Aquinas, Natural Law, and Theonomy
When talking with my good friend Gavin Deacon, one of the subjects that frequently comes up is that of Theonomy and Christian Reconstruction. While I'm not going to attempt to undertake any sort of detailed discussion of these topics in this post, I simply want to note one concerns that Gavin mentioned recently about Theonomy in general (which I've no doubt will be the topic of a post for him in the near future). Gavin mentioned that he was disconcerted by the way in which the principles of Theonomy seem to want to replace an internal knowledge of right and wrong, as witnessed to us by the Holy Spirit, with the specific dictates that regulated conduct under the Old Covenant. In doing some reading in preparation for a paper on Thomas Aquinas and his views on natural law, I have come across some specific passages from Aquinas that speak directly to this issue. Gavin, I just thought I'd let you know that Aquinas agrees with you wholeheartedly! On the use of the law under the Old and New Covenants, Aquinas has this to say:"Now things may be distinguished in two ways. First, as those things that are altogether specifically different, e.g. a horse and an ox. Secondly, as perfect and imperfect in the same species, e.g. a boy and a man: and in this way the Divine law is divided into Old and New. Hence the Apostle (Ga. 3:24, 25) compares the state of man under the Old Law to that of a child "under a pedagogue"; but the state under the New Law, to that of a full grown man, who is "no longer under a pedagogue."
For Aquinas, the divine law, the law of God, is eternal and always remains the same. However, there are distinctions to be made in how the law is applied. We can see this distinction made in the law of the Old Testament and the New Law that came with the advent of Christ. The main distinction between the two is that the Old Law restrains our outward actions, while the New Law directs us internally:
"It belongs to the law to direct human acts according to the order of righteousness (Article [4]): wherein also the New Law surpasses the Old Law, since it directs our internal acts, according to Mt. 5:20: 'Unless your justice abound more than that or the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Hence the saying that 'the Old Law restrains the hand, but the New Law controls the mind.'"
For Aquinas, because this is the case, the dictates of the Divine Law can be worked out and known by human reason, on the basis of principles that are evident in nature. This means that we have a legitimate basis upon which to form laws which govern our society, apart from the reappropriation of Old Testament formulations of the law.
I'll probably have some more to say on Aquinas and natural law theory in the near future. At the least, I intend to post the paper (or perhaps selections from the paper) towards the end of the semester.
posted by Andrew Stout | 2:20 AM
7 Comments:
Andrew, great post. I check out your blog all the time and I am very impressed by your love of learning and the extent of your knowledge and vocabulary. Well done!
My thoughts on this would be to ask don't we need both external and internal law for the extension of God's Kingdom? If I fail to murder because the law restrains, the Kingdom is expressed. If I refuse to lie or cheat because Christ's words are alive in my heart, the Kingdom is also expressed. I agree that it would be tremendous that all lived out Christ's directives throughout all of life. However, the case is normally that even Christians are BECOMING more like Christ through Sanctification and sometimes the external written law can still guide, direct, teach, and rebuke for the Glory of God.
I would see the two working together, not pulling apart. Using the "boy and man" analogy, wouldn't the boy always yearn for being a man, like we desire the internalizing of God's word in the lives of every person. And doesn't the man remember back to what he learned as a boy, as we see the internalized "rules" written on our heart have to be established somewhere - i.e. the Ten Commandments, the written law, God's Word.
God has given some over to sin, so we still need the law's direction and guidance for the law breaker. Without that input, sin will not be restrained so that God can be glorified in all of Creation.
Those are my humble thoughts for your consumption.
Paul, thanks so much for reading! I enjoy reading your input on Gavin's blog as well. We are all really proud of the work that you are doing, and be assured that we are all praying for your safety and success.
As I understand it, the issue for Aquinas is not at all a question of whether we should have external laws or internal laws only. Of course, we must have laws that govern society, restraining evil and rewarding good. The question is where these laws are to come from. Must our laws (as was obviously the case for the people of Israel when they were given the laws of Moses) be derived explicitly from Scripture, given as divine revelation? Or, should these laws come from the testimony of the eternal moral law of God as it is expressed in each human heart and worked out by human reason in their specific application? In other words, is it only Christians who's actions can legitimately be considered moral and good in the eyes of the state, or can we also recognize obedience to the law by unbelievers to be good as well? Must we have a specific divine revelation of the law as given in Scripture to do acts that are just, or can acting according to the law of God that is written on the heart and available to all, believers and unbelievers alike, also be considered just?
This is the issue for Aquinas as I understand it. No doubt, for him, the correct option would be the later. A society can and should be ruled by external laws that are an outworking of the internal testimony of the law that is given by God to all human beings.
