by Angus Harley
Like the doctrine of theonomy, the belief in natural law (NL) is growing within Evangelical circles. This growth is in part because of attempts by Christians to try and make the Christian ethic relevant to modern American society. Of course, advocates of NL believe that their understanding of NL is found in the Scripture. One of the prooftexts for their view is found in Romans 1:18-32. It is said of it that it teaches that God has implanted a moral law in man’s heart, and that when man violates that internal moral law he is convicted of his sin. Not only do I reject that this interpretation is found in Romans 1:18-32, but I deny the concept of NL as a whole. Paul has in mind a different set of principles in his teaching in Romans 1:18-32, as we will shortly see, one that focuses on divine revelation and creation, over against man’s knowledge and rebellion. To begin with, for the reader’s benefit, I will unfold the NL reading of Romans 1:18-32.
The case made for NL in Romans 1:18-32
First things first: Romans 1:18-32 is used as a prooftext for NL.
Prooftext
A prooftext for the theory of natural law (NL) is Romans 1:18-32. If any are in doubt of this, then read the article “Romans 1 and Natural Law”;[1] it does not once in all its content even bother to refer directly to Romans 1, although it does allude to some of its content. Plainly, the writer is so comfortable with his thesis that he feels no need to justify his form of reliance on Romans 1 as a prooftext for NL.
What NL is
Reformed Theology (RT) acknowledges that Romans 1:18-32 indicates that fallen man rebels against God’s revelation in creation, denying the knowledge of God derived from that revelation. We are told by these scholars that man’s internal knowledge of the Creator-God and of what he expects from man is ‘natural law’.
Its usefulness
To RT, NL has many purposes. First, for the unbeliever, NL functions as “a tool of common grace for the preservation of human society”- so says RT scholar David VanDrunen.[2] Man’s internal knowledge of God and his will helps to prevent man from being cut down by God. In civil society, NL can therefore help to bring about justice. Second, knowledge of God’s law brings “all people under God’s universal judgment”.[3] Third, NL “is important for unbelievers because it lays the necessary foundation for proclaiming the gospel”; God uses NL to bring about the “conviction of sin”.[4] As for believers, the NL rebukes believers when they stray. It also shows believers how “to live well in a dangerous society”. Third, it explains and reinforces how Christians ought “to honor and participate in natural institutions of this world”, in civil society.[5]
An advanced view of the usefulness of NL is put forward by Andrew T. Walker, professor of ethics at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In partly explaining the import of Romans 1:18ff., he maintains that NL is “Christotelic”:
“Yet we sinned not against the law as a mere abstraction, but against a lawgiver who became incarnate (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-17). Christ, we read, “is the end of the law.” Christ calls himself the “Way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 14:6). The grain of the universe is not an impersonal force, but is wisdom and law personified. Natural law, then, is Christotelic. Christ upholds the natural law and is its terminus (Rom. 10:4).”[6]
In response to the above NL model, I will of first importance set in place as a setting for the discussion the three aspects of the divine revelation recorded in Romans 1:17-32.
The setting: God’s threefold revelation
The three forms of revelation in context are, God’s righteousness in the Gospel (v17); the wrath of God on man (1:18); and the manifestation of God’s divine power, immortality, and divine nature or attributes (v20).
The contrast
The first thing we need to see is how Romans 1:18 is contrasted to Romans 1:17 as to the kind of divine revelation in action:
“17 For the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith, just as it is written, “The righteous by faith will live.”18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness”
In these two verses, God’s saving righteousness is revealed in the Gospel from faith to faith (v17), and then God’s wrath is revealed from heaven, God’s dwelling place, among wicked man, and is against all of man’s ungodliness and unrighteousness (v18). One revelation is salvific, the other of judgment.
There is a third form of revelation in context: God’s revelation in creation. “For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes— his eternal power and divine nature— have been clearly seen…” (v20). It is neither salvific revelation, nor judicial revelation. So, we will call it creational revelation, as it is found in the created things themselves, and, more importantly, this term indicates the existence of God as Creator.
Therefore, there are three contextual and legitimate forms of the divine revelation: Gospel, juridical, and creational.
The dominant form in vv18ff.
In Romans 1:18ff., Paul is concentrating on God’s judicial revelation. V20 and its creational revelation are the background for the revelation of God’s wrath; for, it is revealed from heaven against those who reject his revelation in creation (vv23, 25). God’s continued act of judicial revelation against man’s sin of rejecting creational revelation is demonstrated contextually by the fact that God gave men over to depraved hearts and behavior (vv24, 26, 28). In v32, it is concluded that even though man knows that his unrighteous actions deserve God’s righteous sentence of death, man continues to do evil things.
