Among many other important points, Stephen J. Grabill, in his well-needed book, Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics, makes clear Calvin’s support of the existence and knowability of natural law. One such text is from the Reformer’s commentary on that great Psalm ode to the law, Psalm 119:
[Psalm 119:]52.I called to mind thy judgments of old, O Jehovah! In this psalm, the judgments of God are generally taken for his statutes and decrees, that is, his righteousness. … In this place, in consequence of the qualifying phrase, of old, it is more probable that they refer to the examples by which God has made himself known as the righteous Judge of the world. Why does he say that the law of God has been from everlasting? This may to some extent be accounted for from the righteousness here mentioned not being of recent growth, but truly everlasting, because the written law is just an attestation of the law of nature, through means of which God recalls to our memory that which he has previously engraved on our hearts. [Grabill, 73]
The last phrase, of course, alludes to Romans 2:15 as it has been commonly interpreted, as a reference to the knowledge of right and wrong that God has provided to all people.
This element of Calvin’s teaching is very relevant for the current church, at least in my opinion. It shows that one of the biggest sources of the Reformed tradition was in continuity with the natural law tradition, and that Karl Barth and the Barthians have radically departed from the Reformed tradition on this matter. It also, hopefully, will make it easier for many who have great love for the Reformer to begin to appreciate the expansive and foundational natural law tradition, with its careful analysis of the human person and all the variegated moral situations he can find himself in. Perhaps, through that, the Reformed church might once again be able to reclaim their part in that ongoing project, a project which has untold riches of wisdom on many important contemporary issues, if only we would look.
I think you’re touching here on the void that I seem to find at the core of natural law – that everyone who advocates for it in the Christian tradition talks about what was “engraved” in men’s hearts, but no one seems to actually be able to nail that down with any certainty beyond the idea that most people experience at least parts of life in the categories of “right” and “wrong” or “just” and “unjust.” I don’t know how helpful it is to understand that there is something written in people’s hearts but that it’s vague and corruptible.
Well, a couple thoughts:
(1) There is actually a quite detailed ethical system built up on the principles of natural law. Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae contains a seminal example of that.
(2) At the same time, it was generally recognized, I believe, that as with all sciences, the further one gets from first principles, the more unclear things get. And further, at least the Reformed part of that tradition recognized the noetic effects of sin, the power of people to suppress moral knowledge and engage in self-deception.
Thomas Aquinas makes a distinction between two parts of our knowledge of natural law. The first part is known by all and cannot be removed by anyone – including the person who knows it. This knowledge is the first principles of natural law itself. The second part is what can be demonstrated from the first principles when conjoined with our knowledge and experience of the world.
Aquinas recognizes that the second part of our knowledge can be lost by sin or restored by grace. Here is an example of this: murder is the killing of an innocent person. This is a first principle of moral knowledge. That abortion is murder requires showing that the child before birth is innocent and a person and that abortion is a deliberate act of killing. Yet these are precisely the issues in the abortion debate.
That sin has distorted the issue is obvious. Children are persons because all humans are persons. Abortion is clearly a deliberate act of killing because they are separate living beings. Finally, the children are innocent because the act of killing is never done to punish an act of that infant that deserves death. Therefore, abortion is murder. But the sophistry present in the debate makes it obvious that some people are doing their best to avoid the truth of the matter.
Dan,
I think one of the ways in which natural law can be helpful, even if it only understood and/or acknowledged to a limited degree, is that it is common ground that all people have. This is useful for political purposes: it means that we can, at least in theory, construct a common order on the basis of reason. The alternative seems to be to admit we have no rational common ground, which then damns the political process to just being an covert or overt contest of various wills-to-power.
Of course, that’s the question of the utility of natural law. There’s also the independent question of truth, whether people find it useful or not.
Your point (2) is where the whole construct falls apart really badly for me at least. Even if we take some very widely accepted principles, we can’t seem to agree on any coherent rules about when and how to apply these principles. E.g.: “Do not steal.” Okay. For this we need an idea of property, what is property? In some times and places people are property. In others ideas are property. In others land is not considered property. Even if we can arrive at some notion that you shouldn’t take something that isn’t yours, it’s not at all clear what even belongs in the category of things that can be owned by people and what are the exceptions to these rules about property (e.g: seizure by police of drunk driver’s car). Natural law doesn’t seem to be a very good tool since any construct built off of it would have to reflect the biases (even if they are unintentional cultural artifacts) of the author all while coding them with the neutral and authoritative word “natural.”
Well, natural law reasoning is not said to be equally clear to everyone at all times, so you’re right, there would need to be actual argument and debate about some things. But the fact that there would need to be debate does not, in itself, at least in my view, imply that no consensus could be achieved on the conclusion. Like most important things in life, the truth requires comparing the quality of arguments on different sides of a controversy, and following the better side.