Over at First Things, Peter Leithart interacts with a 2010 article by natural law theorist Jean Porter. At issue was the question of whether or not natural law provides a basis for rejecting same-sex relationships or marriages. Porter thinks not, and Peter finds her reasoning compelling — as far as the natural law limitation goes — but concludes that this is why we need Scripture.
Here is Peter’s conclusion. “Other natural law theorists, of course, think otherwise. But Porter’s reasoning is pretty compelling, and leaves me wondering whether we can say certain sexual acts are ‘contrary to nature’ without having some insight that comes from outside nature. Say, from revelation.”
Now there is no problem acknowledging that nature does not tell us everything, and that there are certain truths that cannot be obtained from nature that are taught in Scripture. Take, for example, the doctrine of the Second Coming, or the need to baptize in the triune name.
But there are still difficulties. Aren’t there always? We really need to pursue this issue out to the end of the road, because a lot rides on it.
We ought not conclude anything about the clarity of the lesson from the obtuseness of the students. If Scripture tells us plainly that nature teaches us all about the sovereignty and majesty of God, and Scripture also teaches us that man in his perverse and sinful ways refuses to acknowledge that this is what in fact nature is saying about God, one of the fundamental things we learn about book of nature from the book of Scripture is that sinful men have a vested interest in refusing to read it rightly. In short, given Scripture, we ought not to trust men when it comes to what nature does or does not tell us.
Scripture tells us that nature is a book, and Scripture also tells us that men are culpably ignorant in their refusal to read it rightly.
And this brings us to the next issue. When Scripture tells us that something is contrary to nature, as it does with regard to the homosexual lusts described in Romans 1, we are being told much more than that the behavior is morally wrong. We are being told that we already knew something about this subject before Scripture taught it to us.
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet” (Rom. 1:26–27).
If Scripture tells us that woman-to-woman sexual behavior is “against nature,” and that man-to-man sex is the same, and that this perverted turning toward a member of the same sex is simultaneously an abandonment of the “natural use” of a member of the opposite sex, and that those who give way to this kind of lust are given up to vile and unseemly affections, paying the price for that unnatural bent “in themselves,” we are being given a lot of information here. We are being told in Scripture what these actions are like in themselves, what they were like before the book of Romans was written.
The first biblical reference to homosexual sin is in Genesis 19, when the men of Sodom attempted to rape the angels. This is about 2,000 years into human history. Leviticus, about 600 years after that, gives us the first explicit law prohibiting the practice. Now when the Lord went down to Sodom to discover if it was as bad as it sounded like it might be, what standard were the inhabitants of Sodom violating? Bad by what standard? When God judged them with fire from the sky, what standard was He vindicating? The Sodomites had no Romans, no Leviticus, and so on. But they did have judgment (Jude 7). They had the vengeance of eternal fire, and because God does not erupt for no reason, when that judgment fell, it fell on them because they had sinned against knowledge. They knew that what they were doing was wrong, but they suppressed that knowledge in unrighteousness.
Imagine the first person to be drawn to homosexual activity. Was it then an abandonment of the natural use of the opposite sex? Did people who lived this way (before Abraham) receive in themselves the due penalty of their error? The answer is plainly yes. The book of Romans is describing something that was going on in the world of pagan civilization already.
Or suppose a tribe out in the sticks has not yet received any revelation whatever, and yet homosexual behavior is not unknown among them. When members of that tribe appear before God to answer for the deeds they have done (say, head-hunting, lying, theft, and sodomy) will they have an excuse when it comes to the sodomy? Does the absence of revelation mean that they are not without excuse on that point?
So then, we don’t know everything through nature. We don’t know the plan of salvation through nature. But we do know the need for salvation through nature. That knowledge is unsettling, and so we stuff it. We don’t like it, and so we hold it under the surface of our id, trying to drown it down there, and our arms are quivering. We like to pretend we do not know . . . but we actually do know.
I agree that nature does not spell out the details of the plan of salvation, and that it does spell out the need for salvation. I would go one step further and state that it pretty clearly points to Who that Savior is.
I think it’s important to note that the sin of Sodom was not (per Scripture – Ez. 16:49) sodomy, but “pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.”
I like your reasoning here. It seems well based on scripture. My question is this … if I am having a conversation with someone about why homosexuality is wrong, can I simply say “well, we both know its wrong, don’t we”, and just leave it at that?
Sam, yes, those sins too.
@Sam – you need to keep reading and not stop at verse 49.
Ezekiel 16:50 – And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
what do you think that abomination is?
