The Doctrine Of Natural Law

     Paul began his argument of Romans by proving that the Gentiles are sinners before God. Although God has revealed His truth to them, they have suppressed it, resulting in the darkness of their inner man and rebellion against God to the point of worshipping animals (1:18-23). As a result God gave them over to do the desires of their heart (1:24, 26): idolatry (1:25) and homosexuality (1:26-27). Seeing that they had no desire to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a depraved mind to do every sort of evil (1:28-31).

Natural law is a concept with a long history dating back to the Greco-Roman philosophers. Despite some variations among philosophers one point of agreement was understood as “that process in nature by which human beings, through the use of sound reason, were able to perceive what was morally right

Paul’s letter to the Romans can be broken down into four major sections. Within each of these sections there is a single compelling issue. Within the context of these respective issues, several interpretive questions can be answered through the interpretative process. These answers help us to understand how to apply the spiritual principals to our lives, as well as, help us compel other individuals to apply these spiritual principles within their lives.

With regards to the natural world, Romans states that “For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God” (Romans 1:20, NLT). The world was made perfect from God’s hands and science taken the credit away from Him and given it to Evolution other erroneous ideas. It goes on to say they thought foolishly of what God was like and eventually became lost and confused. So instead of worshipping God, they worshiped idols and God abandoned them to do whatever their hearts wished (Romans 1:21-24). People in this world are no different from those in Paul’s days. The idols people worship today range from people, statues, wealth, material things, etc. It may not be the physical and literal act of bowing down to those things but in their actions, it’s clear that that’s all their minds are set on. Verses 25-32 is a perfect example of how people live; a perfect example of how we are not to live. Naturally we are all sinners but because of Jesus we can be forgiven for those sins and free from

Paul makes it clear that the world was created by God and that we are without excuse if we choose to deny that. Romans

Paul’s letter to the Romans is known as one of his greatest theological works. It has been passed down for thousands of years and is still just as relevant today as it was in Paul’s time. How exactly is it relevant the modern day Christian may ask? What with its harsh language that includes strong sentences such as “the wages of sin is death” (6:23) and “the wrath of God” (1:18) one may say that the times have changed. Some may say that these issues in Paul’s time are acceptable in society today. Jesus is all loving not wrathful. What exactly is the Christian to think? The purpose of this short essay is to examine how the Book of Romans relates to the Christian in the twenty-first century and how it helps to shape his worldview.

Christianity over the course of history has a vast influence on individuals, society and the way believers conduct themselves. It provides morals, practices and ethics that every Christian attempts to live by. Throughout the many denominations in the Christian church, Paul of Tarsus had a significant influence on the faith. His contribution to the development and expression of Christianity is immense and can be seen to stem from his writing and missionary journeys which have implemented his ideas and interpretations onto the development of Christianity. After Jesus, Paul was arguably the most significant figure in Christianity as his teachings form a significant part of the New Testament. Like may other Pharisees of that time in history, Paul sought to suppress the early Christian movement. He accused early Christians of blaspheming against God and breaking Mosaic Law. However, Paul had a life-changing experience when he had a vision of Jesus, and he spent the remainder of his life as a missionary for the early church. Centuries after his ministry, his teachings still influence Christian theology.

Natural law- the idea that principles of morals and rights are inherent in nature and not human made; such laws are discovered by reason but exist apart from humankind. Positive law-human made law.

different from natural law because ‘ it calls for a certain measure of regularity of observance for without this feature, it would hardly be entitled to rank as law at all. A natural law on the other hand may stll be held to be valid even if it is never or scarcely even observed.’7 Legal positivism will only work in a community where it is widely accepted. Hart suggested that the legal system is a ‘closed’ logical system where decisions may be deduced by logic. For

Paul’s letter to the Romans is of his greatest theological works, passed down for thousands of years and still as relevant today as it was in Paul’s time. How exactly is it relevant the modern Christian may ask? What with its harsh language that includes statements such as “the wages of sin is death” (6:23) and “the wrath of God” (1:18), one may say that current times have changed. Some may say that the issues Paul addresses are acceptable in today’s society. What exactly is the Christian to think? The purpose of this short essay is to examine how the Book of Romans relates to the Christian in the twenty-first century and how it helps to shape his worldview.

The contrast between Natural Law and Legal Positivism is a necessary starting point for those who wish to understand the relationship between law and morality, and the most varied manners in which it influences society to this day. When it comes to analyzing which theory offers the most well-rounded idea of law, one can argue that Legal Positivism provides the best definition of what law is at its essence. However, because Legal Positivism came to exist as a critique to what was proposed by Natural Law theorists, it is significant that both are explored in depth as means to support such argument.

As I have stated throughout this essay there is no difference between the world today and the time of Paul’s day. We all commit sin no matter what religion we are or claim to be, we all have failures and faults. Human relationships tie into Romans 1-8 because it is important that people have relationships with each other, it was important back in Paul’s day and is still extremely important in present day. We are supposed to deal with people on a daily basis and have interaction with them. From strangers to family to friends and everyone else we come in contact with it is pertinent we have communication and relationships with humans. Christ is the master creator of human experience so by having human relationships we are doing well

Natural law theorists believe that all law must be morally justified if it can be legitimised as law at all. Legal positivism means the simple contention that it is in no sense a necessary truth that laws reproduce or satisfy certain demands of morality, though in fact they have otherwise done so. (Hart, DATE)

Thomas Aquinas was a proponent of the derivationist perspective of Natural Law, holding that it is possible to derive knowledge of what is good for humans by studying humans themselves (Floyd). In other words, practical judgments regarding the natural ends of human flourishing need to be derived from theoretical proofs about human nature. The most important realization that can be made from this is that life can be classified as the ultimate good, for without life, individuals would not be able to experience any other goods (Floyd). This position varies slightly from Aristotle, who considered eudaimonia to be the ultimate good. However, from this point, it can be argued that all other goods are subservient to this good of life, but – parallel to Aristotle’s perspective – this does not mean that all other goods are insignificant. Human beings also pursue knowledge and relationships, considered to be basic goods because they are contributing components to the ultimate good of life, acting in a capacity that leads to fulfillment (Floyd). In light of the argument that health is a basic good, it can be seen that certain illnesses or states of unhealthiness hinder an individual’s pursuit of what is good, so these states must be avoided.

This article discusses the conceptions of legal normativity, both moral and “strictly legal” conceptions. According to Spaak, regarding the normative force of legal justification, legal positivists can still embrace the moral idea and not be in conflict with their generally held belief in the “strictly legal” concept of law. In Torben Spaak’s opinion, there is a reason to desire legal positivism; he explains this through introducing the concept of jurisprudence. When discussing the nature of law, Spaak states, “that while the moral conception is what is likely favored on a smaller scale, the strictly legal conception is more appealing because it is broader,” (478). Spaak is arguing, his belief that “validity-based explanations come nearer to the truth,”(483) rather than belief-based explanations. He concludes that we are to prefer legal positivism over natural law theory. “That is why in this article I have been concerned with the law itself rather than our views about it.”(483)