By Angus Harley

Anyone in the US with a pair of eyes can see that there have been various attempts to create a stronger Christian presence in both politics and what is called the ‘public square’, i.e., the intellectual debate within society about public and civic matters. Various Christian websites and theologies have sought to bring their ideas to bear in that public setting. Some examples we readily know of: Doug Wilson’s theonomistic model, the Seven Mountain Mandate, etc.. Think of the Charismatics who are influencing Trump. One version that is slowly, in the background, gaining momentum is the perspective that seeks to use Natural Law (NL) from a Christian perspective to bring to bear a civic apologetic. From a Conservative Evangelical perspective, at the forefront of this ideology are those from Reformed Theology (RT), especially the group that is, on the face of it, led by David VanDrunen. In fact, quite a number- but not all- of the Evangelical models that interact in the public square are based on NL to some degree or other. It is a fundamental belief, a prerequisite, in their eyes, for public discourse.

Aquinas’ influence

Reformed and Thomistic

Behind this doctrine of NL is the theology of Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas.[1] In Reformed circles, due in great measure to the upsurge of Christians in the debate in the public square, Aquinas’ doctrine of NL within a Reformed setting has really taken off. For those who doubt this, they need to read the body of work by VanDrunen and co.. In fact, not only has there been an upsurge of the Thomistic (Thomas Aquinas) doctrine of NL, there has been an accompanying growth of Thomistic theologico-philosophical ideas in general. It is a good job, then, that some in the Reformed community are aware of this pernicious growth of the wider Thomistic theology-ideology, and they oppose it. Sadly, some have ‘converted’ from Protestantism to Catholicism due to the simple cause that they follow Thomistic ‘logic’ and ‘reason’.[2]

Progressive Covenantalism

This brings us to Progressive Covenantalism (PC). Back in the day, PC considered itself a variety of New Covenant Theology. Now it aligns itself openly and squarely with Reformed Theology (RT), as a subset of it. So, in PC’s website Christ Over All, it identifies as “Reformed and evangelical”, and as adhering to that “confessional heritage” passed down over the ages. As to a specific aim, the site pursues the theme of Christ’s Lordship in regard to ethics and “public theology”.[3]

The influence of Thomistic theology is openly found in Christ Over All, with numerous articles devoted to speaking about it. Not in a purely negative sense, but mainly so as to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, of his system. Writers in Christ Over All are very aware that Aquinas’ system is built on reason, not on revelation as such. They even see that Aquinas contradicts his own view of NL implanted in man’s heart, arguing that Aquinas’ theology of reason ends up undermining his own “robust system of natural law.”[4]

Trojan Horse

Whilst PC has done the right thing to throw upon the dung heap elements of Aquinas’ system, it promotes the theory of NL itself. PC, along with those Reformed critics of Thomistic theology, think they’ve done everything they need to do by discarding Aquinas’ ‘rationalistic’ system built on reason. Yet, by allowing in NL itself, they have left the door wide and permanently open for a fundamental of the Thomistic system to prevail. Just as the Trojans welcomed in the Trojan Horse into their city, so RT allows in Thomistic ideology by giving way to the unbiblical doctrine of NL. That is why, even when anti-Thomists in the Reformed movement are busy critiquing the pro-Thomists in their midst, the anti-Thomists are blind and oblivious to NL doctrine itself and its leavening effect. For those who dismiss my view (and there are quite a few) read VanDrunen’s body of work, and look at the debate between VanDrunen and Frame. Research for yourself, reader, the central role that NL theory plays in this resurgence of the wider Thomistic mindset in certain Reformed groups. Do not take my word for these things.

The nexus of NL

Why is NL itself so important to the Reformed Thomistic group? Why is it central? It is because it is the nexus for public discourse and transformation. NL is seen as the bonding agent of society, for it is maintained that the entirety of mankind operates on the basis of a common reason and law of the heart. Even your most virulent Christian theonomist operates under the banner of NL.[5]

Andrew T. Walker’s rendition of NL in Progressive Covenantalism

Elsewhere, I have given my own proof for the influence of Thomistic ideology in Reformed writings. I now wish to underscore its presence in PC, through interacting with Andrew T. Walker’s rendition of NL. Here is a full quote by him on NL taken from the PC website Christ Over All:

“The natural law reflects the divine reason of the Logos, Jesus Christ Supremely, Christians must have a concern for the natural law because we are called to love Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the origin and terminus of the natural law. He is truth (John 14:6) who sets humanity free to pursue communion with him (John 8:32). He testifies to the enduring authority and intelligibility of creation order (Matt. 19:4–6). He is reason, the rationale for reason, and reason personified. In this, Christ is the ratio, ratio legis, and ratione personae of the natural law.[2] Christ as the ratio (reason) of the natural law means he is the basis of reason itself. To say Christ is the ratio legis (reason for the law) of the natural law means he is “the logical element of the law, or the purpose that animated the legislator in the issuance of the law.”[3] Christ’s own glory is the reason any such moral law exists. As to the ratione personae (reason of his person), a Protestant and evangelical account of natural law through progressive covenantalism sees the logic and instantiation of the natural law as inextricably bound with God’s plan to sum up all things, even the principles of sound moral reasoning, in the person, Jesus Christ (Eph 1:9–10). This understanding stands in contrast to traditional expressions of natural law theory that depict law as an impersonal “ordinance of reason”—or Tao, to use C. S. Lewis’s term in The Abolition of Man.”[6]

I will now evaluate Walker’s position, starting with his view of Jesus as Logos.

The NT’s view of Jesus as the Logos

Let me begin this part with a summary of Walker’s understanding of the Son as Logos. Walker’s definition of Jesus as Logos focuses upon him as reason (Latin, ratio), divine reason, and as such he is the foundation of reason found everywhere in creation, including natural law (ratio legis). He is also the embodiment of reason (ratione personae). In a footnote, Walker says he borrowed this terminology from Fellmeth and Horwitz.[7]

NT view of the divine Logos

The NT record of Jesus as Logos concerns his role as Creator, Lord, and Judge of this world and the Creator, Lord, and Savior of the new creation. John 1:1-5 states:

“1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.”

John is interpreting the creation-event of Genesis 1 through Christological eyes. Genesis 1’s reference to God creating through his speech-command is taken up by John to indicate that there were at least two persons who were God and who created all things: one called only “God” (the Father), and the other called “God” and “the Word” (the Son). God the Word spoke all things into being, and by doing so, his creative speech gave life. Even the spiritual and physical life that man received came from the Word as Creator. According to John’s Gospel, mankind rebelled against the Creator-Word, rejecting his spiritual light and life.

John 1:14 goes onto say that, “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” The One who was the Creator of man and man’s life became man, taking on himself the life of man. What did the disciples see in the Word? They saw glory, divine glory. Just as the Word and God created all things in this world, so the Word as flesh and God the Father, through grace and truth (salvific speech), together bring a new creation. The glory that the disciples saw was the divine grace and truth of the new creation in the Word in the flesh.

1 John 1:1-4 has a similar feel to John 1:1-5, but the difference is that 1 John 1:1-4 focuses entirely on the Word as the new-creation Word, who, along with the Father, gave eternal life and fellowship to those who believed in the Word and his Gospel (speech):

“1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. 4 These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.”

Revelation 19:13 takes matters on to a final stage by defining the same Logos as God’s, and the Word as Lord and Judge of mankind, the One whose garment was dipped in blood, and who came with his heavenly armies:

“11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. 13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. 15 From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. 16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” “

The main weapon of the Logos is the “sharp sword” that comes from his mouth, the sword of his salvific Gospel that judges the entirety of the world, and with which he goes to war with his enemies (Rev.1:16; 2:12, 16; John 12:48).

So, in terms of a ‘Logos theology’, there is a development from the Creator-Logos of this world, to the Logos who became flesh, who revealed divine glory through his redemptive grace and truth (salvific speech). The Logos is now above, as the source of eternal life and fellowship with the Father and the Son. The Word of God will return to judge all those who rejected him and his Gospel and truth, and to bring final deliverance of the saints by his word and command. All the stages of Jesus as Creator-Savior are embodied in him as the Word: pre-incarnation, incarnation, exaltation, future coming.

Critique of Walker’s view of the Logos

There is in this NT teaching nothing of the kind of doctrine held by Walker. He has, without one word of exegetical justification, swapped the biblical model of Jesus as Logos for the idea of reason. It is not the divine glory we see, but the notion of reason.

Walker’s understanding of Jesus as Logos perhaps in some measure reflects the kind of NT interpretation of the Logos that formerly prevailed in Evangelical circles. Back in the day, it was common to read that the idea of Logos in John 1:1 was in part taken from ancient Greek’s view that logos was rationality, reason, and order.

