But is Romans 2:14 ("They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts") tied to what Paul is saying in Romans 1:20 or is it tied to what Paul is going to say in Romans chapters 3 and 4 that the Gentiles are justified and have received the Holy Spirit without circumcision? When I was a student at WTS CA John Frame said he did not think Romans 2:14 supported natural law theory and I have come to agree with him. I think that it is actually a reference to Jeremiah 21:33 "“I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts." In fact, Paul says in Romans 7:7 "For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” I would think a Natural Law theorist would assert, "Yes you would Paul, you would know it from Natural law." I realize this venue is not conducive to lengthy discussions, just a few thoughts on the matter.
You would realize there are two theories. One is that people make laws. The other is that there is a fixed divine law. If people make laws you would expect a little bit of overlap. If people live in society then there has to be some control of violence and some way of creating institutions such as property. While there will be a tendency for laws to overlap a bit if there is a natural law you would expect laws to be consistent over time and also consistent from place to place. So that means that we can try to see whether your theory is falsifiable. If we look at the history of morality in western society we find that things change. Slavery is seen as defensible by people such as Aquinas and Augustine. The Church attempts to reform the institution. You cannot make slaves out of Christians. Only the state can execute slaves and there are laws to protect them. The Pope also moved to protect non Christian natives under Spanish control from being made slaves. However it is not until the congress of Vienna that the Pope comes out against the slave trade. The Anglican Church in fact owns a slave plantation and votes against the abolition in the British House of Lords. From memory my reading of the Catholic Encyclopedia said that the church initially believed not that slavery was a great institution but that slaves could be protected by owners following Christian duty combined with legal protections. Over time the Church simply became aware that the institution was wrong. That is that it learnt from experience and observation. This is in stark contrast to the idea of a law coming simply through reason. One can follow a similar pattern with the use of torture and cruel punishments. The Church did not see such things as great but saw social order as important. Over time when it became clear you could have a stable society without such things the Church accepted this and changed. If we look at societies in other parts of the world we find articulations of the Golden rule by Buddha and Confucius 500 to 600 before the Common Era. However the morality invented by Confucius has a different nature than Christian morality. It is based on a series of duties rather than prohibitions. Confucianism was adopted by the Chinese emperors as a means of social control and lessening the need for coercion in society. It has been a successful moral system Thus your contention of natural law fails an empirical test and is wrong
@@tomfrombrunswick7571 honor to one’s family is common to Christians and Confucius. I don’t see why you would expect extremely tight overlap. I’m not denying that the fall into sin has affected people’s minds, and there’s a difficult and long process of forming the laws in any given nation. Check out the list at the back of CS Lewis‘s book, the abolition of man, and you’ll see what I’m talking about
@@NaturalTheologian If there is a moral law discoverable by reason or residing in peoples hearts there would be an empirical trace of it. We can thus check to see if the theory is right. The theory is wrong
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
But is Romans 2:14 ("They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts") tied to what Paul is saying in Romans 1:20 or is it tied to what Paul is going to say in Romans chapters 3 and 4 that the Gentiles are justified and have received the Holy Spirit without circumcision? When I was a student at WTS CA John Frame said he did not think Romans 2:14 supported natural law theory and I have come to agree with him. I think that it is actually a reference to Jeremiah 21:33 "“I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts." In fact, Paul says in Romans 7:7 "For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” I would think a Natural Law theorist would assert, "Yes you would Paul, you would know it from Natural law." I realize this venue is not conducive to lengthy discussions, just a few thoughts on the matter.
You would realize there are two theories. One is that people make laws. The other is that there is a fixed divine law. If people make laws you would expect a little bit of overlap. If people live in society then there has to be some control of violence and some way of creating institutions such as property.
While there will be a tendency for laws to overlap a bit if there is a natural law you would expect laws to be consistent over time and also consistent from place to place. So that means that we can try to see whether your theory is falsifiable.
If we look at the history of morality in western society we find that things change. Slavery is seen as defensible by people such as Aquinas and Augustine. The Church attempts to reform the institution. You cannot make slaves out of Christians. Only the state can execute slaves and there are laws to protect them. The Pope also moved to protect non Christian natives under Spanish control from being made slaves. However it is not until the congress of Vienna that the Pope comes out against the slave trade. The Anglican Church in fact owns a slave plantation and votes against the abolition in the British House of Lords.
From memory my reading of the Catholic Encyclopedia said that the church initially believed not that slavery was a great institution but that slaves could be protected by owners following Christian duty combined with legal protections. Over time the Church simply became aware that the institution was wrong. That is that it learnt from experience and observation. This is in stark contrast to the idea of a law coming simply through reason.
One can follow a similar pattern with the use of torture and cruel punishments. The Church did not see such things as great but saw social order as important. Over time when it became clear you could have a stable society without such things the Church accepted this and changed.
If we look at societies in other parts of the world we find articulations of the Golden rule by Buddha and Confucius 500 to 600 before the Common Era. However the morality invented by Confucius has a different nature than Christian morality. It is based on a series of duties rather than prohibitions. Confucianism was adopted by the Chinese emperors as a means of social control and lessening the need for coercion in society. It has been a successful moral system
Thus your contention of natural law fails an empirical test and is wrong
@@tomfrombrunswick7571 honor to one’s family is common to Christians and Confucius. I don’t see why you would expect extremely tight overlap. I’m not denying that the fall into sin has affected people’s minds, and there’s a difficult and long process of forming the laws in any given nation.
Check out the list at the back of CS Lewis‘s book, the abolition of man, and you’ll see what I’m talking about
@@NaturalTheologian If there is a moral law discoverable by reason or residing in peoples hearts there would be an empirical trace of it. We can thus check to see if the theory is right. The theory is wrong
No.