The subject of Natural Law (NL herein) is one that has long interested me. Partly because certain passages like Romans 1 clearly indicate that all humanity is guilty of rejecting what can be known about God through the Creation; that God will one day “render to each one according to his works” (Rom. 2:6); and more difficult concepts such as found in Romans 2:14-16 – For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. ¹⁵ They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them ¹⁶ on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. ^[1]

As I am sure you already know, the debate on NL has historically raged long and is profoundly complex. It is beyond the scope of this paper to provide a background anywhere near sufficient to be of real use. That said, some historical facts may be of use.

In terms of the current debate, most theologians and historians tend to trace the debate’s origin to questions – mainly between Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars – over the propositions of Thomas Aquinas regarding NL. In this regard, Aquinas is most heavily criticized for his dependence upon Aristotelian logic and frameworks. To what degree that is true I must leave to others.

While we cannot wade too deeply into those waters here, I would extend a caution regarding it. It is oft the case in my experience, that citing anyone outside of our approved circles on any question, immediately makes us suspect from some quarters, resulting in wholesale repudiation due to a guilt-by-association dynamic. By this rule, Paul’s citing of pagan philosophers in Titus 1:12 and Acts 17 should disqualify not only his point, but all he wrote – never mind that he did so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Since Roman Catholic Bibles contain all of the books in Protestant ones, should we repudiate our canon due to those shared resources? This is utter nonsense. And yet some reject any discussion of Natural Theology or Natural Law if there exist any points of commonality between simple facts or observations drawn with pagans or Romanists. Surprisingly, Christians can agree with Pagans and even Romanists that 2+2=4 without theological compromise (Although I am not certain Rushdoony or Bahnsen would agree, wink, wink).      

That all humankind will be judged by God irrespective of their exposure to the Law of Moses is abundantly evident in the Scripture. It is beyond dispute. But the question remains; on what basis will this judgment take place? How is it for instance, that God can tell Abraham that his offspring will inherit Israel’s territories in due time – but that is still a long way off because “the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete”? (Gen. 15:16). On what basis were these Amorites to be judged? Is it only for the sin of rejecting God as God? Then why cite “sins” such as sexual relations with close relatives, adultery, bestiality and such as reasons why God is driving out the pagan nations before the Israelites as “uncleanness” – when they have no such laws? (See: Lev. 18 esp.)

And what exactly are we to make of the human conscience?

How are we to understand these, their mechanisms and their relationships?

All of these and more fall under the umbrella of investigations into two interrelated inquiries: Natural Theology, and Natural Law.

And I will unblushingly confess that in all my reading and study, I find myself quite in over my head. But since that never stopped me from pontificating on any subject in the past, I’ll go ahead and give it a rousing try here as well.

That said, I have little doubt that this paper will raise infinitely more questions than it will answer. But it will have served its purpose, and I, in giving it, if a deeper and more fruitful dialog is opened by virtue of it.

Once again, the debate regarding NL has raged long. Adding to the difficulty of our inquiry is the fact that theories of NL have been developed most by Roman Catholic thinkers and writers, and in some cases vehemently opposed by Protestant theologians like Cornelius Van Til, Stanley Grenz, Robert Morey and a host of others, and like philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Representative of the theologians, Morey writes: “Natural Theology, Natural Philosophy, and Natural Law are utter nonsense, and are the products of rebellion against God.” ^[2]

But then you have no one less than John Calvin seemingly arguing differently in his comments on Romans 2:14-16: “there is no nation so lost to every thing human, that it does not keep within the limits of some laws. Since then all nations, of themselves and without a monitor, are disposed to make laws for themselves, it is beyond all question evident that they have some notions of justice and rectitude, which the Greeks call preconceptions, προληψεις, and which are implanted by nature in the hearts of men. They have then a law, though they are without law: for though they have not a written law, they are yet by no means wholly destitute of the knowledge of what is right and just; as they could not otherwise distinguish between vice and virtue; the first of which they restrain by punishment, and the latter they commend, and manifest their approbation of it by honouring it with rewards. He sets nature in opposition to a written law, meaning that the Gentiles had the natural light of righteousness, which supplied the place of that law by which the Jews were instructed, so that they were a law to themselves.”^[3] Notice how Calvin classifies this as part of “everything human.” Interesting language indeed.

