Law as Positive Law:
Calvin
rejects the Mosaic judicial code as normative precisely because the Mosaic code
itself is not pure moral law, but positive law. To restate, Calvin argues that the Mosaic judicial code is not
normative, but is instead merely one set of positive laws, positive laws adapted
by God to a specific people and therefore no longer to be directly
enforced. Because the Mosaic judicial
laws held stipulations which were themselves not eternal or unchanging,[24]
they are no longer to be enforced:
In like manner, the form of their judicial laws,
although it had no other intent than how best to preserve that very love which
is enjoined by God's eternal law, had something distinct from that precept of
love. Therefore, as ceremonial laws
could be abrogated while piety remained safe and unharmed, so too, when these
judicial laws were taken away, the perpetual duties and precepts of love could
still remain.... But if this is true,
surely every nation is left free to make such laws as it foresees to be
profitable for itself. Yet these must
be in conformity to that perpetual rule of love, so that they indeed vary in
form but have the same purpose.[25]
Martin Luther had previously argued for much this same approach to the Mosaic code, referring to the Mosaic code as the Sachsenspiegel for the Jews, the "Saxon code," the specific set of positive laws for the Jews.[26] Luther had argued, "Thus, where [Moses] gives a commandment, we are not to follow him except so far as he agrees with the natural law."[27] Calvin, while generally seeing a greater continuity between Old Testament and New than had Luther, nevertheless took much the same approach to distinguishing between universal moral norms as revealed in the natural law or the Decalogue, and the bulk of Mosaic legislation, which was positive law for another place and era.
Calvin
presents at least three ways in which the Mosaic judicial code was
situationally conditioned and therefore no longer binding. These are:
1. The Judicial Law is Conditioned by Culture. Calvin writes, "For the statement of some, that the law of God given through Moses is dishonored when it is abrogated and new laws preferred to it, is utterly vain. For others are not preferred to it when they are more approved, not by a simple comparison, but with regard to the condition of times, place, and nation; or when that law is abrogated which was never enacted for us."[28] Time, place, and nation are all conditions which will vary, so that the natural law applied in differing times, places or nations may require very different positive laws than those of Israel.
2. The Judicial Law is Conditioned by Covenant. Calvin understands the judicial code to have been uniquely for God's covenanted people, the Jewish nation. Because of this conditionality, it was not then and is not now to be enforced in other contexts. "For the Lord through the hand of Moses did not give that law to be proclaimed among all nations and to be in force everywhere; but when he had taken the Jewish nation into his safekeeping, defense, and protection, he also willed to be a lawgiver especially to it; and—as became a wise lawgiver—he had special concern for it in making its laws."[29] The Mosaic legislation was for the covenanted people of God alone.[30]
3. The Judicial Law is Conditioned by Depravity. We see in Calvin's discussion of divorce under the Mosaic law that the judicial code is also conditioned by human depravity—the Judicial code is not a perfect manifestation of God's universal moral norm. Moses permitted divorces, Calvin says, but not so as to give them his "seal of approbation." Commenting on Matthew 19:7, Calvin writes, "And if the institution of marriage is to be reckoned an inviolable law, it follows that whatever swerves from it does not arise from its pure nature, but from the depravity of men.... The rule of a holy and pious life is not always, or in all places, to be sought from political laws."[31] Thus Jesus can argue that the Mosaic judicial code was far more lenient that God's character otherwise required. Christian readers of the Mosaic code must therefore be careful even in deriving moral principles from the judicial laws, for often the moral "principles" have been softened due to the hardness of heart among the Jews. Commenting on the bill of divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Calvin argues,
"Although what relates to divorce was granted in
indulgence to the Jews, yet Christ pronounces that it was never in accordance
with the Law, because it is directly repugnant to the first institution of God,
from whence a perpetual and inviolable rule is to be sought. It is proverbially said that the laws of
nature are indissoluble.... Hence it
appears how great the perverseness of that nation, which could not be
restrained from dissolving a most sacred and inviolable tie."[32]
Indeed it would appear that even the moral principle one might draw from Deuteronomy 24:1-4 would be incorrect, for Calvin states, "The magistrate abuses his power when he grants permission to the husband to divorce his wife."[33]
For
Calvin, Geneva's divorce laws must be stricter than those of Moses. Yet the penalties for any given crime will
vary from state to state. Indeed, they should vary from state to state, Calvin
argues, for human depravity varies from state to state:
"There are countries which, unless they deal
cruelly with murderers by way of horrible examples, must immediately perish
from slaughters and robberies. There
are ages which demand increasingly harsh penalties.... There are nations inclined to a particular
vice, unless it be most sharply repressed."[34]
Variety in the application of the
natural law is a necessary response to varying degrees of depravity in
different social contexts. Positive
laws should rightly differ.
