Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
The Harvester Podcast is brought to you by the Florida School of Preaching. Listen weekly to take a dive into biblical topics and thoughtful studies on things that matter to our eternal souls.
Welcome, welcome to the Harvester podcast.
We are happy that you are with us in season three and this is episode number seven.
We have been discussing the existence of God, actually Christian apologetic lessons on
Christian apologetics, and of late we've been studying the existence of God.
And in this episode seven, we're going to focus on premise number three in moral argument
number two, or simply put a continuation of moral argument number two.
And we are the hosts.
I am Brian Kenyon from the South Florida Avenue congregation.
And with me are...
Steven Ford.
George Beals.
eh
uh...
Forest Antemesaris is usually with us.
Well, I say usually but that's kinda relative now because he hadn't been with us for a few
in a row but i have talked to him and he is a very busy with two two children at home and
situations going on there so where he will join us he's still part of this podcast but
he's going to come with us but anyways we get to the the argument and we get to the issue
at hand
you the the moral argument for god and george if you just bring us up to date from the
last episode and we will get started with the new material
Alright, so by way of review the moral argument for the existence of God we talked about
that last last episode and that was I called that the moral argument number two We looked
at some helpful preliminary observations to think about from Thomas B Warren He explains
that to justify the claim that an action is evil
what ought not to be done there must be an objective standard that is some law that that
action violates so if we know that there is evil then we know that a law was violated and
then the warren flu debate full being an atheist nineteen seventy six to eight he puts it
like this flu says the nazis were guilty of real objective moral wrong that means real
moral wrong
which entails an objective standard.
He continues, an objective standard that is some higher law.
And then Warren presses the question, what law then did the Nazis violate?
He continues, it cannot be the law of England or the law of America, for they were not
under the jurisdiction of England or America.
It cannot be past pre-Nazi German law, for the Nazis made their own laws for their time.
As Justice Robert
Jackson had said at Nuremberg, it was some higher law that transcends the provincial and
the transient, unquote.
The provincial is the area of Germany, the geographical area, and the transient is the
period of time in which the Nazis had charge of Germany.
So above what is involved in a certain locality during a certain period of time would be
the law that they must have violated.
Also, Warren points to such an objective standard as the only justifiable basis upon which
one can judge that there is more moral degeneration in a society or moral progress.
So moral argument two proceeds like this.
Premise number one, if we can know that there is an objective moral evil, then we can know
that there is a transcendent law that can be violated.
Premise number two, if we can know that there is a transcendent law that can be violated,
then we can know that there is a transcendent moral law giver, which we call God.
That is, you cannot have a transcendent law without there being a transcendent law giver.
Premise three, and pay particular attention to this, we can know that there is objective
moral evil.
And then, premise four,
We can therefore we can know that there is a transcendent law that can be violated that
just combines one and two.
And then finally therefore we can know that there is a transcendent moral lawgiver, namely
God, combining premises two and four.
So again we pointed out that the argument turns on its premise number three, namely we can
know that there is objective moral evil.
And we ended with the question
Well, how do we know that there is objective evil then?
And the purpose of today's episode is to answer this question.
And we'll end up with three individual reasons.
Toward that end, we can begin by asking some additional questions.
Number one, did the Nazis commit immorality in their treatment of the Jews in the 1940s?
And second,
Did Charles Manson, for example, and followers commit immorality in the Tate and LaBianca
killings in 1969?
Another, did Philip Garagall commit immorality when he kidnapped 11-year-old J.C.
Dugard in 1991, held her captive for 18 years, and fathered two daughters with her by
force?
And then also, did Richard Allen Davis commit immorality?
in the kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klass in the sexual assault in 1993.
And did Brian David Mitchell commit immorality when he kidnapped 14-year-old Elizabeth
Smart in 2002 and according to Elizabeth raped her every night from June 9, 2002 to the
time that he was caught in March of 2003.
Also, do people today commit immorality when they do such acts as those above?
And should each of the perpetrators and all of the above have known better?
And many answer that yes.
So again, on what justified basis can one answer yes to these questions?
And one of the answers is by natural law, what is termed natural moral law.
So let's look at some of the key terms that relate to all of this as a matter of interest.
Read also some Bible passages that relate to this discussion.
The term guilty, that means blameworthy, at fault, culpable.
The online Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines culpable as meriting condemnation or blame.
And so being held accountable.
And then sin.
Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.
So, 1 John chapter 3 verse 4 in the Bible, violating God's law, that's what sin is.
And then there is this idea of a conscience, that capacity within us that tells us to do
what we believe is right and avoid what we believe is wrong.
And guilt results if we violate this inner so-called voice.
And then again, what about the what many have called natural law, this natural moral law,
this what is sometimes called unwritten moral law?
Well, Francis J.