Orientation
Coming back to the contrast between 1:17 and 1:18, we can categorically say that the revelation of God in his Gospel is not a form of his creational revelation, nor of his judicial revelation. Each revelation is distinct and belongs to its own setting. It is apparent, too, that creational revelation has no power in itself to convey righteousness to man’s heart. Only the Gospel revelation has the power to reveal and bring the righteousness of God unto salvation. The wrath of God does not have that effect, patently. Instead, it punishes man for his unrighteousness, for rejecting the divine revelation in creation itself.
NL’s eisegetical model
Although NLers (followers of NL) acknowledge the above views, they, nevertheless, go on to extract illegitimate concepts from Romans 1:18-32, reinterpreting the text to suit their own NL model.
‘Responsible’ man?
Although RT does acknowledge that in Romans 1:18-32 man rebels against God’s revelation in creation, RT, nonetheless, goes on to cite this text as proof for a system that unbelieving man can, indeed, respond morally responsibly to God’s NL. This latter belief is, we must assert, not remotely implied in the text and has to be shoehorned in by RT.
‘Moral’ man?
Not only is there no mention of ‘morality’ or similar terms in context, RT’s interpretation moves away from the clearly spiritual model set out in Romans 1:18-32 and replaces it with the generic idea of man as a ‘moral’ being. Paul is teaching the Romans about mankind’s spiritual warfare against God and his revelation. He is not laying down ‘moral principles’ and their transgressions by man.
‘Law’ man?
As with ‘moral’, from whence ‘law’? It is not found in the context. I am not at this point going to get into the fact that there is no creational ‘law’ anywhere in Scripture, including Romans 2:12-16. This subject is reserved for another day. If we are insisting on using non-contextual language, why not “the image of God” as used in Genesis 1:26-27?
‘Convicted’ man?
It is apparent from Romans 1:18-32 that creational revelation does not at all ‘convict of sin’. Man hates God’s revelation in creation. Man knows that he is guilty for this; but man is not at all, not even slightly, convicted of these things. As said already, he boldly doubles-down on his flagrant wickedness. His heart is hardened to the point that he not only does not care about God, but he is utterly impervious to any sense of righteousness or ‘conviction’.
‘Natural’ revelation?
In a context that is dripping with references to God’s creation and man as a creature, why, oh, why is it insisted that Paul is talking about ‘nature’ and ‘natural’ theology and law?
God the ‘lawgiver’?
Once again, RT reads into the text of Romans 1:18-32 that God is conveyed as a lawgiver. He does not, in context, give law; he, rather, reveals himself in three different forms, as we saw before (including v17). This is what he does do in context. He does not reveal himself in or by law, nor as a lawgiver. He is Creator and Judge. Let us be content with what the text does say about him.
Restraint on evil?
RT’s theory argues that it is possible for NL to be used to restrain evil in civil society. We are clearly now seeing RT’s NL theory as a man-made model. For in Romans 1:18-32, man hates God and his revelation in creation. Man is never going to cooperate with NL to build a just society, therefore.
Necessary for the Gospel?
No, NL is absolutely not a prep for the Gospel! Paul has already set out the Gospel in Romans 1:1-17. It is given in order to save man from sin, man who rejects God’s revelation in creation and who is now under God’s revealed wrath. Man’s knowledge of creation does not even remotely come close, contextually, to being a prep for the Gospel. The Holy Spirit by Gospel-preaching convicts man of sin (Acts 2:38-39). If NL could convict of sin, why does Paul never say so? Why does Paul not defer to NL in itself as power to convict of sin? Why does he go preaching the Gospel to nations that have this supposed NL with its convicting power? And why does such preaching to pagans always result in exposing their idolatry, that is, their hatred of God’s revelation in creation (e.g., Acts 17)? In fact, it is because Paul is a man of faith in Christ that he is able to properly handle the knowledge of God’s revelation in creation to set it in contrast to the pagans’ perverted rendition of this revelation. Paganism cannot, more to the point, will not, do this.
‘Christotelic’ revelation?
