However, Van Til rightly says that “the ‘common notions’ of men are sinful notions.”125 Take, for example, the principle “You shall not murder.” What unbelievers and believers understand by this principle differs greatly. Unbelievers assume an impersonal principle that binds all without needing proof; believers, on the other hand, assume an expression of a personal God who alone makes the principle binding. They agree on the principle only formally. Our witness to the God of Scripture “is not presented, however, if we grant that God the Holy Spirit in a general testimony to all men approves of interpretations of this world or of aspects of this world which ignore Him and set Him at naught.”126 Unbelievers, consequently, interpret the principle unrighteously, and VanDrunen does as well when he has common agreement with them on these notions.
VanDrunen, though, seems unbothered by this conclusion. He feels justified in ignoring God’s authority in such situations:
And what if . . . my neighbor is not a Christian and does not accept Scripture as a moral authority? . . . I would first of all wish my neighbor to put faith in Christ and believe the Scriptures. But even if she does not, I still would rather she be pro-life in her voting and personal behavior . . . for the sake of a relative social peace and justice.127
The unbeliever’s internal allegiance, he thinks, is secondary to social peace and justice. VanDrunen makes similar statements in another article:
If we do attempt to make such [common notion] arguments in a careful and civil way, by God’s grace we may make some progress toward moving society in a more just direction.
And:
As Christians go into the public square and take up their responsibility of interacting with unbelievers for the sake of civil peace and cultural progress, natural law provides an important and helpful resource.128
However, we cannot make use of sinful arguments to obtain righteous goals, as Paul forbids us to do evil that good may come (Rom 3:8). God’s work must be done by God’s ways.129
We find, then, an inconsistency concerning the authority of Natural Law. Sometimes God’s authority backs the theory, sometimes his authority is implicitly denied. The cause of this inconsistency is not difficult to discern. Appealing to God’s authority has its advantages: it avoids the naturalistic fallacy, a fallacy so common and fearlessly wielded by secular Natural Law ethicists; it avoids idolatry, that is, advocating an authority independent from God’s authority; and it creates a sympathetic hearing from theists who are predisposed to God’s authority. However, it does have a major disadvantage: it loses its common appeal—which is what attracts some theologians to Natural Law—since unbelievers do not accept God’s authority.130 Conversely, making Natural Law rest on an authority independent from God’s authority has an advantage as well: it creates a sympathetic hearing from unbelievers. Although the disadvantages are great: without God’s authority, it commits the naturalistic fallacy; it makes Natural Law idolatrous; and it loses (or at least should lose) its Christian support.
As a result, natural theologians run from pillar to post trying to vindicate Natural Law: We need an agreed-upon standard to rule society, they say. But what gives this standard binding authority? God, they say. Can we then appeal to his Word since we appeal to his authority? No, because we need an agreed-upon standard. What gives the standard authority? God. Can we use his Word since we use his authority? No, we need agreed-upon standards. And on and on it goes.131
Frame appropriately laments, “Too often, in ethical debate, Christians sound too much like unbelievers. . . . I believe they almost inevitably give this false impression when they are reasoning according to natural law alone.”132 Unbelievers’ interpretations of nature are the last thing with which we ought to seek common agreement, for “the world by its wisdom knows not God and not knowing God it knows not the world.”133 As Christ forcefully declares that whatever is not built on his words will crumble (Matt 7:24–27), Natural Law is no exception. We have seen it commit three major flaws: (a) Confining biblical instruction to believers, it contradicts the Bible’s own claims of itself as universally binding (Rom 3:19); (b) separating nature from Scripture’s gospel and Scripture’s interpretations of nature, it leads to a corrupt moral philosophy; and worst of all, (c) equivocating on its authority, it sometimes bases itself on something other than God’s authority, making an idol out of nature—worshiping the creation rather than the Creator (Rom 1:25). Furthermore, we should not advocate a philosophy that keeps God’s Word from people—knowing that when God withholds his Word, leaving people to natural revelation alone, he intends to leave them in their sins (Acts 14:16; 17:30). We should rather advocate a philosophy that conveys the words bringing happiness to a community (Prov 29:18). Christians should always, like brave young David, encounter the world “in the name of the Lord of hosts” (1 Sam 17:45). We must not hesitate between two philosophies, but must follow the exhortation of Elijah: “if the Lord is God, follow Him” (1 Kgs 18:21). Dear Christian, always avoid doctrines that encourage you to leave your Bible aside; but rather, in every matter “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly” (Col 3:16).
Benefits of This Book
So to a civilization content, even eager, to live by bread alone, the voice of God must be proclaimed, indeed, his every proceeding word. Christians must resist tendencies to truncate or supplant heavenly instruction; as Calvin warns, “God declares that all are apostates who do not confine themselves to the simplicity of the Law.”134
Weak ethical teaching not only betrays our Lord but also handicaps our behavior. On the one hand, the authoritative generalities of Antinomianism tend to immobilize us. Not that there is anything wrong with divine general directions; whatever the Lord speaks to us ought to inspire our highest honors. Such was the human situation before Mosaic revelation. “When God reveals his will at a general level, we should try to implement the specifics by our sanctified human wisdom.”135 However, the more human reasoning involved the more susceptibility to error. What a blessing it is, therefore, when God himself reasons out from the generalities. “When he reveals his will more specifically, we should be grateful for that additional guidance.”136 It has been the practice of modern American Christendom, though, in cutting off Mosaic details, to offer the world only generalities. As a result, few today look to Christians for answers to economic, parental, educational, social, or political problems. Since ambiguities and generalities offer little solace to those in ethical entanglements, Christianity is too often tossed into the trash heap of irrelevancy.
When the thought arises, for example, of a burglar breaking into your home, you want more instructions than “protect your family.” Does this protection involve lethal force? What if it is clear that the burglar only wants your jewelry and intends no bodily harm? One of the bullet-point entries in this book summarizing Calvin’s comments on Exodus 22:1–4 is particularly helpful:
The exception concerning the thief in the night (vv. 2–3a) is parenthetical to the overall passage. A man who kills a thief in the night is free from punishment because he could not see the behavior of the thief and because it is likely that a thief in the night will resort to violence since in the night he may only enter a house by violent damage. But if the thief is discovered in the day, when sunlight exposes the criminal, the killing is accounted murder and penalized by execution, for killing is too severe for theft.
What should a father do whose daughter has been seduced by a man? The advice “flee sexual immorality” is much too general (and too late!). Inquiring fathers may refer to Calvin’s comments on Exodus 22:16–17, summarized in this book as follows:
Here God shows his care for young females, who, being deceived by a man, loses her virginity, with the seducer refusing to covenant with her.
To prevent her despairing abandonment to prostitution (since she has lost her virginity), God requires the man to marry her. The man must also give