Beckwith at Baylor provides a concise definition of this natural law.
He says, quote, a universal law to which people of all races, classes, cultures, and
religions have access by their natural reason.
or is it innate?
Natural law thus serves as a bridge, he continues, a bridge category on ethical and social
questions between church and world.
Wasn't this the basis upon which the Nazis were tried and convicted at Nuremberg in
1945-46?
Isn't this, that is, this natural law, the higher law that's above the provincial and the
transient?
And isn't this what is referenced with the term crimes against humanity?
It's interesting that the United States Declaration of Independence affirms natural law.
Note this, quote,
The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America, when in the course of
human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which
have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate
and equal station to which, now note, the laws of nature and nature's god entitle them, a
decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires
that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
The Declaration of Independence of the United States continues, now note this, we hold
these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.
that to secure these rights and then I continue.
So notice these references to these truths that are said to be self-evident and that
people have uh been endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among
these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The point here is, the claim is, that there are these laws even outside of the Bible or
some holy book
that people should know.
Thomas Aquinas, for example, back in the 13th century AD held that if any human law does
not conform to natural law, we are not obligated to submit to that human law, for it is no
law.
And whether or not you agree with Martin Luther King Jr.
in all respects, this was the basis he used to justify his advocacy of civil disobedience.
See for example his 1963 open letter titled Letter from Birmingham Jail.
So this is quite interesting and is this thinking about natural law that is determinable
outside of the Bible?
Is that consistent with what the Bible itself says over in Romans chapter 13?
Compare also Acts chapter 5 verse 29.
The Roman Catholic Church has been a strong defender of natural law.
Some Protestant churches accept it, but many have rejected it.
But Beckwith observes, the standard narrative goes like this.
The Catholic Church teaches that human beings are capable of knowing by unaided reason the
existence and nature of both God and his moral law.
Protestantism, on the other hand, maintains that our cognitive powers
so corrupted by sin cannot provide to human beings the power to know God and his moral law
apart from from special revelation.
Furthermore the German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously said quote, two things fill the
mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe.
The oftener and more subtly reflect on them.
the starry heavens above and the moral law within.
So is there this natural moral law?
Further, as an independent matter of interest, does the Bible affirm that there is?
And though there is disagreement, some reference passages like the following as proof that
the Bible does affirm that there is this natural moral law.
For example, Ephesians chapter 6 verse 1
2 Thessalonians 1 verse 6, Romans 2, 12 to 16, Romans 5 verses 12 to 14.
And I'd like for us to take a few moments and examine each of these.
Maybe brethren have something to say before we do that.
Anybody?
Yes, well the passages of course will speak for themselves, but I've always considered
Romans chapter 1, you know, after Paul writes about the creation of the world, that since
the creation of the world, his invisible attributes are clearly seen being understood by
the things that are made, even as eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without
excuse.
Then he goes on to talk about, you know, the sins of the Gentiles, basically here in this
passage.
And it revolves around three expressions.
He gave them up in verse 24 to uncleanness.
He gave them up to vile passions, verse 26.
And he gave them over to a debased mind in verse 28.
And in that text, there's at least twice in most translations, twice.
And in the King James, there's three times where he actually mentions nature,
especially...
And we've talked about this in previous lessons on homosexuality, but especially in verse
26 and 27, where he says, For this reason God gave them up to vile passions, for even
their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature.
Likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one for
another, men with men committing what is shameful and receiving in themselves the penalty
of their error which was due them.
And so that's telling us it's against nature.
And I've always looked at this passage, and the question often comes up, well, what about
the tribe in Africa who's never even heard the gospel?
Are they lost?
Well, of course they are, because people are lost because of sin.
But he's talking here about Gentiles in chapter 1, and he does say they are without excuse
in verse 18.
And so they violated.
I mean, they sinned not because of what they
didn't know but because of what they did know from nature and still went against it.
Now in chapter two of Romans he does deal with the Jews who you know had to them
revelation from the prophets etc etc but they definitely you know nature definitely plays
a part in in what we should know is moral and immoral.
Also, in that same text, excuse me, verse 21, well, kind of backing up to verse 20, you
know, they could clearly recognize God's eternal power in Godhead, so they were without
excuse, but in 21 it says, that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,
neither were they thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart
was darkened.
And so, going back to the idea of a conscience,
it was darkened, which means that they had it, they ignored it, and therefore there was a
negative impact.
So they had the capacity to be able to know uh what was good, what was right, they ignored
that and went on their own way.
And then the question arises, what was this knowledge that they had?
They did not have the written law from the Jews, the special revelation that the Jews had,
yet they're being identified here as having committed sin.
You cannot sin without having a law violated.
So that gives rise again to the question, what law did they violate if it was not the
Mosaic law?