Words begin to lose their meaning by insisting that NL is Christotelic. Not only does the context obliterate such a thought, but the revelation of God that does pertain to Christ is referred to in 1:17 as the revelation of the righteousness of God in the Gospel. No law, no NL, not even a form of Christ-continuity between these laws and the Gospel is implied in context. It is because God’s creational revelation is unable to save, and because his judicial revelation by its nature does not save, nor does it tell about Christ, that a revelation of salvation (of God’s righteousness in the Gospel) distinct to these two forms of revelation was required.
Objection: ‘You misrepresent what NL advocates
are doing with the text of Romans 1:18-32′
It will be said that my view misrepresents what NL advocates derive from Romans 1:18-32. They are interested merely in the principle that God has written a law on man’s heart, embedded it there, and that it is this law that can be taken on-board to construct a NL form of civil theory for modern society. These scholars, it will be added, are not denying the negative things Paul writes about man in Romans 1:18-32.
I have no issue with RT when it does acknowledge Paul’s content in Romans 1:18-32. What I’m protesting against is RT’s model that injects NL into the same text, to then ignore what the text itself implies concerning the impossibility of NL as a system for society to follow. Let the matter be clearly understood: as NL writers as so used to extracting NL from Romans 1:18-32, they are not at all careful to justify their theological model and its applications, so that they do not recognize that their model is contradicting the text.
It is, therefore, no coincidence that NL theory, in pursuing its interpretive agenda, reduces everything in Romans 1:18-32 down to law terminology. NL terminology and main concepts do not refer explicitly to the divine side of things, to God’s creational revelation, God’s judicial revelation, or even, to incorporate v17, to God’s Gospel revelation. Where is ‘God’? ‘Creation’? ‘Revelation’? Why shoehorn into the text ‘nature’ and ‘law’? Similarly, NL is not interested in spirituality as such. Instead, NL terminology deliberately avoids the specifically spiritual, opting for ‘moral’ and ‘law’.
Objection: ‘Verse 19 refers to the knowledge of NL in man’s heart’
It will be said in criticism of my view that v19 itself confirms the existence of NL in man’s heart. The NASB95 writes, “that which is known about God is evident within them” (1:19). The KJV is more pronounced: “manifest in them”. NLers rely heavily on this type of reading of the Greek text.
Stating the obvious
First and foremost, there is zero reference to an internal ‘law’ in context. At the very least, any exegesis that is constructing a major doctrine on a prooftext has to acknowledge this as a fact.
Observable revelation
The phrase “within them” is certainly a potential translation, for when Paul uses the Greek term en, he more often than not interprets it as ‘in’. Yet, en does not always take that meaning. Here, it could just as easily translate to something like, “among”. This reading is possible due to the divine revelation, in context, being external, within creation itself.
Let us go back to what revelation is in context: it is the oxymoron of the invisible One revealing himself, his character, his justice, via creation:
“18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, 19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse.”
God is unveiling himself in creation, which is to say that revelation is observable and not concealed. This divine revelation is ‘out there’ in creation itself, a creation that includes man. Man, as part of God’s creation, reveals God’s eternal power and divine nature. Paul is not speaking about mere inanimate creation, therefore. For man takes what he knows about God and rejects it, and replaces it with worship of man himself, or of animals.
The implied irony is this: just as God revealed himself objectively in the entirety of creation, including man himself, so his wrath is revealed objectively in creation, especially upon man himself, and within mankind as a whole:
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done. 29 They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.”
Thus, all of this revelation of God, by God, takes place in the observable creation he made. Man, whom God made, is part of the observable creation, so that man in himself is part of God’s revelation of the divine. And just as God’s revelation is ‘in plain sight’ for all to see, because it is embedded, as it were, in creation itself, so man’s ungodly behavior, and God’s subsequent wrath, are not invisible, but are manifested plainly within creation. We may say that the canvass that Paul is painting all his themes upon in 1:18-32 is visible creation, therefore.
Romans 1:19 is not, therefore, to be read as conveying an internal form of revelation in man’s heart; rather, it is teaching that God’s revelation in external creation is patently understood “among men”, for it is observable to the human eye within creation. Man as a whole understands what creation represents in terms of the divine revelation. It is as plain as day to man. The HCSB translates v19 in this way: “since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them.” God has shown these things about himself to man within the created order itself, and that order includes man and his life before the Creator.