Thus writes Grabill: “Put simply, John Calvin not only adopts a modified doctrine of natural law from medieval antecedents but also utilizes the doctrine of the twofold knowledge of God (duplex cognitio Dei) to ground natural law (lex naturalis) in the natural knowledge of God the Creator.”^[4]

No matter what, the debate ain’t pretty.

I think it is fair to say that most (if not all) of those opposing both Natural Theology and NL, do so out of a concern to guard the Gospel. The fear is perhaps that man somehow can both reason and obey these revelations sufficiently so as to be salvific. Orthodox divines would reject that concept out of hand. Anything which makes the Gospel of Jesus Christ unnecessary is contrary to the whole of Scripture. Albeit, there seems to be among some, an understanding of passages like Rom. 10:5 “For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.” – as though “live by them” implies one might have life (spiritual life, salvation) by obeying the Law. This of course is contrary to Rom. 3:20 – that no one can be justified by the works of the Law, and perhaps more pointedly: Luke 17:10 “So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’ ” No one can gain life by only doing what they are supposed to do, especially in light of previous sins.

But I digress.

At the bottom of any debate such as the one before us, we must begin with definitions. Until we are talking about the same things the same way, we cannot make any real headway in sorting it all out.  

Haines and Fulford offer a helpful starting place when they write: “the very fact of divine creation seems to point towards what has been traditionally called natural law: the notion that there is, because of the divine intellect, a natural order within the created world by which each and every created being’s goodness can be objectively judged, both on the level of being (ontological goodness), and, for human-beings specifically, on the level of human action (moral goodness). Ontological goodness is the foundation of moral goodness.”^[5]

David VanDrunen helpfully adds: “Though different writers suggest various definitions of natural law, the term generally refers to the moral order inscribed in the world and especially in human nature, an order that is known to all people through their natural faculties (especially reason and/or conscience) even apart from supernatural divine revelation that binds morally the whole of the human race.”^[6]

VanDrunen then offers as a working definition: “By natural law, then, we mean that order or rule of human conduct which is (1) based upon human nature as created by God, (2) knowable by all men, through human intuition and reasoning alone (beginning from his observations of creation, in general, and human nature, in particular), independent of any particular divine revelation provided through a divine spokesperson; and, thus (3) normative for all human beings.^[7]

It seems to me that VanDrunen’s argument that focuses on the ontological reality of man being created in the image of God is the real key to understanding the issue of NL. Contra Barth, who argued that the image of God was essentially annihilated in The Fall, (“In this sense, as a possibility that is proper to man qua creature, the image of God is not just, as it is said, destroyed apart from a few relics; it is totally annihilated.”^[8]) passages like Genesis 9:6 (ESV) “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image”, and James 3:9 “With [the tongue] it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God” – both of these passages post-Fall, argue that the image of God dynamic is still very much in play.

If I may be a bit overly reductive too quickly, the issue needs to be re-framed from trying to find a mystery analog to the Mosaic Law – say in the conscience – to one of true ontology. I take this from a view of eschatology. God’s goal for the redeemed is to be as naturally holy as he is. To fully bear the image of Christ in indefectibility. God needs no code outside of himself. He intends to make us as much like himself as it is possible to be for a created, finite and dependent creature.

We reason back from where it is revealed we will be, to understand where we are and where we fell from. All of which is located in our nature. In this sense, we are not so much looking for natural law as we are the law of nature. That man live in accordance with how he was made. All of God’s instincts are holy. And we only know them as holy because they are his – not due to some external standard. As the end of sanctification is glorification – such glorification is simply and plainly to be like Christ: Romans 8:29–30 (ESV) “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”

As John Owen notes: “Sanctification is an immediate work of the Spirit of God on the souls of believers, purifying and cleansing of their natures from the pollution and uncleanness of sin, renewing in them the image of God, and thereby enabling them, from a spiritual and habitual principle of grace, to yield obedience unto God, according unto the tenor and terms of the new covenant, by virtue of the life and death of Jesus Christ. Or more briefly:—It is the universal renovation of our natures by the Holy Spirit into the image of God, through Jesus Christ.