Except, Walker’s understanding of Jesus as the Logos owes far more to Aquinas than it does to, say, Aristotle or the Stoics. This is evident in Walker’s belief in Jesus as ratio, ratio legis, and ratione personae. It was Aquinas who first systematized a ‘Christian’ theology of law. Not only did Aquinas believe that without reason there was no true law, but it is personified reason that lies behind the whole of creation as “Eternal Reason”, so that all creatures (rational and non-rational) are impacted by “eternal law”:

“Even irrational animals partake in their own way of the Eternal Reason, just as the rational creature does. But because the rational creature partakes thereof in an intellectual and rational manner, therefore the participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is properly called a law, since a law is something pertaining to reason, as stated above (I-II:90:1). Irrational creatures, however, do not partake thereof in a rational manner, wherefore there is no participation of the eternal law in them, except by way of similitude.”[8]

It seems obvious that Walker has taken the three principles of reason- reason itself, reason that gives rise to law, and the personification of reason (Eternal Reason)- and ‘incarnated’ them in the person of Jesus Christ. To this ideology, Walker attaches the terminology given by Fellmeth and Horwitz.

Walker’s blend

I like coffee, and look at different blends before buying it. Let us remind ourselves of the ‘ingredients’ that have, over the centuries, been poured into the NL ‘blend’. The concept of NL itself the Reformed have adopted and adapted from pagan Greek sources.[9] There is also, as we saw, the Greek idea of Logos as reason, rationality, and order. On top of this there is Aquinas’ Roman Catholic systematization of NL as part of his wider ‘omni-law’ model.[10] To this, Walker adds his own special, key, ingredient: Christology. This addition seeks to right the wrong of Aquinas’ system. If Aquinas’ system failed because it was based fundamentally on reason (even reason personified), Walker has sought to solve that riddle by rooting reason in the person of Christ himself. In the person of Christ, therefore, reason, revelation, and God blend as one, and all of this is the blend leading to the making of NL.

Unfortunately, Walker’s particular ‘blend’ does not explain how it is that Jesus is reason, nor how NL must exist, nor why reason must give rise to NL, nor, again, how NL must lead to Jesus. Walker simply assumes all of these things. This clearly demonstrates the level of comfort and unquestioning acceptance that Protestant scholars have with NL and its language and terms.

The dominance of the abstract

Lewis and Tao

Walker is to be commended for rejecting C. S. Lewis’ use of the term tao (which is the ancient Chinese term for ‘way’, the basic component of Taoism/Daoism). Walker targeted Lewis probably because his book The Abolition of Man is one of the foremost defenses of NL. As a decades-long teacher of world religion, I can say without hesitation that Lewis was reckless and foolish for using this term, as Daoism’s use of tao does not belong in Christianity.

But that is the point, is it not? For Lewis was operating with a category- NL- that in its origins and content is very similar to the notion of the Daoistic tao: the ‘way’ of the ‘other’, the ‘heavenly’, a ‘world’ not characterized by an actual divine being, but which operates by itself, as it were, in a divine capacity. Put another way, when one examines the Thomistic model of law and NL, even though ‘God’ is the creator and source of this law, both ‘nature’ and ‘law’ operate like some kind of Deistic power, as if God has created them both, wound them up, and of they go and do their ‘divine’ thing in the world. Moreover, even in wider theology, the practical nature of NL is that it functions by itself, as it were, outside of God’s special revelation, so that all of humanity can both understand and appreciate it- so it is claimed by NL followers.

Walker’s Christological response

Walker is no doubt acutely aware, therefore, of the common objection brought against NL theory that says it separates God and his revelation in Scripture from NL itself, for NL does not ‘need’ Scripture to operate. Law is, in principle, embedded in the whole of creation. It is not taken from Scripture itself. By anchoring NL in Christ himself, via him as the source of reason and reason incarnate, Walker is attempting to answer his critics that might say he is creating a purely ‘natural theology’ with no basis in Scripture and revelation, and, just as importantly, Walker’s model seeks to avoid the accusation of NL being impersonal and divine-like.

Response to Walker

It is, in reality, impossible for NL adherents to avoid the temptation to separate ‘nature’ and ‘law’ from God and his revelation, and to thereby give to reason, nature, and law- and all associated concepts- a kind of form of divinity. As creative as Walker’s Christological attempt is to escape criticism, he cannot help himself and falls into the same pit as Lewis. He writes of Matthew 19:4-6:

“He testifies to the enduring authority and intelligibility of creation order (Matt. 19:4–6).”

Does Jesus really testify to these things in Matthew 19:4-6? He says:

“4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.””

Does the reader see what Walker has done? He has attributed a divine quality to marriage itself, in itself, expanding it into a creational setting and its order, and in turn giving to that order the same divine capabilities. We must be pointed: Jesus is talking about marriage only. Why must we take this to be about creation as a whole? Since Jesus is speaking about marriage, and not creation as a whole, we must appreciate that Jesus is arguing one specific point- and one only- that marriage is between a man and a woman to become one flesh, for that was God’s appointed order from the beginning. More specifically, the ‘intelligibility’ factor of early marriage is, as to the text, not found in marriage itself, but only in God’s verbal instruction about the existence and purpose of marriage. It is not marriage in itself, by itself, that is the focal point of intelligibility, or the expression of authority; it is God’s verbal revelation, in Scripture, about marriage that is these things, and Jesus’ subsequent verbal defense of that revelation.

