Monetary Science and Natural Law



Monetary Science and Natural Law

Whenever one dives into the subject of economics—even from a theological standpoint—it is important to identify where one stands regarding various “schools” of thought on this topic. This page does just that, though quite briefly. This is also contextualized within the light of the Economic Theology™ Project description.

Also, a note should be made on the subject of Natural Law, given the similarity between it and our own Organic Economics™ teaching. Furthermore, there is a wide array of meanings that different people attach to the term “natural law,” so some clarification is certainly in order.

Brief Comments About Monetary Science

There are many confusing voices out there within the financial media crying out about various types of economic policy—many of which conflict with each other terribly. Worse yet, the ones ruining the financial systems of the world all tend to be of similar mindsets, and claim they are the great “saviors” of the global economies, though it is obvious that their policies are actually destroying the financial systems that they profess to “manage.”

In brief, from our theological viewpoint, we can categorize the most popular “schools” of economic thought within the world today inside of two groupings:

  • Unethical, Confiscatory, and Deceptive: This would include Keynesian, Neo (or “New”) Keynesian, Socialism, Communism, and most forms of Monetarism (as this last school’s theories tend to be used by the others to support their own problematic methods). All of these seek to plunder the wealth of others in one form or fashion, and thus, are quite wicked and harmful to society.
  • Generally Ethical, Rights-Honoring, and Honest: This would include all those “schools” which fall under the Subjectivist Economics umbrella, including the Austrian School, New Austrian School (which is explained more fully here), and many of the adherents of Ayn Rand’s philosophical approach to economics. These schools tend to emphasize property rights and personal liberty, and the free-will exchange of goods and services. This category would also include the “Classical” and “New Classical” schools of thought, though the Subjectivist approaches include strong theorems that are not included within these.

And to identify these within the theological context that I previously outlined on the “About This Project” page (i.e. homepage) of this website:

  • Those within the first group agree—in varying ways and to varying degrees—with Antichrist Economic™ policies as revealed within the Book of Revelation and elsewhere in the Bible.
  • On the other hand, those within the second group tend to agree—in varying ways and to varying degrees—with the Organic Economic™ principles that we study  on

Because many (but certainly not the majority) of the people within the latter grouping also happen to be Christians and Jewish people, they are sometimes in agreement with Levitical Economic™ and Messianic Economic™ policies on some points as well. Obviously, the writings of this latter group are those which I have spent most of my time researching regarding economic science (i.e. outside of the Scriptures themselves). So I recommend my readers pay more attention to the people within this second group during your own continuing studies.

Unfortunately, today’s global banking and political systems are controlled primarily by the demented people that are classified within the first group. That is why the world is now in such a mess, and why I am now developing the Economic Theology™ project. This is also why I already offer Organic Economics™ to my readers on in order to provide a biblical guideline for them to use to discern between “good and evil” in today’s governmental and financial systems.

By the way, the first group has those who also claim to be Christian or Jewish among their ranks also. However, those “schools” are in direct opposition to clear biblical principles (e.g. “thou shalt not steal,” “thou shalt not bear false witness,” etc.). So that fact renders their advocacy of such theories both ungodly and absurd. It also gives us significant reason to doubt the sincerity of their religious professions.

(See The Supreme Value of Righteousness for more information as to why I made this last statement above.)

A Note About “Natural Law”

Many readers may note a similarity between what is known as “natural law” and my frequent reference to “organic law” or “organic principles” throughout the Organic Economics™ study. Well, there really are numerous parallels. Consequently, anyone with a propensity towards “natural law” ethics will find our study somewhat compatible with many of their own beliefs about individual liberty, government, and the free market.

However, let me note also that despite the many similarities, there are also significant differences. As was also noted by Dr. Alister E. McGrath within his excellent book, The Science Of God: An Introduction To Scientific Theology, “natural law” as a philosophy spread very far beyond its original Christian theology moorings.

Deists—most particularly Freemasons—have distorted “natural law” concepts significantly with their schizophrenic ideas of a deity they call “the great architect of the universe.” (Which is a belief system quite incompatible with Biblical Theism, by the way—though some of them claim to be Christians despite this rather obvious fact.)

Intellectual philosophers, on the other hand, have departed from any reference to a deity and instead have often discussed a priori theories of “self-evident truth.” (However, their several good concepts are actually far more a posteriori than most of them would care to admit; and their bad ones are sufficient evidence that their approach is seriously lacking.)

So obviously, neither of these two groups above hold the Bible as the sole revelation from our Creator about Himself. Consequently, when one uses the phrase “natural law” there could be a myriad of different interpretations among those reading or hearing it, depending on what ideas they have about the subject.

In contrast, my approach concerning “natural law” is more similar to that of Dr. McGrath’s “Scientific Theology,” as he expressed it within the book mentioned above. It also bears much resemblance to the approach of John Calvin, as he expressed it within the first book of his Institutes of the Christian Religion. (Though I may not completely agree with either of them on other theological points.)

In short, I believe the Bible to be God’s sole pure revelation about Himself. Thus, it alone is the appropriate filter by which we can accurately understand God through His creation, and understand His mind about the “natural laws” expressed throughout the natural world around us—to include His laws of economics and finances.

In fact, by looking primarily to God’s Word, we can even bypass much of the “learning curve” that others struggle with in search for truth, and jump right ahead of them to the key issues that we need to know.

Therefore, rather than having to spend much time redefining what I mean by such terms as “natural law” (as Dr. McGrath had to do within his text), I have chosen to differentiate our approach by calling it Organic Law™ instead. Within the pages of Organic Economics™, we are looking for the most pure “organic” laws of economics and finances—i.e. the ones closest to God’s design. Thus, the Bible is emphatically our primary tool for this purpose, though we make much use of archeological, scientific, and historical, resources as well.



For more information about Rev. Rich Vermillion, please view the brief bio at the bottom of’s Website Introduction page, or visit his public LinkedIn profile page at:


Creative Commons 4.0 Licence Image is Copyrighted © by Rich Vermillion, and is hereby licensed to the public for printing and redistribution under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license. All other rights are reserved under U.S. Copyright law and applicable international laws and treaties.

The terms Organic Economics™, Levitical Economics™, Messianic Economics™, Antichrist Economics™, Economic Theology™, and their variants, are all trademarks of Rich Vermillion. All commercial rights are reserved.