Hence it follows that our holiness, which is the fruit and effect of this work, the work as terminated in us, as it compriseth the renewed principle or image of God wrought in us, so it consists in a holy obedience unto God by Jesus Christ, according to the terms of the covenant of grace, from the principle of a renewed nature. Our apostle expresseth the whole more briefly yet,—namely, He that is in Christ Jesus is a new creature, 2 Cor. 5:17; for herein he expresseth both the renovation of our natures, the endowment of them with a new spiritual principle of life and operation, with actings towards God suitable thereunto.”^[9]

What was mankind’s great sin? That we fell short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:23) And what is God’s glory? It is nothing less and nothing else than the revelation of himself. “Glory means God’s presence shown forth so that his nature and power are made evident.” ^[10] “Glory means deity in manifestation.” ^[11] We will revisit this concept more at the end of this paper.

We might argue then that NL is what remains of our original nature as created in Adam before the Fall, and what we will be fully restored to in the resurrection.

Leighton (Exposition of the Ten Commandments) thus states the relation of the written law to the unwritten: “At first the commandments were written in the heart of man by God’s own hand, but as the first tables of stone fell and were broken, so was it with man’s heart; by his fall his heart was broken and scattered among earthly perishing things that was before whole and entire to his maker; and so the characters of that law written in it were so shivered and scattered that they could not be perfectly and distinctly read in it; therefore it pleased God to renew that law after this manner by a most solemn delivery with audible voice and then by writing it on tables of stone. And this is not all, but this same law he does write anew in the hearts of his children.”^[12]

What was “written in the heart of man” at the beginning, was nothing other than his native holiness or harmony with and manifestation of – God’s own nature. It was God’s image. Not a “code.” No code could be sufficient – for it would transcend enumeration in application.

The question then is – what are the marks of these remains? Is there an identifiably specific set of these remains to be looked for? And, are they exactly the same in all? Or do these admit to varying degrees in individuals?

Wow! Those are some great questions. Wish I knew.

But do not fear, I do have some suggestions for a way forward. And I base this on something VanDrunen mentions, but fails to develop more fully.

How can we arrive at a catalogue of what remains within fallen man having been made in the image of God – that leaves him morally responsible and liable to judgment for?

The approach I am suggesting is a sort of reverse engineering of Scripture. In other words, if we look carefully for those things for which God says he judges those without the Mosaic Law – then we gain insight into what humankind instinctively, naturally (due to the nature we were created with) knows in moral terms.

Let’s begin with an example from Genesis 12. Abram and Sarai sojourn in Egypt due to a famine. While there, Abe is afraid the locals will hit on his wife, and convinces her to say she’s his sister to avoid violence. Pharoah gets wind of her beauty and brings her home. The truth comes out and what is interesting is that Pharoah is offended that he might have committed adultery had not God “afflicted” his house. In this thoroughly pagan context, adultery is seen by the pagans as wrong. We know it from how God afflicts them as responsible.

Not to get too graphic in all of this, but in examining Lev. 18-20, what is instructive is (in 18 especially) the nature of what are proper and improper sexual connections punctuated by 18:24: “Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.”

We know then that issues of sexual propriety are still a remaining element in fallen man. That such things are contrary to “nature” (Rom. 1:26-27). Contrary to what “nature”? Human nature as created in the image of God.

Hence the rampant sexual promiscuity in our day can only be owing to the suppression of the remaining shards of God’s image as reported in Rom. 1:18.

Leviticus will go on to address issues of illicit supernaturalism, superstition, idol worship, dishonesty in business and even the mistreatment of sojourning strangers as part and parcel of what the pagan nations do. And if they are judged for it – they know better. They are acting contrary to the remnants of the image in which they were created – suppressing the knowledge of God.  