And it looks like this is pointing to some kind of a law, a natural law, a natural moral
law.
So along those lines, let's take a look at Ephesians chapter six verse one.
This says, obey your parents in the Lord for this is right.
Notice that expression, for this is right.
Honor your father and mother which is the first commandment of promise.
Jameson Fawcett and Brown comment on this.
They say quote, even by natural law,
we should render obedience to them from whom we have derived life.
And then it continues and says verse two adds the authority of revealed law to that of
natural law.
So these folks are interpreting Ephesians 6.1 to be a reference to, with references,
children obey your parents and the Lord for this is right, as something that is derivable
from natural law.
and then revealed law, namely the Old Testament scriptures themselves, are brought in as a
confirmation of that in verse 2.
Alfred's Greek Testament comments on verse 1 like this, combines both senses just
according to the law both of nature and of God.
Surely it is better to regard the next verse, verse 2, as an additional particular, not
the mere expansion of this, unquote.
So in other words, Alfred is taking the position that verse two in Ephesians chapter six
is an addition, namely from the Mosaic law to the natural law that is referenced in verse
one.
Anybody have any thoughts on that?
Ephesians chapter six, verse one, appeal to then as being evidence that the Bible affirms
that there is natural law.
Yes, and I would back that up as maybe a commentary on that going back to Romans chapter
1, this time verse 31 where he listed a number of things where the old King James, the
third one in the list, is without natural affection.
And that word translated natural affection is a storgoos, a storgoos.
And it's a storgay.
We often hear that when preachers preach about sermons on love.
Storgay is the love that a
like a parent would naturally have for his child, for her child.
But this has the alpha privative in front of it.
So if Storge is the natural love that a parent would have for a child and the like, then
you put the alpha privative in front of it.
It's unnatural.
It's against nature.
And so that word itself kind of points to that.
And that's in the same kind of context of Ephesians 6.1, child to parent relationship.
And so that's...
So this is claiming that it ought to be natural, naturally recognized for children to obey
their parents.
And if they don't do that, there's something askew there.
There's something that they themselves, whether or not they can articulate with great
theological finery is a different matter, but way down deep, there should be some kind of
a recognition that they're doing something wrong.
Seems like the consciousness is being trained by the reception of the love, the life that
they've received.
As you mentioned, Jameson and Fawson Brown had mentioned that care that they receive seems
to demand or require a response of allegiance of some kind, obedience, faithfulness to
them that the child would automatically respond to.
Yeah, an interesting question.
How do we account for that?
either that was created when God created human beings or it's the effect of some natural
evolutionary process over millions of years, which is what the naturalists would argue.
But the end product of uh macroevolution is not
morality but survival.
so it looks like the nod needs to be given to this as being originated in the mind of God,
loving personal being.
Returning love for love kindness for kindness
So then another passage that is sometimes appealed to in the Bible as uh confirmation that
there is such a thing as natural law is 2 Thessalonians chapter 1 verse 6.
So that we ourselves boast of you among the churches of God for your patience and faith in
all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure and then verse 6 since and note
this
It is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you." So here
we have the Apostle Paul writing to the church in Thessalonica and is acknowledging the
fact that they are being persecuted and then says in verse 6, is a righteous thing with
God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you.
Barnes in his commentary on the passage says this, quote, Men themselves believe that is
just that the wicked should be punished.
They are constantly making laws and affixing penalties to them under the belief that it is
right.
Can they regard it as wrong in God to do the same thing?
If it is right to punish wickedness here, it is not wrong to punish it in the future
world.
It will be a righteous thing for God to punish the wicked in a future state, for they are
not always punished here as they should." End of quote.
Any thoughts on that?
Yeah, I think it kind of ties back into the law of sowing and reaping, which comes from
nature.
You you sow a certain seed, you get a certain result.
And that seems to be what we have here in a sense that the persecutors, the unrepentant
persecutors, will reap what they sow.
sowing and reaping is a natural law.
And so there's a connection with that.
And if it does not happen here in this life, there seems to be something unfinished, which
itself looks to something more beyond this life.
That's one of the concepts I think can escape people in that we sometimes feel that for
good people good needs to happen here in this life and for bad people bad needs to happen
to them here in this life.
I that was one of the kind of struggles with the book of Job that he and his friends
struggled with thinking that those things need to take place now.
But those don't always happen right now.
But it is a right thing for unrighteousness to be punished and for righteousness to be
blessed and rewarded.
And then the question arises on what basis do we say that?
some are arguing that well this is referring to this natural art, it's just a natural
thing that should be recognized.
Whether or not you have a Bible study about it.
Of course the Bible will give more details but it should be according to this thinking
that there is a recognition of law, right and wrong, that is way down deep within the
human soul.
Another passage that comes up along these lines, and this one especially, is Romans
chapter 2 verses 12 to 16.