Why, then, as Walker does, further add to this text the claim that creation as an order has intelligibility and authority? And why separate authority into creation’s order itself? I am not disputing that men ‘understand’ that God reveals himself in creation (Rom.1:18ff.). Yet, even then, it is not creation per se that has divine-like qualities, for it is God who reveals himself via creation. What does Psalm 19:1-2 state?

“1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God;

And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.

2 Day to day pours forth speech,

And night to night reveals knowledge.”

What NL does in practice is remove v1 and leave us with v2 only. Yet, the speech of v2 is the revelation of the glory of God that is in creation, the work of his hands in this world manifested to the eyes of faith. What is not ‘revealed’ is a law that is in itself, by itself, divine-like, or creation or nature that is in itself divine-like, or a soul or reason that in itself is divine-like. It is God in his person who is revealed, his glory, and the works of his hands, within or via creation itself. That is, ‘nature’ is not revealing itself as divine-like, nor does the human soul reveal itself as divine-like, nor is there a law that is revealed as divine-like. The irony of ironies here is that, in logic terms, Walker’s theology is, in part, making precisely the same exchange made by the idolaters in Romans 1:18ff.: they are exchanging the revelation of God in creation for creation itself as divinized!

Unrecognizable Christ

Critics will automatically dismiss my objection as flying-in-the-face of Walker’s own belief in the Christocentric nature of reason. To these critics I wish to pose a question: if Walker and co. are allowed to demonstrate the inconsistency of Aquinas’ own system- wherein he presents a robust doctrine of NL, only to undermine it by other things he argues- are those who evaluate Walker allowed to show the inconsistencies within his own model? Or is Walker exempt from such things? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

The ease with which Walker reads in his NL thesis into the biblical teaching is alarming. Where does it say that Jesus gave NL, or that he is its terminus? Why is Jesus the Christ as salvific truth (John 14:6) seen as a reflection of his person as reason and the foundation of NL? And how does he, in that NL capacity, manage to set “humanity free to pursue communion with him (John 8:32)”?  And how on earth does Ephesians 1:9-10 teach that NL is “inextricably bound” to God’s plan? Why force Jesus to be ‘Reason’? Walker’s strident claims are unbiblical, so I say with total sincerity- I do not recognize Walker’s Christ. Yet, I do recognize it as a kind of hybrid of modern Christological theory and Thomistic reasoning.

To those Reformed anti-Thomists I say this: brothers, wake up and smell the Thomistic ‘blend’. Do not block your spiritual smell sense, for the Thomistic system is before you every day, promoted by you, inasmuch as you in great measure owe your doctrine of NL to that man Aquinas. As long as Aquinas’ doctrine of NL persists in Evangelicalism, so will this doctrine act like Thomistic leaven within it. This is the Trojan Horse effect of NL.

[1] 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/; “Romans 1:18-32: a prooftext for ‘natural law’? All Things New Covenant, March 21, 2026,  https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2026/03/21/romans-118-32-a-prooftext-for-natural-law/#_ftn7.

[2] Recently, Jim Kathan, on Facebook, brought an example of this to our attention, via Owen Strachan’s website.

[3] “About”, Christ Over All, “https://christoverall.com/about/.

[4] Robert Lyon, “The Neo-Calvinist Dutchman and the Angelic Doctor at The Olympic Shooting Range: Bavinck and Aquinas on the Knowledge of God, Christ All Over, August 30, 2024, ”https://christoverall.com/article/concise/the-neo-calvinist-dutchman-and-the-angelic-doctor-at-the-olympic-shooting-range-bavinck-and-aquinas-on-the-knowledge-of-god/.

[5] Doug Wilson, “The Nature of Natural Law,” Blog & Mablog, January 10, 2024, https://dougwils.com/the-church/s16-theology/the-nature-of-natural-law.html.

[6] Andrew T. Walker, “Ethics through Covenant: A Primer on Progressive Covenantalism and Moral Theology (Part 3),” Christ Over All, October 6, 2023, https://christoverall.com/article/concise/ethics-through-covenant-a-primer-on-progressive-covenantalism-and-moral-theology-part-3/.

[7] Walker, “Ethics Through Covenant”.

[8] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, First part of the second part, Question 91, Article 2: whether there is in us a natural law, Reply to Objection 3.

[9] Harley, “Be careful the company”.

[10] Harley, “Be careful the company”.