While I appreciate your comment that my “logic is much better than MANY theologians in today’s world,” credentials count in the academic world. Someone with better academic credentials than me needs to be responding to these Two Kingdoms people.
On the broader issue you raise of natural law, my concern about natural law is not primarily the Roman Catholic way of viewing it but rather how the Two Kingdoms people are saying we should apply natural law and not Scripture in dealing with civil government.
In fact, some Reformed people have agreed to some extent with a Thomistic view of natural law. RC Sproul and the “classical apologetics” movement are in that category. I'm not in agreement with them but that's not an issue on which I'm going to fight.
I'm not going to ask you to agree with a Reformed view of total depravity — if you are a Roman Catholic, you need to be faithful to your own doctrinal position or leave your church — but once the doctrine of total depravity is affirmed, I'm sure you can see why most Calvinists do not believe the sinful human mind is able to understand general revelation properly.
In other words, even if natural law would in theory be sufficient to understand God's will from it, our sinful brains can't make sense of it and will come up with really bad perversions of it. General revelation is enough to leave us without excuse four our sin but not enough to lead us into the right paths. Yes, “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead,” but while that's enough to leave us without excuse it's not enough to save us.
Romans 1:18-23 applies here: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.”
Again, I'm not asking you to change your Roman Catholic viewpoint, only to understand the logic behind the reasons why which most (not all) Calvinists do not emphasize the use of natural law or general revelation.
Hope this helps.
There is a great deal there which can apply across the board.
-----------
* remind me sometime to sic the FR spelin & grammar pol-leece on you
Thank you for your response. My point is that “Natural Law” is not the ONLY needed element for “Logic and Reason”-—but the best one, excluding Revelation, where people can actually USE Reason (special gift from God) to prove much of Faith and see Him. Christianity, as many scholars state, is a “Reasoned” religion (which requires Faith—as all beliefs, including Atheism, requires).
This was largely what CS Lewis did, once a brilliant atheist, who became more brilliant with becoming a Theist, and then, a Christian-—using Reason, and then, acquiring Faith. He used Logic and Reason with Scripture—and concluded that Scripture was so Wise and Logical and True, it agreed with all his observances of history (natural laws). Both Reason and Faith are one. You can’t be human if you exclude one or the other. We are made Rational animals in God’s image for a reason-—the ability to discern Truth from his creation (natural law).
Revelation is the necessary “glasses” that human beings usually need—for most human beings don’t have the capacity to understand Nature to the degree of an Aristotle or Aquinas or CS Lewis. They never have the time to put into the “seeking Truth” that is required to really grasp the Truth in Revelation which is so obvious by the in-depth study of Natural Law.
The Two Kingdoms people make their mistake in thinking that “applying natural law” can EXCLUDE Scripture. It is in agreement with all of Scripture. As Aquinas proved in his Summa Theologiae-—there is no disagreement in Scripture and Natural Law Theory.
The problem stems in a twisting and warping of Natural Law which only can happen if you remove Reason and Logic. (And, of course, with the hubris and imperfection of man, this “logic” can be imperfect. True! Is indeed, twisted a lot of the time. )
Justice-—and Just Law (God is Just)-—has to coincide with Natural Law-—this is in John Locke’s Theory as well-—which never disagreed with the idea that Natural Rights come from God. God’s Justice is the same as what was Just in Natural Law Theory of Aquinas. There is NO conflict with the two-—Scripture and Natural Law-—all conflict arrises when you get weird, twisted ideas-—like there is no teleological ends in human beings so that man can marry man. This absurd, irrational thinking comes from Marxism where Biology and God are trying to be discarded in favor of making themselves gods.
Only lies about Natural Law—conflict with scripture.
These “theologians” you refer to are “rewriting” and “twisting”not only Natural Law Theory-—but Scripture as well. If they twist the one-—the other will be twisted, since they are in fundamental agreement.
I have studied both Natural Law Theory and Christian Theology. I am no expert (Ph.D). But if you know anything about me-—you would understand how little respect I have for anyone in today’s academic world, when drenched in German Postmodernism, which is only nihilism and hate and a complete rejection of Natural Law Theory, and, of course, The Holy Bible.