Let me just read that.
This is from the New King James.
For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have
sinned in the law will be judged by the law.
For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will
be justified.
When Gentiles who do not have the Law, by nature do the things in the Law, these, although
not having the Law, are a Law to themselves who show the work of the Law written in their
hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts
accusing or else excusing them, in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus
Christ according to my
Gospel.
if we can go back look at verse 14 says, when Gentiles who do not have the law, the
reference here in the overall context is uh the fact that the Gentiles during the Mosaic
Age did not have the written law that the Jews had.
The Gentiles did not have that written law of God revealed to them, but the Jews did,
namely the Old Testament Scriptures as we have it today.
Romans chapter
3 verses 1 to 2 can be brought in here.
reads, advantage then has the Jew, much in every way, chiefly because to them were
committed the oracles of God.
And then it says in verse 14 of Romans chapter 2, says again, for when Gentiles who do not
have the law, now note, by nature do the things in the law.
So when Gentiles by means of nature do the things that are in the Old Testament
scriptures.
Now the word nature translates to Greek word phousis.
This sometimes can mean a long-standing practice as it does in 1 Corinthians 11 verse 14.
That reads, not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is dishonor to
him?
compare customary habit or even second nature, that is the length of hair is a matter of
long-standing practice.
It is possible of course for a man to have short hair and a woman to have long hair or
vice versa.
So this I believe clearly is showing that the word nature there and that passage is
referring to a long-standing practice.
However, nature also can mean innate property.
Compare the divine nature, phusis.
over in 2nd Peter chapter 1 verse 4.
So I would say that the innate meaning is in mind here in our passage, Romans chapter 2
verse 14.
I say this because of the following expression in verse 15, the work of the heart written,
a work of the law written, written in their hearts.
Any thoughts on that, brethren?
Yes.
as it says of the gentiles i mean there's people today that i know that i've seen that
don't have a clue about revealed scripture but they still do very nice christ like things
because to them is the right thing to do like maybe there's some very benevolent people
that will help those in need there those who give money to peter good works you know what
they consider good works you know philanthropists and things like this they do not
know the Bible, do not follow the Bible, do not even claim them, even claim to be atheist,
but they still do good things.
And I think that kind of goes along with this in the Gentiles, that they still do the
things that are written in the law even though they didn't have a law, because just
observation of nature and just the way they are, they will do those things.
Yeah, I'm also thinking that even with the long-standing practice, a person can see
kindness being demonstrated, the effect that it has and desire to be a part of that.
if they are doing good deeds, if they are...
you know in their culture if they can see of course you know terrible things happen the
fall out of that they see good things happen in the result of that they can know that good
things as you mentioned Brian there people in our world today who are not necessarily
Christians nor would affirm any sort of religious affiliation but they would still do
things that they would know culturally may be helpful to people benevolent to others and
kind in various ways
And even without cultural, even if a culture is resistant to that, the opposite, practices
the opposite, go back to the parents and the children situation again.
uh People I think would recognize if a parent, if a child is out of line, is mean-spirited
and uh commits some kind of atrocity against the parent.
that there's something to skew there.
It's just not something that's not just, it's not right.
And we hardly need to have a specific revelation about that to in detail.
to recognize that I would say.
And I think that's what the affirmation here is in Romans 1 and also looking at Romans
chapter 2.
And if I could bring it on to verse 15 and then verse 16 in particular, this is quite
substantive.
Let me read it once again, verses 15 to 16 of Romans 2, who show the work of the law
written in their hearts.
Their conscience also, notice, is something distinct then.
also bearing witness and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them
in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."
looking at that in verse 16 to begin with, in the day when God will judge the secrets of
men.
Notice then that this expression.
So we're talking about God's basis
of judging people at the last day in this context.
Even things inside that other humans do not know about.
we do something we have these even secret things it says.
So in particular, references made in context to Gentiles who were without the written law
and that everybody, Gentile and Jew alike, everyone is going to face a day when God will
judge even the secrets of men.
by Jesus Christ according to my gospel, he says.
So this picture is painting a picture, this passage rather, is painting a picture of a
legal setting.
Think of a courtroom and there are several distinct entities that are identified in this
picture of Romans 2, 15 to 16.
Entity number one is the reservoir of knowledge in the Gentiles heart.
that is his mind.
contains the natural moral law.
Notice the text does not say the law written in their hearts, but the work of the law
written in their hearts.
The work is the carrying out of the law.
That is, these Gentiles do have the moral law in their hearts, plus a step beyond that,
the intent to carry it out as well.
Verse 15, who show the work then of the law
written in their hearts.
And then a second entity that is included in this picture of Romans 2, 15 to 16 is the
conscience.
And this is quite interesting.