Mosaic Penology & the Death Penalty for Murder:
Calvin
specifically insists that the penology in the Mosaic code is not to be
universally applied. "God's law
forbids stealing. The penalties meted
out in the Jewish state are to be seen in Exodus [22:1-4]. The very ancient laws of other nations
punished theft with double restitution; the laws which followed these
distinguished between theft, manifest and not manifest. Some proceeded to banishment, others to
flogging, others finally to capital punishment." Calvin continues with examples of false testimony, murder, and
adultery, but concludes that "all laws tend to the same end. For, together with one voice, they pronounce
punishment against those crimes which God's eternal law has condemned, namely,
murder, theft, adultery, and false witness.
But they do not agree on the manner of punishment. Nor is this either necessary or
expedient."[35] God is honored—that is, Christ's Lordship
over government is established—not by direct application of Mosaic penology,
but by thoughtful and situationally-conditioned application of the moral law
written in nature.
But one aspect of penology is normative for Calvin—the death penalty for murder. Calvin sees the death penalty against murderers as having been inscribed upon the heart, for the common laws of the nations uniformly apply such a penalty. "All codes equally avenge murder with blood, but with different kinds of death."[36]
Though, in Calvin's opinion, Genesis 9:6 is not limited to the institution of the death penalty for murder, Calvin does insist that "the punishments which the laws ordain, and which the judges execute, are founded on this divine sentence"—this being part of the "design of God concerning the new restitution of the world."[37] Calvin views God's covenant with Noah as a re-establishment of the order of creation—it is thus of significance that he sees here the basis for the universal use of the death penalty for murder. Whether or not present at creation itself, the death penalty for murder acts in Calvin's system as a creation ordinance—universal at all times and in all places. "The law of the Lord forbids killing; but, that murderers may not go unpunished, the Lawgiver himself puts into the hand of his ministers a sword to be drawn against all murderers."[38] The death penalty for murder is itself a part of the natural law.
PART THREE:
Natural Law & the Evangelical Political Crisis Today
The Problem of the "First Table":
Where Calvin runs into trouble with his natural law doctrine is in relation to the "first table" of the law-- those first four commandments regulating man's relationship to God. As with most of Christendom in his day, Calvin argued that the state is responsible before God to enforce these God-ward moral laws as well as the others—even if in only an "external" manner. It was in this context, for example, that the Spanish Unitarian Michael Servetus was burned for heresy. Luther had previously written that it is not in God's design for the state to enforce the doctrinal order, arguing that "heresy can never be restrained by force."[39] But such a notion was still largely foreign in the sixteenth century.
Nevertheless, the question stands: Can government have its basis in natural law and at the same time establish Christianity? Can an institution have its basis in creation and in creational revelation, and at the same time establish a religion which is specially revealed, and then only after creation in the course of redemptive history? Can the state establish a doctrine of the Trinity or of salvation, which few would argue is visible in creation? One approach is to argue that the state has a duty to establish and promote the church, and to persecute those who teach falsehood. Clearly, this was Calvin's position.[40] Nevertheless, this position is one of great internal tension, for the state, largely under natural law, is called upon to enforce doctrines not accessible in natural law.
Another approach to the first table of the law might be to simply enforce the God-ward commands as they are accessible through general revelation. This approach would promote a civil religion focused on "God-in-general," a Supreme Being. Thus, the state could prohibit blasphemy against "God," but not against "Jesus." But the problem here, as with Calvin's viewpoint, lies in the lack of explicit biblical teaching requiring government outside of God's covenant to establish religion. In biblical teaching, the state outside of God's covenant is nowhere called to establish religion. H. Henry Meeter speaks for many Reformed thinkers this century when he argues that the state can best aid the church by removing any impediments to the free development of the church, by not promoting a competitive religion, and by not propagating religion by force.[41] In other words, the best way for the state to encourage obedience to the first table of the law is by not trying to do so, but instead by simply insuring the church's rights to be about its mission.
