[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Bumping the discussion about "natural law", Locke, and God's Word...

John Locke, Second Treatise On Government, Chapter 2:

Sect. 4. TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.
...
The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind,...
...
Chapter 4:

Sect. 22. THE natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule. The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact, according to the trust put in it. Freedom then is not what Sir Robert Filmer tells us, Observations, A. 55. a liberty for every one to do what he lists, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws: but freedom of men under government is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, where the rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man: as freedom of nature is, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature.

Locke's philosophy rests on the mythical and nonexistent "state of nature", governed by an unwritten mythical "law of nature" (or, "natural law"), which he defines as "reason" (which means what, exactly? Who decides what "reason" dictates as far as law and rights?). Originalist makes much ado about "natural law" and "natural rights" and claims Locke as his authority and reference. The MAGA movement he thinks is, or ought to be, fighting for the rule of "natural law" and the supremacy of "natural rights". But, observe:

1. The law of nature and natural rights are, according to Locke, proper for the STATE OF NATURE, in the absence of human society. Locke clearly distinguishes between the state of nature and the state of society, between the law of nature and the law of society, and between natural liberty and liberty within a society. To argue for a return to natural law is to argue a return to the state of nature and an overthrow of civil society. That is, it is to argue for a total dissolution of society, strict anarchy in its purest sense. But of course, Originalist seems to have missed all that.

2. Moreover, Locke teaches things that are wholly opposed to Divine Revelation. He claims man in a state of nature is subject to no law but this amorphous and undefinable "reason". The Bible teaches that man, as a moral agent, is subject to God's unalterable moral law, regardless of his state. Locke teaches that freedom is to be subject to no law except civil law, that freedom is absolute except as restricted by the civil government, that the legislative body of government ALONE prescribes law. The Bible teaches that God is the Lawgiver, that His Law is the Holy Bible, that freedom is the right and ability to obey God and deny sin, that man has no RIGHT to transgress God's Law regardless of what the civil legislature says.

Lockean theories of jurisprudence and rights are HUMANISM and inevitably lead to EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE: Globohomo Clown World. Locke gave lip service to God while subverting God's authority. Just like the Pharisees did. Just like most modern "Judeo-Christian" Americans continue to do.

God's truth isn't found in Locke's philosophy, but in the Holy Bible.

Bumping