This is distinct from the reservoir of knowledge in the mind.
This is proved by the word also in the New King James or therewith.
in the American Standard Version, verse 15 in the New King James reads, their conscience
also bearing witness, and verse 15 in the American Standard, their conscience bearing
witness therewith.
So the conscience is distinct from the reservoir of knowledge that was just referenced.
The conscience is a prompter.
It prompts us to do the right over the wrong but does not tell us what the right thing is.
Thus it is different than the moral knowledge that is in the mind.
The conscience then accompanies that knowledge.
Doing the actual right requires both the prompter, the conscience, and the accompanying
knowledge of the actual right.
So there is this conscience and there are different meanings of the word with, maybe we
should point out.
One meaning is the width of means.
I traveled here, for example, by means of my automobile.
Another is the with of accompaniment, maybe my wife was with me.
The Greek word translated also bearing witness or bearing witness therewith is a form of
the compound word sum mutareo.
Sum means with or of accompaniment and matureto means to bear witness, so to bear witness
with.
Furthermore, it's interesting to note
that the Greek and English word for conscience also has sum in it and conscience from
Latin.
Conscience, Latin with knowledge, sum, conscience uh from Greek, with knowledge.
So there is the conscience that is with the knowledge that's written in the heart.
A third entity in this picture
of Romans 2, 15-16 is that there are thoughts accusing or else excusing.
Now this appears to overlap with the civil war within each of us that Paul references over
Romans chapter 7, verse 15.
This reads, what I will to do, that I do not practice, but what I hate, that I do.
That is, on judgment day, as a defendant before God, my thoughts
my awareness of and acknowledgement of my righteous actions and sinful actions will come
to mind in that proceeding.
And then there's a fourth entity in this meaty passage, Romans 2, 15, 16.
There is the judge.
The omniscient God will declare guilt or innocence and declare sentencing.
Furthermore, the overall context over Romans chapter 3, will be guilty, all have sinned,
and fall short of the glory of God.
Compare that also with Romans chapter 14 verses 10 to 11, for we all shall stand before
the judgment seat of Christ for it is written as I live says the Lord every knee shall bow
to me and every tongue shall confess to God note that for the saved
Jesus is both judge and successful defense attorney.
Over in 1st John chapter 2 verse 1 that reads, if anyone sins, we have an advocate, a
paracletos, the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
And then furthermore, another entity in Romans 2, 5 to 16, the picture that's painted
there, there is the gospel.
and this will be the overall objective standard of judgment, the overall basis.
according to my gospel, compare this with Acts 17, 30-31, truly these times of ignorance
God overlooked but now commands all men everywhere to repent because he has appointed a
day on which he will judge the world, that's everybody, Jew, Gentile, and righteousness.
by the man whom he has ordained.
has given assurance of this to all by raising him from the dead.
then Hebrews 11 verse 15, then chapter 12 verse 1.
These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them from afar
off, were assured of them, embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and
pilgrims on the earth.
Hebrews 11 verse 13.
This includes then Abel, Noah, Abraham before the old law, David during the Old Testament
law, and the Gentile Rahab who lived during the Old Testament law.
So next, I raised the question maybe for some discussion here.
What then is in the moral law?
Any thoughts on that?
We've already touched upon that with Romans one, Brian.
Any further thoughts there?
Well, when we look at the entities that you mentioned there, know, the entity number one,
for example, there's a reservoir of knowledge in the Gentiles heart that is in his mind.
Well, the text says it didn't come from God's special revelation.
So the only other place it could have come from was natural revelation.
Now, of course, there might be some, some things in their laws, you know, whatever those
would have been that reflected God's law.
because from nature, they knew that was the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do.
When you think of entity number two, there's a conscience.
Well, we've proven earlier that conscience cannot come from macro evolution that has to
been created by God in human people or humankind.
And that's entity number two.
And then entity number three, the thoughts either accusing or else excusing.
And that's kind of the conscience working there, but
Again, this did not come from special revelation from God.
And then, of course, entity number uh four, there is a judge.
And of course, that judge is God, is Christ.
We know that from other passages.
um Now, of course, how much knowledge the Gentiles had of that, we do not know.
But all of those entities in the gospel, all those entities, well, of course, the latter
two, the judge and the gospel come from God, of course.
And we know that through special revelation.
know, entities one through four have to come from nature, ultimately from nature, uh well,
ultimately from God's creation of man as he observed nature.
And of course, Romans 3, 23 says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
That includes people who lived from Adam up to the present time through all those
dispensations, part of which the Gentiles did not have the law, yet they've all sinned.
Well, you can't have sin without there being a law that implies therefore that had to have
had some law that they violated in order to be the sinners that they are and that we are.
I don't think that...
There are some things that we could know that might be a part of that.