In society ruled by Christian legislators, I might accept that the “internal testimony” of God’s law would be sufficient to govern that society. But when you broaden rulers to include the unregenerate, I’m immediately reminded of how the Bible describes the unregenerate. God flooded the earth because he saw that “every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen 6:5). Paul writes that “there is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God, all have turned aside…” (Rom. 3:10-11). TULIP: Total deprived. How do you reconcile unregenerate man’s inability do right (defined by God), and at the same time, write laws that maintain order?
Since civil government is concerned with maintaining order, not granting salvation, one might argue that an unregenerate lawgiver could achieve such a feat. That is, the unregenerate could maintain societal order. However, the definition of order is defined by God alone (Ps. 2:10-12; Ps. 24:1-2). Here is current day example: many Americans cannot understand why Christians are against homosexual activity since it’s really just about people loving one another. How can love create disorder? It is the Bible that sets forth the notion that immoral sexual activities are socially destructive; therefore, there is a need for a civil law against sodomy.
Can you help me understand why unregenerate men would come to conclusions similar to those set forth in the Bible when they are blinded and walking aimlessly (1 Jn. 2:11)? Or are you arguing that the Bible isn’t the measuring stick? Honestly, I don’t know what right or wrong unless I look to the Bible.
I would argue that natural law needs a biblical framework of God’s sovereignty and ethical standards. Can you identify what criteria one would use to discern whether natural law would maintain order? How does natural law determine who the evil doer is?
I look forward to hearing your thoughts. I may sound committed to a certain perspective, but that is because I have reservations about how and who defines natural law.
Ruth,
I will simply say that you should be careful about the scriptures that you throw out. The passages that you are quoting are in regard to man's inability to have a saving knowledge of Christ and his inability to do works that are righteous, or worthy of merit in the eyes of God. They are not speaking of man's inability to do anything just according to the standards of the laws of a society.
Similarly, it seems that your understanding of Total Depravity is a bit skewed. This doctrine does not say that we are as depraved as we could possibly be, and cannot therefore do anything good in relation to one another. Rather, it says that all of our good works are in fact tainted by sin and are not sufficient to make us acceptable before God.
My point is that there is no neutrality; one is either for God or against God (Mt. 12:30).
Specifically when discussing the law, we are considering ethics. Who defines right and wrong? Who decides that murder is wrong? By whose authority is murder wrong? If we are merely evolved animals, the death of one for the many might seem justifiable by the majority. Current example, proponents of human cloning justify killing cloned embryos, as it may lead to the discovery of lifesaving cures for the “living.” Are we consequentialists, do the end justifies the means? Are we utilitarians, does the greatest good for the greatest number make an act justifiable? (I am by no means implying that you hold to either philosophy, but I am merely describing how rebellious man creates a framework to give legitimacy to a body of laws.) How does the Christian decide if a law is legitimate?
Political philosophers spend their days pondering the above questions. What are the “standards of the laws of society”?
In my previous post, I intended to give support that humans, without a new nature, are not legitimate lawgivers or judges because they do not have the same concept of justice or righteousness as the Christian. (They have a skewed "internal testimony.") If my legislator hates God, she also hates God’s sense of justice. Logically, she will not write laws that contradict her sense of justice—at least if she is epistemologically consistent. Moreover, her laws are not going to please God, but bring His wrath upon that nation.
I’ll concede that I have haven’t read much of Calvin, and my understanding of the “T” in TULIP is almost certainly deficient. Thanks for keeping me honest. :)
By supporting that rebellious man’s reasoning ability is faulty, I attempted to point out why a Christian would not want to live according to a rebellious man’s definition of right and wrong.
Just a few comments:
Aquinas is a highly regarded scholar in the faith, one of R.C. Sproule's favorites?
Having said that, however, his view of ethics and law was a combination of Greco-Roman philosophy in a rational attempt to blend man's reason with a few Biblical principles.
This, simply, is a form of ethical syncretism; and it has infected post-modern legal theory (mainly via Jesuit influence), even to the Supreme Court of the U.S. (five Romish associates, Roman Catholic canon law, evangelical antinomianism, and elsewhere -- wherever so-called "natural law"
is considered preferable to Biblical law.
See the tree story in Genesis 3.
Centurion,
Of course, Aquinas' natural law theory was a reappropriation of Aristotelian thought. The question would be, can this sort of philosophy come to the knowledge of truth? I would say yes, Scripture even tells us that not only can we come to know the truth that there is a God, but that we can have certain knowledge about his creation and the way it operates. Of course, we cannot, according to natural reason, gain an understanding of God as revealed in Christ, which is the only knowledge that ultimately saves.
To my best understanding of Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, they are nothing but expositions of general revelation as revealed in Scripture. The truth in Scripture is the only thing that we have to look to for knowledge of what God requires of us for right standing before him, how we have failed to meet those standards, and the solutions provided in Christ. However, Scripture also points us to the truth to be found in the rest of creation. This is truth that is accessible to all human beings, regenerate and unregenerate alike.
Anyway, there are a few thoughts on the subject. Thanks for your comments!
Post a Comment
<< Home