According to Calvin, then, nature and the Bible speak with one voice on these moral issues.
Surprisingly, modern Natural Law ethicists acknowledge this truth. Commenting on Romans 2:14–15, VanDrunen writes: “Paul makes it clear that the requirements of this natural law are essentially the same as those of the law of Moses.”85 Budziszewski similarly says that Natural Law “merely repeat[s] in cursive a small part of what God had already written in great block letters,” and that the law of conscience and the Law of Moses both define sin.86
So if the moral requirements in nature and in Scripture are the same, why must we restrict Scripture to believers? Whatever nature obliges on unbelievers, Scripture also obliges on them. Why would we expect these requirements to lose their obligation on unbelievers once they are written down? So at the very least, Natural Law advocates should have no problem with teaching God’s biblical demands to everybody.
Critique: Advocates a Perverted Ethic
The Bible teaches natural revelation, not natural law. By confusing these two distinct concepts,87 the Natural Law ethic results in teaching a perverted ethic. God does indeed reveal himself through the natural created order and through the very makeup of man (see proof-texts above). This revelation of God and of his standards are “clearly seen, being understood” by all (Rom 1:20). Calvin says that “men cannot open their eyes without being compelled to see him”88—“even the most untutored and ignorant persons”;89 and concerning the human makeup, Calvin writes that “a sense of divinity is by nature engraven on human hearts.”90 But before generalizing too hastily,91 Van Til reminds us that “Calvin makes a sharp distinction between the revelation of God to man and man’s response to that revelation.”92 These two concepts vastly differ. It is one thing to say that nature reveals God’s righteous requirements and therefore all men know them, it is another thing altogether to advocate men follow this natural revelation apart from God’s Word.93 Biblical authors knew better than to advocate the latter.
Consider the situation before the Fall. Even then God gives his authoritative interpretations of nature. He tells Adam who he is, that is, the very image of God (Gen 1:26–27). God declares to Adam his mission in life, that is, to have dominion over the earth (Gen 1:26, 28; 2:15). By the tree of the knowledge of good and evil God explains to Adam how to accomplish this mission. Van Til writes:
God identifies one tree among many in order to indicate to man his task on earth. Man’s task is to cultivate the earth and subdue it. He can do so only if he thinks and acts in obedience to his Maker. So his obedience must be tested. . . . [H]e needs a special supernatural test at the outset. He needs to learn by way of one example what he is to do with all the facts of history.94
Man has never been left alone to interpret himself and the world around him. The need for the coordination of word and nature “is inherent in the human situation.”95 To separate the two will not only bear no fruit, but it reenacts the sin of Adam by interpreting nature (in his case, the tree) independently of God’s Word.
Now after the Fall, now that our minds have become futile, darkened, ignorant, and blind (Eph 4:17–18), should we think that God’s interpretations of nature are unnecessary? Let Calvin’s reflections on man’s fallen condition expose the folly of such a consideration: “the whole man is overwhelmed—as by a deluge—from head to foot, so that no part is immune from sin and all that proceeds from him is to be imputed to sin. As Paul says, all turnings of the thoughts to the flesh are enmities against God [Rom. 8:7], and are therefore death [Rom. 8:6].”96
As nature reveals things unregenerate men dislike (e.g., that they cannot cheat on their taxes; that they cannot have sexual relations outside of marriage) and even things they fear (e.g., God’s wrath), they are motivated to intentionally misinterpret nature. Their psyche cannot allow them to construe it rightly; there is too much at stake. Therefore, they “suppress the truth”97 (Rom 1:18), rationalizing and gerrymandering it, deceiving themselves both about the truth revealed in nature and about their intention to deceive themselves.98 They simply will not handle nature properly. Their resultant interpretations of nature are lies (Rom 1:25).99 It cannot be otherwise, for the noetic effects of sin are total. As a result, natural revelation is given to us “in vain,” says Calvin, for it can “in no way lead us into the right path.”100
We must bear in mind, consequently, two truths: (1) fallen people gain a true knowledge of God from nature, but (2) they always pervert this knowledge. About these two, Calvin writes:
John speaks in this sense: “The light still shines in the darkness, but the darkness comprehends it not” [John 1:5]. In these words both facts are clearly expressed. First, in man’s perverted and degenerate nature some sparks still gleam. These show him to be a rational being, differing from brute beasts, because he is endowed with understanding. Yet, secondly, they show this light choked with dense ignorance, so that it cannot come forth effectively.101
So though “the knowledge of good and evil is indeed imprinted by nature on men,”102 this knowledge, as Calvin says above, “cannot come forth effectively.” Sin has not and cannot obliterate our knowledge of good and evil received through nature—natural theologians rightly teach this truth. Fallen men, however, “suppress the truth [gained from natural revelation] in unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18)—natural theologians do not consider the full implications of this truth.
The consequences of this suppression, thinks Calvin, are fatal for Natural Law: The unregenerate man, the man who ignores the Bible, is “inconsistent with every decision of reason, and alien to the duties of men”;103 “they quickly choked by their own depravity the seed of right knowledge, before it grew up to ripeness”;104 all of their undertakings, like the “liberal sciences, and acquaintance with languages, are in a manner profaned in every instance,”105 so that “in all their reasoning faculties they miserably fail”; “men, by their own guidance, are led only to vanity and lies”; man’s “mind is so completely overwhelmed by the thraldom of ignorance, that any portion of light which remains in it is quenched and useless”; “all their understanding is nothing else than mere vanity”; “conscience perverts every decision, so as to confound vice with virtue”; and any knowledge they have for regulating their lives “passes away without yielding any advantage.”106 Man’s natural knowledge is, in a word, morally worthless. Natural Law’s failure to be a viable mechanism for ethical living causes Calvin to declare forthrightly, “The purpose of natural law,107 therefore, is to render man inexcusable.”108 In other words, it functions negatively to take away man’s excuse of ignorance (Rom 1:20), not positively as an independent moral guide.
And though natural theologians recognize man’s proclivities to pervert natural revelation, incredibly they still encourage men to approach nature alone: “There is a natural sense of rightness and wrongness that resides in the conscience (Rom. 2:14–15). Although this sense of right and wrong has been effaced by sin (1:32), it is nevertheless able to serve as the moral guide.”109 But can it serve as a moral guide to those whose sense of right and wrong has been “effaced”? VanDrunen admits that “man still knows [natural law], though in a corrupted fashion” and “Sinful human beings will constantly pervert and reject the teaching of natural law.”110 But should we advance a “corrupted” and “perverted” ethic? And though Budziszewski admits that unregenerate man suppresses God’s revelation in nature, he never explains how they can properly handle it; he simply says that they know it.111 But should we encourage men to follow a suppressed and mishandled revelation? We see then, by divorcing word and nature—separating what God has joined together—natural theology, in effect, advocates a depraved ethic.
Conversely, the Lord’s sacred Word demands the Lord’s sacred Word for ethics. Overcoming men’s depravity requires the corrective gospel. Nature reveals to the sinner the wrath of God (Rom 1:18), not redemptive grace. Sinful man finds God’s saving message solely in his Word (Rom 10:14–17). Also, God’s Word objectively checks our interpretations of nature. “Man’s Creator has provided the linguistic framework for ‘exegeting’ the truth of God in natural revelation and in man himself.”112 So though natural ethicists mean well when they counsel us to follow our hearts, the Lord notifies us that “he who trusts in his own heart is a fool” (Prov 28:26), for our hearts deceive us all too easily (Jer 17:9).