For example, you go back before the law of Moses, you look in the book of Genesis, Abraham
lies multiple times about his wife, in fact, being his sister when she wasn't.
And the two times he did, the individuals, when confronted with that information, knew
that that was wrong.
The first Pharaoh was like, you know, why would you do this?
Even though his house was played, that wasn't his complaint.
It wasn't, hey, why'd you cause my house to get played?
I don't know what's going on.
Just make it stop.
it was a very specific, why did you lie and cause this calamity?
And so Pharaoh at that point, prior to the law of Moses, understood that having another
person's wife wasn't good.
So while we may not be able to know every facet of what was part of that, we can know that
there were some things that were just congruent with the nature of God and His will, as it
has been even later revealed that were wrong to them that they would have been aware of.
As to what is in the moral law, some point, we already talked about this a little bit,
some do point to Romans 1, 18 to 32 as evidence of at least some of the content of the
moral law.
Others, Boah and Crudaneer, for example, point to Amos 1, 3 to chapter 2 verse 3 where the
basis of Gentile judgment versus Jewish judgment is found in Amos' prophecy.
notice what the Gentiles were accused of being guilty of there.
That would give you some insight according to this thinking as to the content of this
moral law.
Thomas Aquinas thinks that the principles of natural law fall from five natural
inclinations in us.
And of course we'll take truth where we can find it.
He says inclinations do the good.
for self-preservation, for sexual union and upbringing of offspring, for knowing truth and
living in society.
Regarding the last one, compare friendship and justice.
Also consider the golden rule, do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
So an interesting question is, is recognizing the golden rule natural in the human being?
That is, can we expect people to know that and behave accordingly without even
learning it from the Bible.
Matthew chapter 7 verse 12.
Any thoughts on that?
Is the golden rule way down deep and something that's confirmed in the Bible but just part
of being human?
I think you can make a case for that.
I would think so.
While you might have a time finding an explicit statement as such, I think you can find
implications by the behavior of people.
That they would know you treat other people in the same way you would want to be treated.
You find that in just about every culture and you can see it demonstrated in Bible.
sounds like written in the work of the law written in their heart the work so they had the
intent to carry it out it's not only in there but they're going to behave accordingly and
some of that in in society.
There are some other works that we're not going to have time to get into in detail, but
maybe I just reference some of these, some several books on the subject as to what is in
the moral law.
And uh you may want to consult these audience members by, one is by Haynes and Fulford,
Natural Law, A Brief Introduction in Biblical Defense.
Another is by Samuel Gregg, The Essential Natural Law.
Another is by Stuart Banner, and this is interesting.
This is put out by Oxford University Press in 2021.
The decline of natural law, how American lawyers once used natural law, and why they
stopped.
Now, given that the natural moral law, the natural moral law is in us, how did it get in
us is another question.
That is, how did the specific concepts of the moral law get into the human mind?
One gentleman wrote a book titled The Law in the Heart, but Bales is his name, and he
provides some helpful information on this particular question.
He holds that there is a law in the heart, but says Paul does not tell us how it got
there.
Bales says that it is a matter of speculation, therefore, but he then provides a summary
of some possibilities.
I understand Bales to be saying,
this at least some moral precepts are in us uh in us rather could very well be from truths
that God revealed to early man during Bible times which have been handed down ever since
but there seems to be a natural sense of morality inherent in each human he says either
innate in the soul or springing up in it as the inner life in folds unfolds and the child
thinks of on the universe
around it.
This seems to be analogous to our having the capacity to think rationally, example,
recognizing and following universal laws of logic.
And then another passage that sometimes is appealed to is Romans chapter 5 verses 12 to
14, where it is claimed that the Bible affirms that there is this thing called a natural
moral law.
Some offer this as proof.
This passage reads, just as through one man sin entered the world and death through sin
and thus death spread to all men because all sinned for until the law sin was in the
world.
Note that.
But sin is not imputed where there is no law.
Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses.
Let me read that again.
Sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Nevertheless,
Death reigned from Adam, that would be before the law, to Moses, even over those who had
not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who was a type of him
who was to come.
So.
Verse 12 of that passage, therefore just as through one man sin entered the world and
death through sin and thus death spread to all men because all sinned.
And so then if there is sin, there is death and if there is death, there is sin.
And then verse 13, for until the law, that would be a reference to the Old Testament law
given at Sinai in Exodus 20, I believe.
For until the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Further then, if there was sin, then there was law that was transgressed.
And so then there was law between Adam and the giving of the law on Sinai.
So.
verse 14, nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses.
Now note this, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the
transgression of Adam.
So if we were to paint a picture and maybe a graphic, make a vertical line stand for Adam,
another vertical line to the right that stands for Moses, there was existing law between
Adam and Moses.
Those who sinned not according to the likeness of Adam equals non-special revelation
equals natural moral law would be the argument here.
