The problem is that experience & reason are corrupted by sin, and even in externals the will is not completely free, but is limited by circumstances, the devil, and sin. This makes any ethical system, including natural law, into a flawed system. In contrast, the Holy Spirit has promised to guide our interpretation of Scripture, so that it is possible to interpret Scripture correctly. Therefore, we are better off finding and applying biblical principles than finding and applying natural law principles. Moreover, a biblical system will always be ahead of any natural law system… so you can either base your natural law on the Bible (but then it isn’t totally “natural”) or you can choose to ignore the Bible, but where will that lead you?

Homosexuality was always a sin, but there is enough from Genesis 2-3, not to mention Noah & Ham or Sodom, to tell us that without Leviticus. You can come to this conclusion by applying Biblical principles without natural law.

Crass unbelievers know that murder, adultery, stealing, lying, etc. are wrong. That's why, generally, these things are prohibited by civil laws of non-Christian nations. We do indeed get all sorts of facts from nature by observation. Think about that the next time you pass by a nuclear plant or pick up a prescription. We trust our lives to the gift of human reason, able to perceive and understand (albeit imperfectly) our natural world.

Lutherans who praise the right use of Natural Law do not do away with Scripture, because Scripture is the inspired Word of God revealed through human words. Nevertheless, the also give thanks for the Natural Law, by which we exercise the ministerial use of human reason in order to perceive the right ordering of the world around us.

If there is no such thing as Natural Law, let me ask you this: Was homosexuality a sin before Moses wrote the book of Leviticus? If so, how so?

Peace,
Robert

In your Luther quote, Luther is appealing to the conscience. The conscience, inerrant as it is, can none-the-less only judge upon the rules it has been taught. By “implanted in me by nature” Luther must mean the natural order that implanted the rules into him for his conscience to judge upon.

But where do we get the rules?

One thing that really creeps me out is when I read Lutheran theologians that mix rational arguments from nature with Scripture in their writings. Although I don’t see this today, it seems to me to be prevalent in American Lutheranism some generations back. It didn’t completely go away when the strong divine command theory came around, as it is very obvious in the books of Walther Meier and John Warwick Montgomery and later in various Creationist writings. I also have seen it in the orthodox theologians of old.

The reason I find it disturbing is that the very combination of natural rational arguments with Scripture denies the efficacy of Scripture. If we really believed Scripture was effacious, we wouldn’t need to mix the two.

While I suppose one could use any ethical system in bad faith–that is, to really get our answers from the Bible and just use whatever system we please to make secular arguments that will hopefully convince the masses. But it is fundamentally dishonest to hide our religion in reason. I think God’s enemies will realize this and, being entirely sincere, will be able to come up with proofs arguments that are as least as good as our own if not better. Faking enough natural proof or reason to get what God says accepted as a naturally evident truth isn’t going to cut it anymore, as it did in the era when Lutheran eschatology and calls to repentance were popularized to the masses through astrology.

What an honest Lutheran natural law then, would require, is an entirely good faith ability to get all our answers from nature and self-evident reason in order to use them in the public sphere. Then, we would have to go by the Bible and clear Biblical principles derived from the Bible to guide ourselves and those we love–without reason or natural arguments that would diminish our claims about the efficacy of Scripture. These two would somehow have to agree exactly without any communication between the two. This will never be possible because our will, even in externals, is not completely free, while the Holy Spirit has promised to override our will and tell us what Scripture means that transcends our corruption.

“But just as the Jews fail, so also do the Gentiles. Therefore it is natural to honor God, not steal, not commit adultery, not bear false witness, not murder; and what Moses commands is nothing new. For what God has given the Jews from heaven, he has also written in the hearts of all men. Thus I keep the commandments which Moses has given, not because Moses gave the commandment, but because they have been implanted in me by nature, and Moses agrees exactly with nature, etc.”

Here Luther makes an argument for Natural Law, as did the Orthodox Lutherans. For Lutherans, good works are not good unless faith is added, even if they appear good externally according to Natural Law. Thus, obeying parents, etc.

Baptists do not adhere to Natural Law particularly. They, like some Lutherans, adhere to a strong divine command theory ethic, finding liberty in all things not explicitly forbidden in Scripture, and forbidding (nearly) all things forbidden by Scripture. Some Lutherans in the LCMS reject Natural Law and find similitude with Baptists in this area. According to my research, this occurred in the Synod in the 1930s and thereafter.

Lutherans appreciate and use all three uses of the Law, including the third use. If Lutherans are going to speak convincingly in the public square, we should utilize whatever rational arguments we can muster, including Natural Law arguments, in order to fulfill our vocations of loving our neighbor. We should speak up and out about the unborn, embryonic stem cell research, the plight of the poor, and end-of-life issues. Thus, Lutherans have much to say in the field of bioethics.

Peace,
Robert

Baptists have something like natural law, but isn’t natural at all. They simply take Bible commands, the very law that neither we nor our fathers could bear, and drive it home again and again.

Third use of the Law is what Lutherans are supposed to use–but it can't play a role in public policy if we are going to have seperation of church & state. Bioethics is, more and more, a realm of the state. Thus, Lutherans are doomed to have less and less say on what is going to happen in bioethics.