The phone wasn’t the best situation. We’re trying to stay away from that, but we have to make do sometimes.

Thanks as always!

These have been good replies. I do not think that Van Drunen thinks natural law is autonomous. Which is a good thing! And the points you raise are real food for consideration, especially the apologetic/living with distinction (if I may put it that way). And I also agree that we want the unbeliever to live on borrowed Christian capital!!! I for one do not want my apologetic encounter with the unbeliever to lead them to live consistently godless lives (not that that is really possible).

There is room here for a lot of further fruitful discussion.

Thanks!

I appreciate Jeff referencing Kline because I’ve found him so helpful in this regard. Though he did not do much in terms of developing natural law, he certainly did see a sharp distinction between the two kingdoms in terms of common grace and saving grace. In fact, when he came to most questions of the application of the law, he would tell us that it was our job to wrestle with the text and figure it out for ourselves in light of Christ’s accomplishment and our covenant-historical situation. I think a sharp distinction between common and saving grace or between providence and predestination is absolutely essential to a discussion about natural law. Without that sharp distinction, I can certainly see how natural law might sound autonomous.

“To try to put it briefly, we have different sorts of encounters with unbelievers at different times. Sometimes we have opportunity to engage in apologetic discussions, in which our modus operandi is confrontation and exposure of the futility of unbelief (though always in love). Other times . . . we have common tasks in which to engage alongside unbelievers, in which our modus operandi is trying to find agreement and consensus so that shared cultural tasks can be accomplished as well as possible in a sinful world.”

I read him as not trying to find common epistemological ground with the unbeliever regarding belief, but common ground for communication. He affirms Van Till’s apologetical method (even affirming it to his Presbytery at his ordination exam), but also states that his book is not a book on apologetics. He affirms that natural law is God’s law and not neutral or autonomous. The task with which he is concerned is the Christian engaging in everyday cultural work in a fallen world as a citizen who must function along with unbelievers. Here is his example:

“What if I am having a friendly conversation with my neighbor across the fence and she tells me that she is thinking about having an abortion, or that she wants to support a bill before the state legislature that would make abortions easier to secure? And what if (and is the case for most of us) my neighbor is not a Christian and does not accept Scripture as a moral authority? Do I tell her that if she does not submit to the Scriptures then she has no right to participate in the political process? That would be neither factually true nor biblically sound. Do I tell her that if she does not believe in Scripture then she might as well go and have an abortion because there is no other moral reason for her not to do so? I would first of all wish my neighbor to put faith in Christ and believe the Scriptures. But even if she does not, I still would rather she be pro-life in her voting and personal behavior, not because in doing so she understands the “inner essence of things” or “all truth, in every area and in every respect, especially in its essential interrelatedness” (to borrow Kloosterman’s phrases), but for the sake of a relative social peace and justice.”

It would seem to me that if Van Til was right (and I believe he was) then in my everyday cultural interactions with unbelievers I don’t want them consisting living out their epistemology. I want them to live out of their borrowed Christian capital. So would it not be wise to appeal to their inconsistency in borrowing from Christian capital? If they’re borrowing it, shouldn’t we help them to put it to use? I may know that my appeal to them is grounded in God’s special revelation but do they have to? I am not saying that there is not a time when we expose their use of Christian capital to expose their faulty epistemology–but I would agree with VanDrunen that apologetic confrontation is not the only engagement I have with my unbelieving neighbor. (Sorry for rambling!)