Now there's a caution to keep in mind.
We need to be very careful, be discerning regarding natural law, formulate it carefully,
watch the implications of what we claim.
If you argue for it,
then expect to be asked to explain passages like Jeremiah 10.23, the way of man is not in
himself.
It is not in man who walks to direct his steps.
But I believe the reference there is to a recognition of knowledge.
This is not referring to the source of knowledge.
So additional passages that might be of interest pertaining to that premise three way back
near the beginning.
in moral argument to how do we know that there is objective moral evil?
Well, consider what we've already set up to this point.
Consider also Isaiah 7 16 for before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose
the good, note that the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her king.
So there is a time then before a child knows the distinction between refusing evil and
good.
And furthermore, Proverbs 8 verse 17, I love those who love me and those who seek me
diligently will find me.
I don't believe that God has left us alone.
God is involved providentially in helping us to find him.
Romans 6, 23, the wages of sin is death.
So if there is sin, there will be death.
If there is sin, there must have been law to be of that was violated.
Romans 4 verse 15, where there is no law, there is no transgression.
Be careful on this one.
Where there is no law, there is no transgression.
But then in Romans 3.23, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
And so then there is transgression.
And therefore there must be law.
Where there is no law, there is no transgression.
But there is transgression.
Therefore it must be that it is false that there is no law.
With all of this information then, along with the question on natural law, I offer two
graphics for
discussion.
The first one is this, of course if folks were seeing the graphic, we wouldn't have to
draw a word picture, but many are listening to this, I think maybe by radio without
looking at a computer.
So let me paint this picture and maybe get some discussion on this.
Is the situation today then during the New Testament age the following?
Draw a circle and let that circle represent the universal New Testament.
Jesus said in Matthew 20 to 18, all authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.
So today we are under the authority of Jesus Christ and this is found in the New
Testament.
And thus we are under written revelation today, all of us are.
But within the natural, within the universal New Testament, there does appear to be this
universal natural law which is a part
of the law under which people are today and that this then would be repeated in the all
perfect and all sufficient New Testament scriptures.
And furthermore the universal natural law would be adequate to condemn but not adequate to
save.
On the other hand the New Testament passages in the Bible are adequate to save.
Any thoughts on this?
Is this the picture today?
Yes, I think that's a good point you just made, adequate to condemn, but not adequate to
save.
And I could go into explain Jeremiah 10, 23 as well, that natural law doesn't give us
everything.
Like in the Old Testament, like the sacrifices, you you have to have special revelation
for that.
But natural law does tell you things like it's wrong to commit adultery, it's wrong
homosexuality, things like that.
That list in Romans, Romans 1.
And so I think that's a very good way to look at that.
And the circles, you know, the overall New Testament law is the big circle, and then that
little circle has universal natural law, but that universal natural law is included in the
universal New Testament law that we have today.
That's good point.
And I would say that would have to be the case in order to be true to Matthew, to second
Timothy three 16 to 17, uh, all scriptures inspired of God and profitable for teaching,
reproof, correction, instruction, that the man of God might be complete, thoroughly firm
on to every good work.
So every good work is discernible from the new Testament scriptures, but some good works.
are determined by this natural law, which would be part of the New Testament, repeated in
the New Testament, but of course the New Testament includes more than that.
Right, right.
So it's not that they have something unique, separate, independent that, you know, that
they are being governed.
So everybody is under the New Testament today.
Exactly.
Every person is amenable to the New Testament.
But some of that is detectable by natural law.
But that's only going to be of such a nature that you might be condemned by it.
But in order to learn how to become saved and be heaven-bound today, you have to go into
the New Testament scripture.
Yeah, and even just with that graphic, if you just take that little circle within the
little circle called natural law within the big overall circle called universal New
Testament law, you just take that little circle as being Romans 1.
All those sins listed there, you those are, you can know by nature that they are wrong,
but every single one of those is dealt with in the New Testament.
Morally, the overall New Testament, the special revelation.
Again, in order to be true to the statement, the claim in the New Testament scriptures
that it includes every good work.
We can determine any work, whether it is good or not.
by reading the New Testament scriptures.
The answer has to be found in order to be true to the very claim in 2 Timothy 3, 16 to 17.
There is one last graphic that I'd like for us to think about.
If we could identify and discuss the legislation upon which people living at different
times will be judged in the last day according to the Bible.
God's special revelation or by God's natural law.
So you go way back to, way on the left hand side, draw.
a horizontal line from that point way over to the right, and then draw a vertical line way
over there on the left and call that the creation of humans, Genesis 1, 26, 27.
And then we have the Genesis chapter three, the first human sin, Adam and Eve, and then we
have Exodus 20.
After that, the giving of the Old Testament law beginning at Sinai.
