In a recent essay, I was asked to respond--in favor or against—to the following statement:
“Thomas Paine once said, ‘Man cannot make principles, he can only discover them.’ This is the premise of both science and the common law.”
I agree with this common law principle. Although it is up to man to create specifications, basic principles of morality and justice have already been established by God’s Word and common law. It is simply up to man to discover them.
I am reminded of a book that very well illustrates this concept. It was the bestseller in the American colonies in 1776. That book is “Lex, Rex” (which means the ‘law is king’) written by Samuel Rutherford. This book contends that it is not man’s duty to make but rather to discover the principles of law in God’s holy word. The entire message of Lex, Rex can be easily summed up in 3 basic principles:
#1. Only God can distinguish right from wrong, and He has done so in the Bible.
Samuel Rutherford, a Calvinist, believed that man does not have the mental capability to make just law. He believed that if you leave it up to man to make the law, the law will be corrupt. We see this in our government today. Things that are perfectly permissible in God’s eyes are illegal in this country, and things that are an abomination to God are legal in this country. An example: if you go and hold a protest sign outside an abortion clinic, who gets arrested? The murderer inside, or you holding the sign?
#2. Only God can define a criminal act, and He has done so in the Bible.
God’s standard is the most holy and just standard for civil law in the world. He has a holy, glorified mind. If He says it’s OK, then it’s OK! If He says it’s wrong, then it’s wrong! We cannot allow man’s totally depraved mind to determine this for himself.
#3. Only God can determine how crime is to be punished, and He has done so in the Bible.
Point #1 has established that man is incapable of making just law. How more capable can he be of justly enforcing that law? If we leave it up to man to determine criminal punishment after we have left him to define law, the forms of punishment will be barbaric, unjust, and counterproductive. An example of this: an elderly pastor in Atlanta Georgia lost his wife and daughter after they were brutally murdered. The assailant was arrested, brought before a court of law, and charged with intentional murder. The man was tried and found guilty, and instead of being executed (which is legal in Georgia), the man was sentenced to life imprisonment. When a reporter asked the jury why the man did not receive capital punishment, the jury stated; “we only do that for heinous crimes!” That man is now getting three square meals a day, a bed, and a recreation center. Now we must ask ourselves a valuable question: who is paying for all this? The tax dollars of the elderly pastor who lost his wife and child to this man.
So it would appear that if your family is brutally murdered, the murderer gets rewarded with FREE food, a FREE bed, and a FREE recreation center. He will pay no taxes, therefore giving little to nothing back to society. And he will take up prison space, making future prisoners more difficult to confine, and contributing to the plaguing issue of overcrowded jails. If a man murders your family, you get punished by paying a fine (tax dollars) to keep this man alive by paying for his food, his bed, and his recreation center. Before a murderer commits murder, he pays taxes, and he must pay for his own food and bed. After he commits a murder, his victim’s family pays taxes while he gets relief, and they now pay for his food and his bed. This is one example of why we cannot trust mere man when it comes to making law, and properly enforcing it with just punishments!
Soli Deo Gloria!
No comments:
Post a Comment