|
| natural law | |
Is the theory of natural law and a state of nature
unbiblica... |
Donny | 01/08/03 | ||
 
re:natural law |
J. Neutron | 01/08/03 | ||
|
Autonomous Natural Law |
Colin | 01/09/03 | ||
|
I look forward to reading those. However, John Locke outl... |
Donny | 01/09/03 | ||
|
Locke |
Colin | 01/09/03 | ||
|
contradictions |
rerformed | 01/09/03 | ||
|
The contradictions are in your limited brain |
A Freedom JetFighter | 01/09/03 | ||
|
"reformed" contradictions |
Colin | 01/09/03 | ||
Post new message in this thread
Date: January 08, 2003 07:07 PM
Author: Donny (donnyl@texas.net)
Is the theory of natural law and a state of nature unbiblical? I previously thought that it was, but John Locke, in Second Treatise of Government seems to develop a very biblical basis for revolution.
Again, because of the project im doing, i need a biblical critique of "natural rights" and things related to it. Thanks for any help.
(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=59259)
Date: January 08, 2003 10:46 PM
Author: J. Neutron (jneutron_2003@lycos.com)
Subject: re:natural law
Since God created nature and all the laws of nature, one would think that natural law (if it is law) is but a subset of the "entirety" of God's law and that God probably put natural law there to help provide order to his creation (or for other uses he may have had in mind).
(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=59263)
Date: January 09, 2003 12:50 AM
Author: Colin (cbx292000@yahoo.com)
Subject: Autonomous Natural Law
Is the theory of natural law and a state of nature unbiblical?
All theories of autonomous natural law are definitely unbiblical as Van Til and Rushdoony have argued for many decades. The "state of nature" is fallen nature due to Adam's sin which has affected the heart (Jer 17:9), Will (Rom 3:11) and Mind (Rom 8:7) the latter is otherwise known as the Noetic effects of sin. But the Bible does teach Divine natural law in Romans 1 and 2. But it only serves to leave fallen man without excuse.
BTW Calvin's view of natural law is not the same as how Locke or other pagans view it. (Institutes II.ii.22). Calvin's views should be compared with Van Til's.
Here is Rushdoony's comment on Natural Law:
"As Christians we cannot believe in natural law, because we believe that nature is fallen. We have to see supernatural law as normative; nature is non-normative. Incidentally, the medieval usage of the term "natural law" really means the "law over nature", because it is defined by the medieval scholars as the word of God - because they identify it with God's law." --from Interview with R.J. Rushdoony Contra Mundum magazine Fall/1994
See the following:
"Natural Law: A Reformed Critique" http://capo.org/premise/96/feb/p960204.html
"The Founding Fathers' View of Natural Law" http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/99/foundrview.html
"Natural Law: A Summary and Critique" http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/99/natlawcrit.html
"The Historical Course of Natural Law Theory" http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/99/hstrynatlaw.html
"Natural Law and God's Law: An Antithesis" http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/99/natlawgodslaw.html
"The Evolution of Natural Law" http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/99/evolnatlaw.html
For a critique of "human rights", see "What's Wrong With Human Rights?" by T. Robert Ingram
http://www.u-turn.net/3-4/humwri.html
Full text is found here on page 133: http://www.freebooks.com/docs/html/cc_2/cc_2.html
In the same link see, "Natural Law and Christian Resistance To Tyranny" by Archie Jones on page 94.
See also this for an alternative format:
http://www.freebooks.com/docs/21d2_47e.htm
Colin
(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=59268)
Date: January 09, 2003 01:12 AM
Author: Donny (donnyl@texas.net)
I look forward to reading those.
However, John Locke outlines his view of revolution rather logically. Magistrates are initially given authority by the people. When this power is given, it cannot be retrieved by the people, unless the magistrate violates terms or limits the people gave at the beginning. For example, if the president demanded that we call him "cheese puff" or he would shoot us (with troops), we wouldnt have to because he has no authority to do so. Likewise, if the government demanded that we send our kids to public school, we wouldnt have to because they were never given the authority to do that. If they, by force, attempt to assert this authority, we can, by force, defend ourselves against an unlawful "rebel".
