Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance. The reducing the mother to servitude was a violation of the law of nature: surely then the same law cannot prescribe a continuance of the violation to her issue, and that too without end, for if it extends to any, it must to every degree of descendants.

Now this sounds nice; I’d like to believe it’s true. It doesn’t seem to have ANYthing to do with the Bible. And it was said by a man who thought only parts of the Bible were true and edited out those parts with a razor.

Natural law = what man discovers from nature looking to reason, period. Some Christians were indeed orthodox and kept their “discoveries” compatible with the Bible. Others, like Jefferson used looking to nature via reason to trump the Bible’s text and discard what the Bible said.

Report comment to moderator

Your view that the natural law as even put forth by Aquinas, is not dominant among evangelicals; most evangelicals I know would also say Aquinas existed in the dark ages and the Roman Church was corrupted by that time.

Here is Francis Schaeffer on why he rejects the natural law:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLDgrBGwMX8

Re the FFs, the key Founders did not live up to Aquinas’ demands that the natural law stay subservient to scripture. They — at least many of them (the ones who wrote the DOI) flipped it on its head and held revelation was subservient to reason. Revelations’ role was to supplement the findings of man’s reason.

Report comment to moderator

Regarding Jon Rowe’s second point (see #95): However, I haven’t seen it said — I’m interested in this — that the reformers feel in communion with the Roman Church up until that point in time in which Aquinas belonged.”

Everyone in western civilization was a member of the church until late in the Reformation. When Luther posted his theses on the church door, he had no intention of leaving the church nor did any of the other reformers. They were either excommunicated or chose to leave with those who were. The catholic (universal) church saw serious corruption only in the several years before Luther posted his theses. Aquinas lived more than 300 years before the Reformation.

Report comment to moderator

Yes, I know that “modern scholarship” claims that Aquinas borrowed from Aristotle and Aquinas did integrate some of Aristotle into his natural theology, but he also referenced Islamic philosophers and especially Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Chapters 1 and 2. The relevant quotes are Romans 1:18-20–”The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” And Romans 2:14-15–”(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)”

The distinction between Philosophical and Christian Natural Law is the source of Natural Law. To Aquinas and all Christians, the Natural Law is a subset of the Eternal Law which is established by God alone. Through reason (natural revelation) portions of the “Eternal Law” can be apprehended as Paul stated; however, complete knowledge is gained only through “divine revelation”–the Word of God. Thus, for the Christian, the Natural Law is fully understood only in light of scripture.

Those are interesting points. Two responses. One, there is an argument that the natural law is what the natural law is. Aristotle, Aquinas, whatever, we are dealing with the same natural law (what is discovered from “reason” looking to “nature”). The concept was first formulated by Aristotle, and adopted in Christendom by Aquinas.

Two, I’ve always wondered when the Protestant reformers disagreed with the Roman Church. I know that the most reformers would concede that they feel communion with the very early Church — for instance, the one that formulated the Nicene Creed. However, I haven’t seen it said — I’m interested in this — that the reformers feel in communion with the Roman Church up until that point in time in which Aquinas belonged.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

However, I also have to comment on Jon Rowe’s statements in this thread and others about “Natural Law.” In #xx, Jon states, “It’s ironic in that the RCs [Roman Catholics] pretty much invented the Providential natural law doctrine (at least they incorporated Aristotle into Christendom) which was key to American Founding thought.”

I’m sorry, Jon, but you continue to oversimplify or conflate very distinct concepts. Philosophical Natural Law is not the same as Christian Natural Law. I refer you to the following cogent articles:
1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/#NatLawDivPro

2. Journal of Libertarian Studies:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_3/15_3_1.pdf

While I do not agree with many of the assumptions made in reference 2, it does make absolutely clear the distinction between Christian and Philosophical Natural Law that you have, so far, failed to make or appreciate.

It might help you to also read the article on Natural Rights (see wikipedia entry) which are also called “inalienable rights”–does that ring a bell?

Report comment to moderator

I agree with most everything you said in your post Chas, but there is one additional thought I would add about God and spiritual or personal liberty. When considering the Old and New Testaments and the view of “Liberty” or “freedom” expressed therein, one must always keep in mind God’s view of oppression and exploitation. If you do a word search on “oppression,” there are 131 references (using NKJ and oppress as the root word) which all refer to the negative consequences that God will inflict on those who oppress. If you do a word search on “exploit,” you get 5 more of the same types of reference for a total of 136 references to God’s hatred of oppression and exploitation of others. God’s anger towards those who deprive the poor of liberty is even stronger. When there is oppression and exploitation, especially of the poor, the widow, the orphan, the alien, and the slave; God raises up entire nations to right the wrongs. The American Revolution and its support by Christians must be seen in this light.

Report comment to moderator

Some believe there may be a double meaning.

Report comment to moderator