Nostr Web Client

What’s up bro. We could go on for a long time about this. I’ll pose a simple question and then we can go from there…

Is God’s law a good standard for civil justice, or should we prefer autonomous human reasoning? That’s the deeper issue beneath the theocracy question.

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 2mo ago

I'd say that's a false dichotomy, my friend.

Natural Law *is* God's law -- and that's the basis for a just civil society. This law, written on every heart (Romans 2), has been known as the _lex talionis_ (the law of retribution), "eye for an eye," the "light of nature," the "law of nature," etc. Even the pagans know this law ("things that ought not to be done." [Gen. 20:9]). If this is all one means by "theocracy," that we ought to have civil laws like "don't hurt people and don't take their stuff," then--while I'd quibble with the terminology--fine. But normally "theocracy" is used quite differently.

Scripture and its story of redemption is for the church. The theocracy of Moses is over, and its civil laws were never meant to be an example for setting up a civil society--its civil and ecclesiastical laws, as the divines put it, "expired together with that state."

In other words...I'll see a "Bahnsen," and raise a "Vos."

🤙

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Contra 2mo ago

I appreciate the nuance here, brother. You’re right that natural law reflects God’s moral order written on the heart. But here’s where I’d press back gently…

While Romans 2 affirms general moral knowledge, Romans 1:18 also tells us fallen humans “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” Natural law gives us some moral intuition, but we consistently distort it. When cultural consensus breaks down on abortion, marriage, property rights, justice for the poor, how does natural law alone adjudicate these disputes? We inevitably need special revelation to clarify what natural law actually requires.

I agree the Mosaic theocracy as a nation-state is over. But even Westminster Confession 19.4 says those civil laws contained “general equity” that “may require” application today. The question isn’t whether to reinstitute every ceremonial detail, but whether God’s revealed standards of justice remain instructive. Did the moral content of justice change, or just its administration? Does “do not murder” or “do not steal” mean something fundamentally different now?

You mention “don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff,” but that’s precisely where it gets complicated. Whose definition of hurt? Of property? Of justice? In our pluralistic society, natural law reasoning constantly conflicts. When it does, where do we turn?

If we say “autonomous human consensus,” we’ve still chosen a theological standard, just secular humanism’s rather than Scripture’s. There’s no neutral ground.

So here’s my question….When natural law reasoning produces contradictory conclusions (as it demonstrably does), what authority clarifies and corrects our understanding, or are we left to mere power politics?