Fwd: [asa] Moral law - Francis Collins

*Most laws are intended to ensure that survival of the group at best or
survival of the leader at worst.*

If you're referring to positive (human statutory or judicial) law here,
you're taking a pretty extreme "legal realist" position. I would agree that
public choice theory is pretty powerful and that much positive law can
discussed with regard to how it benefits some interest group or another.
However, I don't think any genuinely Christian theory of law can reduce all
positive law to a mere expression of power. Romans 13 tells us that God
institutes the civil authorities to carry out his judgments and exorts
Christians to respect the civil authorities on that basis. There must,
then, be at least some respects in which positive law is more than a mere
expression of human power games.

*It's not that there aren't those that have the HUMAN sense of "The Law" but
that for those without it written on their hearts, the Bible is there to
re-write it upon them. So any of those who wish to ignore the Bible and
just live according to nature may do so, but I would pack for hot weather. *
**
I think this confuses several categories: (1) the moral law as written into
creation as a consequence of God's attributes as creator; (2) the moral law
as intuited by human beings apart from special revelation; (3) the moral law
particularly disclosed in special revelation; (4) human positive law as
enacted by civil authorities constituted by God as specified in Romans 13;
(5) human noetic capabilities to discern the moral law; and (6) human
capabilities to act in accordance with the moral law absent regeneration by
the Holy Spirit.

I don't think there are grounds for significant dispute, within the context
of historic orthodox Christian theology, concerning the belief that the
moral law is part of creation in virtue of God's attributes. What is
disputable is the extent to which unregenerate humans can discern and act in
accordance with the natural moral law. IMHO, the Barthian view that
unregenerate humans are utterly incapable of discerning and acting in
accordance with the moral law is belied both by scripture and experience.
The more balanced view, IMHO, is that human beings are capable to some
degree of acting in accordance with the moral law because of common grace.
In particular, some degree of the blessings of the moral law are available
in societies in which there is a proper ordering of positive law in relation
to the natural moral law, often because of the leavening influence of the
Church. However, human beings are not capable of *perfectly* observing the
moral law, and even humanity's best efforts are tinged with selfishnes and
sin. Indeed, human morality falls so far short of the ideals of love and
justice that there is a gap between God and humanity that no human effort
can bridge. That gap can be bridged only by the cross.

On 1/2/07, Don Perrett <donperrett@theology-perspectives.net> wrote:
> Dick's examples may not seem to be the same to some. One is said to be
> conforming to natural laws and the other to man-made laws. While there
are
> some man-made laws which have little to do with natural laws, most are
man's
> feeble attempt at applying natural laws. Nature dictates survival. Most
> laws are intended to ensure that survival of the group at best or survival
> of the leader at worst. Either way it is man's forcing of what he takes
to
> be for his own survival. This is about as natural as it comes. If we
> follow nature, what will it get us. Let's see.
>
> Animals live and fight for survival of themselves first, offspring second,
> then their group. It is purely and solely survival of the fittest. This
is
> exactly what is preached by evolutionism. Selective breeding dominates.
> Some less able offspring will be allowed to starve or sometimes willfully
> killed in order to ensure the survival of the stronger offspring. Sick
> animals will be cared for when possible, but will be left behind if it
> threatens the well being of the others. Animals can suffer from
depression,
> anxiety, anger, aggression, fear, etc. Animals have emotions and are at
the
> total mercy of them. They have no choice to make. They either live
> according to their instinct or they risk death, in some cases, either
> themselves, their offspring, or their group. Animals are even easily
> addicted.
>
> I'm not saying that there isn't some sense of "altruism" in nature, I'm
> saying that altruism is based upon the idea of group survival not
goodwill.
>
> If one examines the Bible, you will find things that appear to be just
that.
> Rich F. has repeatedly quoted the OT with reference to eugenics, etc. But
> that's the OT. If that is what it is to be Christian. Look closer and
you
> will also see sacrifice. What animal will willfully sacrifice itself and
> forgive those that seek it's death? It has no ability to do so. It lives
> instinctively and will defend itself, even at the expense of others. Can
we
> not see our own natural animal behaviour in the ideas of group social
> orders? Can we not see our animal selves in the wars we fight, or in the
> hording of resources?
>
> More basically, are we supposed to say "I'm the best" and think only of
> one's self? And is that any different than creating a group and then
saying
> "Our group is best"? Is that any different than having a single world
group
> that says "We are best"? Letting go of one's self can only be achieved by

> one's self. One must stand alone before God and have a personal
> relationship and accountability. One cannot go unto God as a group. This
> is why individual rights to free choice and free will must override the
> groups. Not because a need for survival, like the animals, but because
> God's will is that our relationship with him be personal and accountable.
>
> Alpha and Beta males exists throughout the animal kingdom. All animal
> groups have leaders. The question is are humans supposed to have them? I
> do not believe so. The only Alpha is God. Therefore we are all Betas.
> Equally so, as we stand alone before our Alpha God. We cannot be Alphas
> because we are not gods. We are not animals either however and should not
> act as such. We are giving a place squarely between the animal and
natural
> world, and God and his kingdom. When will we stop looking to the animal
> world for guidance. "Let's do like the animals because they are
> altruistic". Yeah right. Let's not and say we did. Act like a human and
> not like an animal. Praise not yourself so that you may praise God. If
the
> whole of creation was made perfect and good then that seems enough for
some.
> So therefore acting according to "nature" or what we perceive as natural
> must be ok. Well can anyone tell me which group of animals should we be
> acting like? Perhaps other primates since that is our nearest relatives.
> Even better, someone on the group once quoted a website that used bats as
an
> example. I don't have wings. Point is the human group is supposed to act

> like humans. Now what does that constitute? Well I imagine that we as a
> group turned our backs on God and have therefore lost our sense of purpose
> and what our rights and wrongs are long ago. That is what the Bible is
> about. That is what Dick was trying to say. It's not that there aren't
> those that have the HUMAN sense of "The Law" but that for those without it
> written on their hearts, the Bible is there to re-write it upon them. So
> any of those who wish to ignore the Bible and just live according to
nature
> may do so, but I would pack for hot weather.\
>
> Don Perrett
>
>
>
>
>
> Don P
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.