Greg Bahnsen argues that modern Reformed scholars are inconsistent in arguing for accepting natural law as a basis for civil law while at the same time rejecting the first table of the law. After all, Bahnsen argues, nature reveals both tables.[42] Bahnsen's argument, however, is a confusion of categories. It is not argued that Government is not to enforce the second table because the second table is not revealed in nature. Rather, it is argued that enforcement of the second table is outside of God's design for government. Civil authorities are not to enforce all naturally revealed law; civil authorities are only to enforce those laws that regulate relations among men.[43] This is not to say that government only operates in "secular" matters, while the church operates in "spiritual" matters—as if "secular" matters were not under God. No. The state is to be concerned with relations among men before God, while the church is to be concerned with relations between man and God (also under God). Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that, in terms of the state's responsibilities to enforce the first table of the law, for better or for worse, the theonomist position[44] is closer to Calvin. Perhaps Meeter best presents the Reformed re-thinking of Calvin's doctrine here when he writes:
A state may never establish a state church of whatsoever form. Such an act would be to overstep its own proper boundary. The state is not the God-given institution for the propagation of religion. Its duty lies within its own domain of maintaining law and order in human society and of promoting the natural common good.... Even if an ideal condition in religion could be attained in any given country; namely, that all citizens would think alike in matters of religion and would maintain perfect religious standards--which is impossible in this imperfect world where we all know in part--even then it would not be the business of the state to establish a state church, since these two institutions have each received a distinct orbit from God in which they are to operate.[45]
Calvin's Assessment of Theonomy:
In a twenty page booklet, leading theonomist theologian Gary North asks the question Was Calvin a Theonomist? His answer, surprisingly, is a strong "yes."[46] Nevertheless, North fails to reference Calvin's discussion of either natural law or the Mosaic Law in the Institutes, instead drawing almost exclusively from a handful of sermons on Deuteronomy.[47] North's methodology seems flawed in that it implies a system from Calvin's exegesis which differs from the system Calvin himself developed. Perhaps theonomist Rousas Rushdoony more fully acknowledges Calvin's teaching when he labels it "heretical nonsense."[48] Rushdoony acknowledges that theonomy has indeed departed from Calvin's system of civil government and law.[49]
A theonomist approach to civil law has considerable appeal, its appeal lying in its simplicity. "There can be no separation of religion and the state. The question is simply, which religion will undergird law and society?"[50] Whose law will reign: God's, or man's? Such an appeal incorrectly forces one of two answers: Christianity/biblical law or anti-Christianity/ human law. Calvin would insist upon a third option: God's law inscribed upon the human heart. Whose laws must reign? God's laws—but not necessarily in the form he gave to Moses. Calvin vehemently opposes the insistence upon the use of Mosaic legislation in civil affairs.
It must be pointed out that Calvin does not consider this insistence upon "the continuing validity of the Mosaic judicial code in vast detail" to be a morally neutral matter. Calvin regards the theonomist approach to law as a fundamentally immoral position, for as with all error, such an approach to positive law has consequences. For Calvin, insistence on the establishment of the Mosaic code involves both sin against the public and sin against the civil authority:[51]
1. Sin against the public: Calvin writes, "How malicious and hateful toward public welfare would a man be who is offended by such diversity [among the laws of nations], which is perfectly adapted to maintain the observance of God's law?" By insistence upon Mosaic legislation, the state as God's minister is robbed of its ability to adapt to improving or deteriorating conditions, being prevented, for example, from punishing those crimes more seriously which have need of more serious punishment in a given culture. Government is then unable properly to insure obedience to God's law, so that the public welfare is endangered. Calvin considers this an act of hate toward the good of the public.
2. Sin against the civil authority: Again, Calvin writes, "I would have preferred to pass over this matter in utter silence if I were not aware that here many dangerously go astray. For there are some who deny that a commonwealth is duly framed which neglects that political system of Moses, and is ruled by the common laws of nations. Let other men consider how perilous and seditious this notion is; it will be enough for me to have proved it false and foolish." Besides being "dangerous," "perilous," "false" and "foolish," Calvin here labels the concept seditious. Insistence upon Mosaic legislation undermines the authority of the civil authorities, who are themselves ministers of God.