@david R If we stick to Scripture, there is no statement of what the sin of Sodom was other than the statement in Ezekiel that I’m aware of. If you’re willing to look to Josephus as a reasonable source, he gives this: About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, insomuch that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices. All those are abominations. It’s clear elsewhere in Scripture (Judges 19-20)… Read more »
Sam,
Do you think that the etymology of the word “sodomy” is just coincidental?
Sam – Jude 7 actually explains their sins in terms of “going after strange flesh,” not to mention that the narrative of Genesis itself clearly defines this as among their “gross immorality” (to again draw a phrase from Jude). So, in fact, scriptue DOES define their sins in other places than Ezekial, and does so plainly in terms of their sexual immorality, and that sexual immorality is plainly explained to be Homosexual in nature. This was not their ONLY sin, but Biblically it is explicitly stated to be a severe sin and sufficient reason for their “destuction with eternal fire”
Who gets to decide what Natural Law teaches? Obviously the pedophile would find no prohibition of his proclivities in his view of Natural Law. Hitler and his folk certainly found their view of Natural Law giving them the imperative to kill Jews. Absent a Higher Power telling Mankind what constitutes right and wrong, every man will insist upon doing “…that which is right in his own eyes.” Judges 17:6
As for sodomy not referring to – well – sodomy; intelligent people don’t fall for that one, only homosexuals do.
Sam Steinmann wrote: If you’re willing to look to Josephus as a reasonable source, he gives this: About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, insomuch that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices. Note carefully how Josephus’s account compares with the development described by Romans 1:20-27. Homosexual sin is not the initial stage of cultural rebellion. It doesn’t arrive fully formed like that. It’s the end-stage symptom, after having… Read more »
Who gets to decide what Natural Law teaches?
The same fella who decides what Biblical Law teaches.
“Or suppose a tribe out in the sticks has not yet received any revelation whatever …”
Impossible.
To be = to be plugged into His revelation generator.
@Katecho wrote: We should also consider what stage we are in regarding our current national culture. Have we once known God as a people, and become thankless toward Him? Have we worshipped the creature rather than the Creator? Have we become affluent and proud? Have we professed to be wise? Have we become envious and callous toward neighbor and stranger? Have we reached a full-blown stage of cultural embrace of homosexuality as a final symptom just before God’s judgment falls? Do these similarities concern us? I boldfaced the “we” and italicized the “us” I, in my heart, determined years ago… Read more »
Melody, the “Higher Power” has instituted BOTH Biblical and natural law, as Calvin himself clearly believed: “It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of the natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men.” Institutes IV.XX.15 Calvin Beisner: “Even Luther and Calvin, despite their Reformation commitment to sola scriptura, drew heavily on natural law tradition. . . according to Christian thought. . . the two standards of justice—Biblical law and natural law—are really one, though Biblical law is more clearly… Read more »
Luke says: “This was not their ONLY sin, but Biblically it is explicitly stated to be a severe sin and sufficient reason for their “destuction with eternal fire””
And there you have it. God hates fags. I saw a queer walking down the street and asked “what would Jesus do?”
So I doused him with kerosene and tossed a lit match on him.
Can I get an “Amen”?
/s
Let’s reflect upon the entirety of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, though. Lot offered his virgin daughters to the mob of rapists (I assume without their consent). Later, he gets drunk and impregnates both of them. Now, I’ve had a few drinks in my youth, but I can’t recall getting drunk enough to where I’d knock up my own offspring. Yet, the Bible insists that Lot was a “righteous” man. The moral of this story? To me, it’s that women have no dominion over their own bodies and that a little wine is a sufficient excuse to using them… Read more »
@James Bradshaw – I’m curious and really don’t know how you’ll answer but: Do you personally really care what Jesus would do?
James, You are missing the essential part of the story. Yes, there is a place where the fire is not quenched, but saying that Jesus would toss the lit match is incorrect. A Thrice Holy God is high and lifted up, way above our comprehension. The affront against Him by His creatures rebelling against Him and questioning His judgment is a violation that requires justice at a level beyond our same comprehension. We either believe it, or not. What Jesus did was to completely satisfy the required justice. It pleased the Father to crush the Son so as to be… Read more »
I find arguments against homosexuality based on “nature” to be a little frustrating. Not only do many people “naturally” feel sexual attraction to their own sex, but homosexual behaviors are frequently observed in other animals sans human intervention. I think it’s absolutely certain that Scripture condemns the act, but I think saying that “nature” proves this requires a lot of hand waving.
But waving hands helps us locate stuff when we’re blind to what nature in fact reveals.
The question is how we can recover our sight as to what nature flashes in big neon lights.