The three forms of revelation
To underscore what has been said, for it is of critical importance, we must understand that the three forms of revelation that are present in the text of Romans 1:17-32 are all observable to the human eye:
-the revelation of God’s righteousness in the Gospel: observable within the Gospel to the human eye;
-the revelation of God’s eternal power and invisible attributes: observable in creation to the human eye, including animate (man, creatures) and inanimate creation;
-the revelation of God’s wrath from heaven among men, observably giving them over to depraved actions.
Objection: ‘Man’s knowledge of God’s anger reflects an
internal knowledge of the divine decree of death (v32)’
It will be said in counter-response that my view does not account for v32 that says man’s knowledge of God’s “righteous decree” of death is innate to man; it is not derived from observing creation and its workings, therefore.
I think the above complaint goes against the grain of the text. The entire sweep of the text, its grain, is concerned with God’s open punishment of man for openly rejecting God’s revelation in creation. Man’s knowledge of God’s righteous way (dikaiōma) (v32) is referring to God’s righteous act (see Rom.5:16, 18; 8:4; Rev.15:4; 19:8) of bringing death to bear upon wicked man who in unrighteousness rejects God’s revelation in creation, and doubles-down on this by depraved behavior. In this we see echoes of the OT and its many stories of wicked and pagan man who was cut down by God. Of course, there is also an echo of Genesis 3 itself.
Objection: ‘You ignore that the text teaches man does
have an innate revelation of the knowledge of God’
It will be said that I am blind to the blindingly obvious: man’s knowledge of God is, quite obviously, revealed in his heart by God himself.
Truth and knowledge distinguished
In context, we must distinguish between truth and knowledge. Man knows the truth of God’s revelation and presence within external creation itself. However, the knowledge of this revelation (which revelation is truth) is not in context considered the truth itself; truth and knowledge are not equivalent in context.
God reveals the truth about himself, namely, the revelation of his divine attributes
compared to
man who has knowledge of this truth, knowledge of this revelation
“18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, 19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen….32 Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.”
The “truth”, in context, is God’s revelation in creation as the immortal God, the One who has eternal power and spiritual attributes. Man, by observing this creation, gathers knowledge of God and his attributes. He then casts off this knowledge and puts in its place a lie, namely, a set of false gods.
Two examples from the psalms
Psalm 19:1-2 reflects the same distinction and relationship between man’s knowledge and the divine truth of creational revelation, “1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky displays his handiwork. 2 Day after day it speaks out; night after night it reveals his greatness.” The metaphorical speech of God, what is called “truth” in Romans 1:18ff., is his revelation in creation. The psalmist rejoiced in his knowledge of the divine speech, aka, “truth”. Whereas, the wicked Gentiles of Romans 1 rejected their knowledge of the truth, of the revelation of God in creation.
Psalm 8 reflects the same interactive knowledge of God taken from observing creation:
3 When I look up at the heavens, which your fingers made,
and see the moon and the stars, which you set in place,
4 Of what importance is the human race, that you should notice them?
Of what importance is mankind, that you should pay attention to them?
5 You made them a little less than the heavenly beings.
You crowned mankind with honor and majesty.
6 you appoint them to rule over your creation;
you have placed everything under their authority,
7 including all the sheep and cattle,
as well as the wild animals,
8 the birds in the sky, the fish in the sea,
and everything that moves through the currents of the seas.
The psalmist is looking at the heavens and he sees that God made all; he looks to the skies and concludes how merciful and gracious God is to man. He is putting 1+1 together to make 2. That is, the knowledge he has is not in itself God’s revelation; rather, his knowledge is of God’s revelation.
Interactive knowledge
As already argued, man’s knowledge of God in Romans 1:18-32 is derived through the observation of his eyes. We can just as readily call it ‘interactive’ knowledge, for it is the type of knowledge derived from man interacting with the God who reveals himself externally in creation.
Faith observation
In both these examples found in the Psalms, the type of man who speaks here is the man of faith. It is only with the eyes of faith that he takes joy in God’s revelation in creation. This demonstrates, yet again, that any positive value taken from creation itself comes through the eyes of faith.
Objection: ‘Man is not a beast: he knows innately, inherently, about God and his duty toward God. This is what Romans 1:18-32 teaches!’
The above objection is the bottom line, is it not?
The internal is seen in live-time
Although this criticism seems a slam dunk, on closer inspection it bypasses what the text actually does say. As already shown, the text is not concerned with a body of knowledge that man innately has. Even the references to man’s heart (vv21, 24) and to man’s mind (v28) are placed in the context of ‘live-time’, of God giving man over to a depraved heart and mind for his rejection of the divine revelation in creation. What is not spoken of, in context, is a body of revelation or knowledge that was given to man as created.