Shedd, in tying this to the conscience writes: “This faculty has an authority for man that cannot be accounted for except  by its being the voice of God. If conscience were entirely isolated from the deity and were independent of him, it could not make the solemn and sometimes terrible impression it does. No man would be afraid of himself if the self were not connected with a higher being than self. Of the judgments of conscience, it may be said literally that God reveals his own holy judgment through them. “Whence comes the restraint of conscience?” asks Selden (Table Talk); “from a higher power; nothing else can bind. I cannot bind myself, for I may untie myself again; an equal cannot bind me, for we may untie one another. It must be a superior power, even God Almighty.”^[13]

And: “Sin gives a bias to the will against the truth so that even when there is an accurate perception there is an endeavor to get rid of it. Men know God to be holy, but do not like to retain this knowledge (Rom. 1:28). Sin weakens the power of intuition itself. Vice debilitates the spiritual and rational faculty by strengthening the sensuous nature. (d) It is a part of the punishment of sin that God withdraws for a time his common grace so that there is little or no intuitive perception of moral truth. The human mind is left to sin: God “gave up to uncleanness those who changed the truth of God into a lie” (1:24) and “gave them over to a reprobate mind” (1:28).^[14]

So as not to over-extend my portion here and instead leave time to discussion among ourselves – let me spend just a few moments in the book of Amos. God’s pronouncements against Damascus, Gaza and others, inform us as to what law by nature remains within fallen men, and what they will be judged for.

Amos 1:3-5 / Damascus: God’s first pronouncement against Syria, is due to its excessive brutality in times of war. God sees and notes such things even for nations which are not His own.

1:6-8 / Gaza: Gaza is judged for conquering entire peoples only to make trade of them. Human trafficking is an abomination to God.

1:9-10 / Tyre: Tyre is judged for having no loyalty. No consideration for those they have a common bond with.

1:11-12: Edom: Edom is judged for implacable rage. Perpetual, unsatisfied anger.

1:13-15 / Ammonites: Ammon is judged for waging war for the purpose of making themselves larger. Military expansionism.

2:1-3 / Moab: Moab is judged because even after the death of its enemies, it needed to go on and burn the bones of their enemies to lime. They will not let go of their anger even after everything is over.

And isn’t it informative to see the catalogue of sins which issue from refusing to “acknowledge God” in Romans 1? These include: Covetousness, malice, envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness, gossip, slanderer, insolence, haughtiness, boastfulfulness, invention of evil, disobedience to parents, foolishness, faithlessness, heartlessness and ruthlessness  – and all under the rubric of knowing God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

How do they know both the sinfulness and accountability of these things? Instinctively – as contrary to the nature – the image we were all originally created in.

Not because there is a massive, specified list somewhere in the ether – but because we know these are not fitting for image-bearers. Even if we cannot define what that means. In fact, this idea of guiding conduct by considering what is fitting is a dynamic appealed to in Scripture for believers as well: Ephesians 5:3–4 “But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.” Notice the language of what is “proper” or what is “out of place” as a guideline. It is not as much an issue of “do this, don’t do that” as – “what befits who I am in Christ?” Or, even for the unbeliever – what is fitting for one created in the image of God?

Natural Law comes down to the Law of our Nature as God’s image-bearers. Whatever is or is not “fitting” that created station. Such is what in regeneration, sanctification and eventual glorification is restored in the redeemed – conformed to the image of the Son. Living out holiness as naturally as God Himself.

Now from a survey of the Biblical texts, can we arrive at some broad categories at least to help inform us here? I think we can. And I would submit the following as those which stood out to me – though by no means meant to be exhaustive.

1 – An impulse in all to consider Divinity. Absent special revelation to describe and define the God of the Bible, nevertheless, there is a universal impulse to consider a divine being, even if it is only in the process of concluding there is none. The impulse remains. The fact that pagans are punished for seeking other gods, and/or rejecting any notion of God altogether is proof the impulse is present. God’s Word says this makes everyone culpable for what he or she does with that impulse. The implication of Acts 17:26-27 is, that God has, even providentially seen to it each individual is assigned their time and place in history so that they would seek after him. But, as Rom. 1:18 reminds us, we suppress such truth.  

2 – Accountability. There is within each human being an intuitive realization that we are accountable for our actions – if only to oneself. This is easily proved as even the most reprobate among humankind rebel at their being sinned against, and want some form of justice or retribution (Rom. 2:1). The phrase used in Gen. 20:11 states it well. Abraham’s concern was “There is no fear of God at all in this place.” i.e. his concern was these pagans he was among would have no sense of accountability for their actions. The fool says Solomon says “in his heart” – there is no God. Or, in God’s pronouncement against Babylon in Isa. 47 – “You felt secure in your wickedness; you said, “No one sees me”; your wisdom and your knowledge led you astray, and you said in your heart, “I am, and there is no one besides me.”