And then over in Acts chapter two, much later of course, in the first century, the first
Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus here, we have the Christian age beginning.
And then way over to the right, we've got Judgment Day, John 5, 28, 29, John chapter six,
verse 44.
So the people who lived between Genesis 1, 26, and 27 creation.
to the time of Genesis three in there there was no no human send yet correct
correct.
did have special revelation of every tree in the garden you may freely eat, but of the
tree that is as good and evil, that shall not eat of it.
And then sin enters the picture in Genesis chapter three, and we've got people who sinned
according to the likeness of Adam, and those that did not sin according to the likeness of
Adam, two groups there.
It looks like the distinction there is, and I welcome your thoughts on this, it looks like
uh the, the,
legislation that was according to the likeness of Adam would be the revealed law that was
given to Adam and he may have passed it on to his immediate family and so forth.
But then you come to a time when there would be people that were outside of that, that did
not have access to the special revelation that was even given to Adam and passed down.
These would have lived in between Genesis three and the giving of the law.
These then would have been
judge would be judged on the day will be judged on the day of judgment by natural law.
Yeah, even some in that time period would have received special revelation.
know, like for example, Cain and Abel would have had to have received special revelation
in their worship.
Hebrews writer says it was by faith.
But also, you know, the Gentiles were congruent with the Jews so far as, you know, their
existence all the way to the cross, know, Ephesians too.
And so.
But that's why that's over in Exodus chapter 20.
So the people who live between Genesis three and Exodus 20, did not have a knowledge of
the special revelation that was given to Adam.
looks like they would be judged by natural law.
And then what about the folks from Exodus 20 to Acts two?
There you'd have the Jews who had the law, the mosaic law.
and the Gentiles that's referenced back in Romans one, who did not have the law.
They would be, the Gentiles would be judged by the natural law and the Jews would be
judged by the legislation that was given to them.
And then in Acts chapter two, now we have the abrogation of all of it.
The mosaic law, it was nailed to the cross and now the new Testament is given and Jesus
has all authority everywhere.
Now from Acts chapter two until the final coming of Christ, everybody will be judged by
the New Testament.
Jesus said again, all authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth, Matthew
chapter 28 verse 18.
And so then today, people need to learn the saving message of Jesus Christ.
I think of Acts 17, 30 to 31, the times of ignorance, therefore God overlooked.
but now he requires all men everywhere to repent.
And I do not believe that we're alone in that.
I don't believe that God has left us alone to fend for ourselves.
I do believe that God in his providence will uh see to it that anyone today who would obey
the gospel, the saving message of Jesus Christ, given the opportunity, that they will be
given that opportunity somehow or another.
I based that on
passages such as Proverbs 817, I love those who love me and those who seek me diligently
will find me.
And then of course then we have the Day of Judgment in John 5 referenced and all then will
be separated either like goats and sheep, Matthew chapter 25.
You're referencing just a little while ago Acts chapter 17 right there in that same
passage verse 27 That they should seek the Lord if happily they might feel after him and
find him Though he be not far away or far rather from any from every one of us So God is
able to be found if we're seeking him So the evidence shows that there is a God the
evidence points we should seek after God and if we do seek him We will be able to find
And I think that's a wonderful passage and that word to seek there is in is in the Greek
in the it's a present infinitive So that means keep seeking so God has put us in this
world and it should trigger in us a desire to Come to a knowledge of God that he exists
and then keep seeking
And with his assistance, I believe that all people who love the truth, given the
opportunity, will obey the truth, will have that opportunity.
And uh there is no question about it, according to the New Testament scriptures, people
must learn the gospel of Jesus Christ and obey it in order to be heaven bound.
And so then by way of conclusion, going way back to premise three and moral argument
number two,
We can know that there is objective moral evil and that applies all the way through from
creation all the way through until the final coming of Christ.
I believe that the answer then to that question is how can we know that this is true?
How can we know that there is objective moral evil?
We can know it because there is natural law.
We can know it by the Bible.
And also I believe another line of reasoning would be the distinction between.
subjective ethics and objective ethics and this would lead to the conclusion there must be
a standard that is uh the basis of following God's will and thus we are led to Jesus
Christ.
All right.
That was a very intense lesson, and a lot of good comments could be made, but we just
simply don't have the time.
But, if you would.
Yeah.
Yes.
It's a lot of material, but it's good stuff.
yet very good stuff
We encourage our heroes to go over.
Yes, and if you have questions or want further details or maybe some bibliography, George
mentioned earlier some sources that you look at, just let us know.
Email us, let us know.
Florida School of Preaching, fsop at fsop.net is the email and we'd be happy to study this
further with you.
But we thank you for joining us and we look forward to the next episode, number seven.
where we continue our discussion of Christian apologetics.