Natural Law, Theonomy & the Evangelical
Political Crisis:
A biblical natural law approach to political involvement provides hope for moving beyond the belligerence of the twentieth century culture war into a path of civil service in obedience to God's law. Today, Christian citizens often feel sidelined, with no common ground with the unbelieving mass of American culture. And particularly among theonomists, it is not unusual for an attitude of hostility toward the world, and of belligerence toward non-theonomists, to arise from an "all-or-nothing" mentality which is destined for disappointment this side of Christ's return. In preserving knowledge of the natural law, God has given to evangelicals a much neglected but always present basis for political argumentation. A return to such a natural basis for civic affairs can be profitable in several ways:
1. A natural law approach can help assure the Christian's perceived relevance in public discourse. North American society at the turn of the twenty-first century has witnessed a rebirth of interest in spirituality, but such spirituality has become increasingly viewed as being non-rational, as that which has little to do with common life. Further, religious values have become increasingly privatized, so that the label "religious" almost immediately renders a position non-normative and unfit as a basis for law to a majority of the American public.[52] To be religious is to be perceived as irrelevant. The Christian, who seeks to bring social structures more in line with God's law, is thus posed with a dilemma. All laws have a moral basis—whether good or bad. Neutrality in ethics cannot exist. Yet to argue for an initiative from Scripture among non-Christians is to insure that such an initiative will fail. Natural law provides the Christian with a testimony to truth outside of, yet in line with, Scripture—a point of contact to which no one is completely blinded. The fruit of neglecting God's provision of the natural law in public discourse is that the proclamation of God's word is rejected as being no different than other "religious" viewpoints by a culture. Such a natural law approach (when taken with care by Christians committed to the Scriptures as the sufficient God-given restatement and clarification of his moral law; see below) should help to move the Christian's involvement in public affairs outside the perceived realm of the religious and non-normative into the realm of the real (which, the Christian will understand, is religious after all). To appeal to natural law is to bypass the perceived irrelevancy of "religious" argumentation. To appeal to natural law is to gain a hearing Christians might otherwise not have.
2. A natural law approach preserves the proper place of Scripture in the Christian's life. A biblically-sanctioned natural law approach to the civic arena does not limit Scripture's place in the Christian life—the Christian is bound by the sufficient Scripture and finds his or her ethical guide in holy writ alone. But while the Christian himself looks to the will of God as revealed in Scripture, God has enabled the Christian to enter civic moral discourse with those who reject the Scriptures. Natural law does act as a vehicle for presenting the moral norm for government, but a vehicle the Christian will see clarified sufficiently by Scripture—a vehicle which even many hostile to God will recognize as valid, even as they reject the God who has spoken in both nature and Scripture. No matter how depraved a culture may become, natural law is always present and always presenting itself as the standard for all civic discourse. Such an extra-biblical appeal is not unspiritual, as Calvin rightly affirms, but is proper with earthly matters. Nor is such an approach autonomous; it is grounded in the one unitary law of God, the universal moral norm for all human activity. The Scripture is sufficient as the only authoritative clarification of God's law, but God's law itself is the authority in the civic realm, so that appeal may be made to the unregenerate without reference to Scripture. In insisting that Scripture, and specifically the Mosaic code, be the only foundation for civil government, the theonomist is crying sola scriptura in a context in which the sola would better be left off.
3. A natural law approach provides a ground for moral consensus in society apart from a Christian majority. A natural law approach can help provide a basis for moral consensus in a society in which Christians are a minority. To appeal to natural law is to appeal to that moral norm which is in accord with true humanness, which is engraved upon every American's mind, be it a humanist, existentialist or hedonistic mind. For in order to preserve society, God has preserved a rudimentary knowledge of his law upon the human heart, making those who lawlessly rebel against him inconsistent in their lawlessness so as to preserve the creation order. Thus even pagans know it is wrong to murder; the Christian is to capitalize on this knowledge, seeking to apply it more consistently (say, with abortion or euthanasia). Evangelicals are in a prime position to bring their biblically clarified understanding of right and wrong into the public square, appealing to that which all humane persons know in their hearts to be true. Conflict will of course arise from those who have for too long profited from moral anarchy, but the Christian's position will remain one of working for consensus rather than one of enmity toward the world. The natural law assures the possibility of large-scale moral consensus—at least in externals— even without a Christian majority. The majority may not want to reconstruct society on biblical principles, but it may be persuaded to reform society on moral principles. For the Christian, these two are not in opposition. Cooperation with non-Christians is thus a real possibility in earthly, creational matters—even as such cooperation is an impossibility in heavenly matters.