(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=59272)
Date: January 09, 2003 02:57 AM
Author: Colin
Subject: Locke
Have you read Gary North's discussion of Locke in his Political Polytheism on pages 398-401? here is a brief excerpt:
"At the end of his Second Treatise, he invoked the name of God. He did so when he raised the question of sanctions. We can see here his attempted fu- sion between Christianity and natural law theory. It was an attemp- ted fusion that has dominated Christian political theory down to our own era. He raised the question of the right of political rebellion, the dissolution of the compact."
"...there was some degree of transcendence in Locke's system. But he invoked the name of an undefined God rather than an earthly hierarchy in formal covenant with a specific God. He placed man as a sovereign agent acting directly under God. There is no hierarchical chain of command, no hierarchy of temporal appeal, no doctrine of defined representation, in Locke's concept -- a limiting concept or convenient theoretical backdrop -- of a theocratic covenant. How is God to enforce His transcendent covenant in the midst of history? Directly or mediatorially through specific judicial institutions? That was the question Locke needed to answer. He did not even attempt to do so." p. 401.
Another book you should check out is: Savior or Servant? Putting Government in Its Place By David Hall
http://capo.org/kuyper/theo-state/00toc.html
Basically, Locke had borrowed alot from older Calvinist writers like Samuel Rutherford: (Lex Rex), Junius Brutus: (Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos: Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants), and probably from John Calvin and John Knox too. Locke was also good in defense of private property rights, but was too rationalist in the way he defended them.
See also, "Distrusting John Locke" http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q11D11403
Colin
(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=59273)
Date: January 09, 2003 09:23 AM
Author: rerformed
Subject: contradictions
Dear Colin, In the second paragraph you state "but the bible does teach natural law..." Below that you quote Rushdoony saying that we cannot follow natural law; well, which is it? Talk about intelledtual schizophrenia! I am sure you can come up with a convuluted explanation but it is typical of the ad hoc reasoning in these threads/ the arguments about the holocaust with some participants arguing that maybe Hitler did not really kill as many people as we think are particularly amusing.
(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=59276)
Date: January 09, 2003 10:35 AM
Author: A Freedom
JetFighter (bojidar@mail.vega.bg)
Subject: The contradictions are in your limited brain
There is a difference in the way you look at the word "natural." For Calvin "nature" was world, created by God. In this definition, "natural law" is the Law of God.
For the anti-Christian philosophy "nature" is a self-existing, autonomous non-created world. According to this definition, "natural law" is an autonomous law, a dualism of impersonal chance and necessity.
This only shows that you are anything but "reformed." Every Reformed Christian knows this difference between both definitions. You are not reformed at all. You are a liar.
A Freedom JetFighter
(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=59277)
Date: January 09, 2003 03:13 PM
Author: Colin (cbx292000@yahoo.com)
Subject: "reformed" contradictions
Dear Colin, In the second paragraph you state "but the bible does teach natural law..."
No, I said that the Bible teaches "Divine natural law". And I specifically distinguished it from autonomous natural law. And Rushdoony is talking about the latter type and not the former. Anybody who has ever read Rushdoony would know what type of "natural law" he was arguing against.
You should pay more attention to Rushdoony on this point because any concession to autonomous natural law theories would ultimately justify Hitler's holocaust. Why? because as a national leader, he had acted beyond the restraints imposed by Biblical law on civil governments. Hitler and his Nazi socialism was committed to autonomous natural law which had allowed him to be as tyrannical as he wanted to be since there are no restraints to civil tyranny in autonomous natural law.
Rushdoony's theonomy is the only answer to the Nazi led holocaust against the Jews because Biblical law severely limits the power of all civil governments and opposes any racial segregation and treatment of the kind that the Nazis had practiced.
BTW what is your own answer to prevent another Jewish holocaust? What is your "reformed" solution to Hitler's Final Solution?
Colin
(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=59284)