But God WILL hold all accountable. Instinctively, we all know it in some measure, no matter how we repress it.

3 – There is a universal impulse toward biological life, both procreative & protective. We see Scripturally how God punishes for murder and violence. Violence is cited as the chief cause for God sending the Noahic flood. Humans want to live. Redeemed and unredeemed both seek to live, and to instinctively protect life. But God cites murder and violence toward life – including child sacrifice, as punishable.

4 – There is a universal impulse toward order – societal & personal. So we see how God uniformly punished nations for war and chaos.

5 – There is a universal impulse toward seeing justice carried out, even if the systems of justice themselves may be distorted. God pronounces judgment for the perversion of justice throughout the Bible.

6 – There is a universal impulse toward loyalty & fidelity. At the very least, in terms of how others are either loyal or not toward us, regardless of how we may be toward them. This is why adultery for instance receives universal condemnation.  

7 – There is a universal impulse toward seeking comfort & pleasure. Hence we see God’s condemnation of excess  – gluttony, etc. “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. ⁵⁰ They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.”^[15]

8 – There is a universal impulse toward seeking purpose and accomplishment in life. Yet seeking such apart from God’s plans and purposes, such impulse devolves to seeking these for self only, and become self-idolatry. Those who built Babel’s tower wanted to make a name for themselves above honoring God. And they experienced his judgment.

9 – There is a universal impulse toward discovery and wonder. The pursuit of beauty is found in every culture though expressed in innumerable varieties. Yet seeking these without consideration for the God who gives us beauty and awe, finds punishment at God’s hand for looking only to this life and world for them. 1 John 2:15-17.

10 – There is a universal impulse to regard personal property. We all want things which are uniquely and exclusively “ours.” Thus God condemns theft. “Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And such were some of you.”^[16] (See also Rev. 9:21)

11 – There is a universal impulse to reject powerlessness, and to seek power over our circumstances, and/or others. So it is we see God’s condemnation of despotism. Once again, Amos 1 and God’s condemnation of the Ammonite military expansionism comes into play. We might add passages like  ^“And I will stir up Egyptians against Egyptians, and they will fight, each against another and each against his neighbor, city against city, kingdom against kingdom; and the spirit of the Egyptians within them will be emptied out, and I will confound their counsel; and they will inquire of the idols and the sorcerers, and the mediums and the necromancers.” ^[17] It is by means of the mystic arts that people seek power over their circumstances.

All of the above, and more, are universally recognized as part and parcel of humanity. Each is good in its proper context, and each can be exercised and thus punished when outside of God’s more perfect nature.

But I think we may safely reduce this even further, and not descend into reductio ad absurdum.

Perhaps the sum of NL can be found here: “Love the Lord your God, with all your heart and mind and strength, and your neighbor as yourself.” This was our original nature as created in God’s image – this is what has been corrupted – This is what is being re-created and perfected within the redeemed. By this standard, all will be judged. Every sin flows from defects in these two and fully interconnected – loves. We know instinctively, this is how it should be.

And may I unpack that just a bit more?

Here is a question – how does one love God properly? Not how do we feel toward him more lovingly – though that is good – but how do we actively love him? What is the most loving thing we can do for or toward him? Is it not this?: To see to it he is represented and perceived most fully and accurately. Isn’t that what was in his mind when he made us in his image? That we might make him known most fully? To reflect him without blemish?

Likewise, how can we best love our neighbors as ourselves? Is it not to expose them to him who is the very foundation and font of all true blessing?

If these are true, then bearing his character is the very essence of the law of his nature in us is what governs us. Then all sin is ultimately rooted in obscuring his glory. Thus each and all that we have seen above finds its condemnation in that his character is obscured in each case. Wherever we violate his character, we obscure him. This is what is incumbent upon all humanity as a law of nature. This is what we fail at in serving ourselves first. And the shadows and shards of that nature are borne out instinctively to greater and lesser degrees, and with varying emphases in each individual. This I would submit is true NL, however faint, its gravitational pull is still felt. In this, all have sinned, by falling short of the glory of God.     

