I'm pinging it to the GRPL Great Reformed Ping List.
My reason is that I cited this story of the transgendered man wanting to be in the locker room with elementary and high school girls here...
... as an example in the ongoing online “Two Kingdoms” debate between retired Mid-America Reformed Seminary professor Dr. Nelson Kloosterman and Dr. Daryl Hart, a former professor at Westminster Seminary who now teaches at Hillsdale College. Dr. Kloosterman is a PCA minister who used to be URCNA; Dr. Hart is an Orthodox Presbyterian elder.
To put it mildly, I'm not happy with the way this “Two Kingdoms” debate is going.
This, I think, is the bottom line —
We're hearing from Dr. Hart and other Two Kingdoms advocates that they want to use some undefined “natural law” based on Romans 1-3, not biblical principles or even the Ten Commandments, as the foundation for civil law.
This has immediate and direct implications for whether the government can prohibit abortion, homosexual marriage, and all sorts of other things which are clearly contrary to Scripture but which a large percentage of Americans don't mind anymore.
While general revelation is enough to leave people without excuse for their unbelief, according to Scripture, it is not enough to save people. Why do we think natural law based on general revelation provides any sort of firm foundation upon which to build a civil government?
I am pretty jaded about what general revelation actually reveals to unconverted and unrepentantly sinful hearts, or even to the converted hearts of lots of sincere but ignorant evangelicals.
If we don't have a better basis for our laws than “whatever we think is common sense right now,” we're in for a major world of hurt as our society continued to fall apart.
I’m not a constitutional lawyer,
but if I were, my name wouldn’t be Obama....
Seriously, it does seem to me that the Bible CAN be used as the basis for common law, since it would predate the Constitution itself.
Anyway, that is my take on that.