Presuppositional info vs textual info
We must distinguish between what the text actually and explicitly states and those things implied by the text, but which are not stated. The text is concerned with the live-time reactive actions of man to God’s revelation in the entirety of external creation. However, this reaction by man assumes certain things about man that the text does not say, nor does it have to say. For it is without question that man is unique: the animals are not concerned with worshiping God; God is not punishing inanimate creation or the animals, contextually speaking. Man knows innately, intuitively, that there is a God to be sought and followed, the only true God. This knowledge is not interactive; it is instinctual. Paul does not talk about this instinctive knowledge in context, yet, he does imply it. For why would man look at creation, interact with it, to gain knowledge of the divine in the first place? It is because God has pre-programmed man, as it were, to do those things. Man’s ‘default settings’ are spiritual in nature, unlike the beasts of the earth. This type of knowledge does not require interaction: it just is.
All of God’s creatures have a similar two-fold knowledge, that is, knowledge that is innate or intuitive, and knowledge that is interactive. Let me illustrate. A bird just ‘knows’ how to fly. It does not sit down to interact with something to gather the knowledge of flight; it just knows how to fly. Yet, the same bird, with its innate body of knowledge of how to fly, must interact with life and gather info to eventually perform the act of flying. Two bodies of knowledge that must interact with one another.
In Romans 1:18-32, Paul is not focused on innate, intuitive knowledge, but upon knowledge of God derived from interaction with God’s revelation inm external creation, which includes man and his lifestyle. Any attempt, therefore, to focus upon what goes on in man’s heart in terms of a built-in system of knowledge misses what the text is getting at. Thus, the text has nothing to say about an internal body of knowledge that man possesses, or any kind of supposed internal ‘law’ within man’s heart. Those ideas are tantamount to theorizing about a system, creating a kind of Systematic Theology, but they do not engage with the overall intent of the text, which teaches that man, created by God, has in live-time rebelled against his Creator by casting off the knowledge he has of him from the creation itself (which includes man).
Objection: ‘What’s the harm in using the traditional
language of NL? It’s all the same anyway!’
That’s just it: it isn’t all the same! Please, reader, as an Evangelical, surely we must allow the text of Scripture, any Scripture, to speak for itself! The text must determine the boundaries of what we say about it. RT’s model of NL is not found in Romans 1:18-32. There is nothing about nature or law. God is not a lawgiver. There is no generic concept of morality before us. The irony is as thick as London fog: the wicked Gentiles wanted nothing to do with the God of creation who revealed himself in his own creation; RT manages to help that cause along by removing the text’s content about the true ‘God’, ‘creation’, ‘revelation’, and the ‘divine’ from the language; we get, instead, ‘morality’, ‘law’, and ‘nature’. The text is concerned with spiritual warfare, not measurements of morality and a legal mindset. Mankind has no capacity, according to the text, of responding positively to any of God’s revelation in creation. That is a fact!
Why does NL theory strip away the terms and concepts of Romans 1:18-32 to replace them with an entirely different set of terms and concepts? The answer is stunningly simple: the entire NL system has been taken hook, line, and sinker from pagans such as Cicero, developed by law-hungry Roman Catholic theologians such as Aquinas, and promoted eagerly by RT scholars who are up to their necks in the language of law and merit and who are all about civil-law development.[7]
[1] Ed Vitgliano, “Romans 1 and Natural Law”, The Stand, September 1, 2016, https://www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2016/09/romans-1-and-natural-law/.
[2] David VanDrunen, “Natural Law in Reformed Theology: Historical Reflections and Biblical Suggestions,” The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, accessed March 17, 2026, https://opc.org/os.html?article_id=301.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid. See, too, Stephen J. Grabill, “Natural Law and the Protestant Moral Tradition,” The Christian Post, November 15, 2006, Natural Law and the Protestant Moral Tradition, https://www.christianpost.com/news/natural-law-and-the-protestant-moral-tradition.html.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Andrew T. Walker, “The Gospel and the Natural Law,” Southern Equip, April 8, 2022, https://equip.sbts.edu/article/the-gospel-and-the-natural-law/.
[7] Angus Harley, “Be careful the company that you keep! Natural Law and Reformed Theology,” All Things New Covenant, March 1, 2026, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2026/03/01/be-careful-the-company-that-you-keep-natural-law-and-reformed-theology/.