I would suggest a series of propositions as one way to begin considering it all.

1 – Humankind was made in the image of God. That image carries certain ontological traits still remaining to varying degrees in each individual (contra Barth).

2 – Mankind, even in his perfect creation was not formed in a vacuum, but a. Mature (physically self-sustaining, communicating), b. In communion with God so as to be receiving revelation. Even created in the image of God, man still needed revelation to explain to him who he was and why.  

3 – Among the ontological traits or remains of our original creation in God’s image, are a capacity to differentiate between right and wrong; rationality and certain moral instincts.

4 – Proof that such moral instincts exist is found in how God holds even fallen humanity responsible for certain sins. (See: Lev. 18-20; Amos 1:1-2:3; Rom. 1:18; Rev. 9:20-21)

5 – The capacity to differentiate between right and wrong needs to be informed. This capacity is informed by two main means: Culture and Revelation.

6 – As per 1 Cor. 14 (see Paul’s discussion on tongues) edification requires intelligibility. In terms of either Natural Theology or Natural Law, merely seeing nature does not automatically lead one to posit God, understand him or ourselves, apart from some remaining instinct, which then needs to be informed by revelation. Our rationality alone always leads us to connect dots, but not necessarily the same dots in the same order.

In summary: I would suggest, that NL is nothing other than the law of Nature – the nature of God as crafted into humankind as made in his image, and what remains of it in its various shades of obscurity in impulses and instincts – since The Fall. Such “law” is non-salvific, but remains by grace for the preservation of society until the consummation of the ages.

Bibliography:

Packer, J. I. God’s Plans for You. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2001.

Owen, John. The Works of John Owen. Edited by William H. Goold. Vol. 3. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.

Haines, David, and Andrew Fulford. Natural Law: A Brief Introduction and Biblical Defense. The Davenant Trust, 2017.

Grabill, Stephen J. Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics. Edited by John Witte Jr. Emory University Studies in Law and Religion. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006.

VanDrunen, David. A Biblical Case for Natural Law. Edited by Anthony B. Bradley. Studies in Christian Social Ethics and Economics, Number 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Acton Institute, 2006.

Morey, Robert A. The Bible, Natural Theology, and Natural Law: Conflict or Compromise?. Millerstown, PA: Christian Scholars Press, 2009.

Shedd, William Greenough Thayer. Dogmatic Theology. Edited by Alan W. Gomes. 3rd ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003.

Calvin, John, and John Owen. Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010.

---

^[1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ro 2:14–16.

^[2] Robert A. Morey, The Bible, Natural Theology, and Natural Law: Conflict or Compromise? (Millerstown, PA: Christian Scholars Press, 2009), 55.

^[3] John Calvin and John Owen, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 96–97.

^[4] Stephen J. Grabill, Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics, ed. John Witte Jr., Emory University Studies in Law and Religion (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), 70.

^[5] David Haines and Andrew Fulford, Natural Law: A Brief Introduction and Biblical Defense (The Davenant Trust, 2017), ii.

^[6] David VanDrunen, A Biblical Case for Natural Law, ed. Anthony B. Bradley, Studies in Christian Social Ethics and Economics, Number 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Acton Institute, 2006), 1.

^[7] David Haines, “The Philosophical Foundations of Natural Law Theory,” in Natural Law: A Brief Introduction and Biblical Defense (The Davenant Trust, 2017), 5.

^[8] Stephen J. Grabill, Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics, ed. John Witte Jr., Emory University Studies in Law and Religion (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), 33.

^[9] John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), Vol. 3, 386.

^[10] Packer, J. I. 2001. God’s Plans for You. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

^[11] Packer, J. I. 2001. God’s Plans for You. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

^[12] Shedd, William Greenough Thayer. 2003. Dogmatic Theology. Edited by Alan W. Gomes. 3rd ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub.

^[13] Shedd, William Greenough Thayer. 2003. Dogmatic Theology. Edited by Alan W. Gomes. 3rd ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub.

^[14] Shedd, William Greenough Thayer. 2003. Dogmatic Theology. Edited by Alan W. Gomes. 3rd ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub.

^[15] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Eze 16:49–50.

^[16] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), 1 Co 6:9–11.

^[17] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Is 19:2–3.