It’s funny, or maybe tragic, how breezily we say that nature reveals no redemption.
Really? — and we know this because how??
But haven’t you ever seen a snake eat dust?
Sam – Jude 7 actually explains their sins in terms of “going after strange flesh,” not to mention that the narrative of Genesis itself clearly defines this as among their “gross immorality” (to again draw a phrase from Jude). So, in fact, scriptue DOES define their sins in other places than Ezekial, and does so plainly in terms of their sexual immorality, and that sexual immorality is plainly explained to be Homosexual in nature. This was not their ONLY sin, but Biblically it is explicitly stated to be a severe sin and sufficient reason for their “destuction with eternal fire”… Read more »
James Bradshaw wrote: “Now, I’ve had a few drinks in my youth, but I can’t recall getting drunk enough to where I’d knock up my own offspring. Yet, the Bible insists that Lot was a “righteous” man. The moral of this story? To me, it’s that women have no dominion over their own bodies and that a little wine is a sufficient excuse to using them for sexual pleasure, even if it’s your own daughters.” James is so full of his own vinegar that he probably isn’t even aware that he has the story completely backwards. Lot didn’t abuse his… Read more »
Nick E wrote: “Not only do many people “naturally” feel sexual attraction to their own sex, but homosexual behaviors are frequently observed in other animals sans human intervention. I think it’s absolutely certain that Scripture condemns the act, but I think saying that “nature” proves this requires a lot of hand waving.” “Proves” may be too strong a word, but we need to be careful to distinguish appeals to Natural Law/Revelation from appeals to Naturalism. Naturalism would say that nature is all there is, and that nature is an accident without intent or purpose, therefore anything that ever happened or… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: “But I don’t think the Sodom story is the best place to go with that. The sins of Sodom, as have been pointed out, seem to be desire to rape Lot’s guests, pride, and lack of concern for the needy, not any kind of allowance for homosexual relationship in itself. Of course, the story of Sodom is much more appealing culturally than simple commands that also condemn so many more things, so it has been far easier for culture to attach to.” I’m not sure why Jonathan wants to mask or downplay the obvious homosexuality of Sodom. It’s… Read more »
I’m going to skip the full exegesis – for the sake of holding interest – but when you let Scripture inform Scripture with Romans 1 and Ezekiel 16, you find that there’s a root, a stalk and a final fruit – fruit that actually and symbolically is completely contrary to God’s created Order. The root of all sin is exchanging the truth of God for a lie (per Genesis 3). In Sodom, this happened and it led to all that is listed in Ezekiel 16. Then, after this conception and growth into maturity, it led to the fully ripened fruit… Read more »
Katecho:
There are some things that do have a natural function though, but it seems to be an evil one, like some of the appendages various animals have for killing and ripping each other apart. They do help the first animal thrive and survive though.
The answer to that though is whether you really want to put human reproductive organs on that same (evil) level.
I think Oliver O’Donovan said somewhere in his book on Resurrection and Moral Order that you really have to know the telos of the entire cosmos to decide a lot of these issues.
ketecho, Your summary of what us Catholics would call the natural law is quite good: “Appeals to natural revelation, on the other hand, would begin with a recognition of intent and purpose through observing what exists. ” For those interested, my go to guy on this subject is the always smart and interesting philosophy professor Ed Feser. Here he deals with many of the common objections one finds to using natural law arguments: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10/whose-nature-which-law.html Here is his conclusion: “So, for the natural law theorist, certain things are “natural” for us in the sense of tending to fulfill those ends the… Read more »
This: “…seeking, not justice, but to find any way we can to get ourselves off the hook.”
Hence the continual attempt to soften, downplay or even deny the perversion that is the end game as katecho describes. It is all of one, a feeble fist raised and shaking in the face of God.
@Fake Herzog.
Got it bookmarked, for follow up. Thanks for the link.
t
If this is true then it cuts both ways. “We ought not to trust men” not “We ought not to trust men who don’t agree with us”.
Not quite Matt. If God did not exist, of course, you would be correct. You are overlooking a fundamental reality–the indwelling of the christian by the Holy Spirit. The one who transforms our minds and our natures. As we grow in Christ we discern our own ‘divided selves’ as we grow and we learn to not even trust our ‘flesh’ as we learn to trust God. In that way of thinking, when God really transforms your perception, you argument sounds like a sophist trying to earn a quick coin. In my reading of Scripture (new testament) most of the discourse… Read more »
It would be interesting to get DW’s view of Prof. Feser’s explanation of natural law (as linked by Fake Herzog). I visit Fesser’s blog regularly, too, Herzog, even if it does make my brain ache!