To recognize that common ground does exist between the regenerate and the unregenerate—if not at the level of core motivation, at least at the secondary level of concern for public justice, peace and stability—is to enter into an attitude of commitment to the world and to society. And for the citizen to seek after mere external consensus is not to neglect the church's redemptive mission. The church, in calling the unregenerate to the moral law, calls them to see their sin and to turn to Christ. But the state, in calling the unregenerate to the moral law, is merely calling for outward conformity in relation to one's human neighbors. Government is not to be concerned with motivation, only with external obedience in horizontal affairs, without concern for the internal enmity which may exist between the citizen and God. Consensus in this external and horizontal area is possible, and it is the Christian citizen's obligation to seek it. Without a degree of consensus, society cannot function and the public good is harmed.
To such a natural law approach, the theonomist may object, "Whose natural law? The unbeliever will probably not accept such a biblically-corrected version of natural law!" And it can only be conceded that such an objection will often be accurate.[53] Sin has affected man's ability and willingness to accept God's law in nature. But the assumption behind the theonomist's question here is that, since many of the unbelieving will not accept the natural law, it is futile to seek to persuade them. Again, this is the simplicity of the theonomist position. The Christian has all the answers, and the non-Christian rejects them. There is therefore a certain tidiness to the political scene, for without common ground there is no discourse, no discussion. The game is all-or-nothing, so nothing is taken. With proclamation alone, the theonomist position can quickly become one of hostile non-involvement in the political system, as such a system allows no cooperation toward common ends with the unbelieving majority.[54]
A natural law approach to political engagement is an approach that relies on those with a clarified grasp of the natural law to persuade others of the implications of that natural law. Both the theonomist approach and the natural law approach must persuade enemies of God to live in outward conformity to God's law. The debate is over which of these two systems best enables the Christian to successfully achieve that end. Through appeal to God's law inscribed upon the heart, evangelicals today can responsibly involve themselves in serving the common good by bringing God's universal moral norm to bear again upon public discourse. Positive law grounded in natural law, as Calvin understood, is God's vehicle for bringing government in Babylon again under Christ's lordship, that all the rulers of the earth might bow the knee and "kiss the King."
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bahnsen, Greg L. No Other Standard: Theonomy and its Critics. (Tyler, TX: Institute for Biblical Economics).
Barker, William S. "Theonomy, Pluralism, and the Bible," in William S. Barker & W. Robert Godfrey, eds. Theonomy: A Reformed Critique. (Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books, 1990) 227-244.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, John T. McNeill, ed. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960).
Carter, Stephen Les. The Culture of Disbelief. (New York: Doubleday, 1994).
Godfrey, W. Robert. "Calvin and Theonomy," in William S. Barker & W. Robert Godfrey, eds. Theonomy: A Reformed Critique. (Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books, 1990) 299-314.
Helm, Paul. "Calvin and Natural Law," The Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology vol 2, (1984) 5-22.
Holmes, Arthur. "Human Variables and Natural Law," in Lewis Smedes, ed. God and the Good. (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975) 63-79.
House, H. Wayne and Thomas Ice. Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1988).
Hunt, George L. "Our Calvinist Heritage in Church and State," in George L. Hunt, ed. Calvinism and the Political Order. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1965) 175-192.
Keddie, Gordon J. "Calvin on Civil Government," The Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology vol 3.1, (Spring 1995) 23-35.
Klempa, William. "John Calvin on Natural Law," in Timothy George, ed. John Calvin and the Church. (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990) 72-95.
Leithart, Peter J. "Stoic Elements in Calvin's Doctrine of the Christian Life," Westminster Theological Journal Vol 55, No 1 (Spring 1993) 31-54.
McNeill, John T. "John Calvin on Civil Government," in George L. Hunt, ed. Calvinism and the Political Order. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1965) 23-45.
Meeter, H. Henry. The Basic Ideas of Calvinism. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990).
Mueller, William A. Church and State in Luther and Calvin. (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1954).
North, Gary. Was Calvin a Theonomist? (Tyler, TX: Institute for Biblical Economics, 1990).
North, Gary. Westminster's Confession: The Abandonment of Van Til's Legacy. (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991).
Rushdoony, Rousas John. Christianity and the State. (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1986).
Smith, Gary Scott, ed. God and Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1989).
Verhey, Allen. "Natural Law in Aquinas and Calvin," in Lewis Smedes, ed. God and the Good. (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975) 80-92.