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.
We welcome you to another episode of the harvester podcast This is our season 3 and we are
discussing lessons on Christian evidences I am Brian Kenyon and we have as our guest
speaker And he's done a lot of work in this area of apologetics and he has agreed to share
this whole season with us And so we appreciate him Steven Ford is usually with me as is
Forest
Antemesaris well actually, Forest hasn't been here yet.
I don't think he's been in a while.
But we had some plans for him to be here, but those fell through, but he'll still be here
and he's still part of the podcast.
And Stephen has some stuff going on today and could not be with us.
But we are here with you and we're looking forward to this study.
And we're gonna pick up this episode number eight with the moral argument.
And we're here talking about the existence of God in this part of the study.
and the moral argument, we've already looked at some things on that, but we're going to
continue with that, only this time we're going to focus on the conscience, the human
conscience.
And so George, if you could get us up to date so that we can begin this study.
Well, we might want to do a quick review of where we've been, and then from there we'll
take it up with new material.
Where we are at the present time, maybe is a better way to say it.
The overall argument that we've been developing is since God exists and the Bible is the
Word of God, and the Bible teaches a particular doctrine when God is presenting His case,
then therefore that doctrine...
would have to be true.
That would have to be the case because if the Bible is the word of a being who knows
everything and never lies, then whenever he's presenting his case would have to be true
statements.
So we've been focusing on the God exists component of that argument and we're not quite
ready to move on to the next step which is the Bible is the word of God.
There is another argument that I'd like for us to look at.
which is really a third formulation of the moral argument for the existence of God.
Up to this point in our studies I have given two formulations of the moral argument and
today we'll give a third as Brian mentioned based on conscience.
So preliminary to moral argument number one we discussed the difference between subjective
ethics and
Objective ethics.
Subjective ethics meaning that the human being looks to himself or herself and determines
what is right, what is moral, what is right morally, what is immoral, based solely upon
that.
This we call subjective ethics versus objective ethics where the human being looks to
something independent of human beings to determine what is moral and what is immoral.
And we observed in some detail that subjective ethics, as has been recognized for a long
time, that is human feelings, for example, do not form a grounding, an adequate grounding
for determining what is moral and what is immoral.
That moral argument, number one, as I called it, can be formulated along these lines.
And I'll just summarize this.
We did look at that in some detail earlier.
Premise number one, either atheism is true or theism is true.
If atheism is true, then subjective ethics follows.
If subjective ethics is the case, then a contradiction follows.
That is, different humans have, or even the same human for that matter, can have and do
have contradictory feelings on whether a particular action is moral or immoral.
That can't be right.
That's a contradiction.
All contradictions are false.
And that's uh a self-evident truth, what is sometimes called by philosophers one of the
laws of thought.
And therefore subjective ethics cannot be true because it implies a contradiction.
And atheism cannot be true because it implies subjective ethics.
And then rippling all the way back to that first premise, either atheism or theism, and
since we've demonstrated that atheism is false,
then it must be that the only alternative to atheism, namely theism, is true.
So that was argument, moral argument number one.
And we did show all those, all the details of that in an earlier episode.
And so we're just summarizing it here.
oh
We'll just move on except to point out that Jeremiah 10, 23 affirms that thinking when it
says, Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself.
It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Then we have, we came to what I called moral argument number two.
And I pointed out that Thomas B Warren
provides some helpful preliminary information to moral argument two.
He explains that to justify the claim that an action is evil, that is 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 in his debate, his well-known debate with uh atheist Anthony G.
N.
Flu,
several decades ago.
Warren put it like this, Flu says the Nazis were guilty of real objective moral wrong.
That means real moral wrong which entails an objective standard.
Warren continued pressing Flu an objective standard that is some higher law.
And then he presses it even further, what law then did the Nazis violate?
It cannot be the law of England or America, for they were not under the jurisdiction of
England or America.
It cannot be ex post facto German law that is pre Nazi German law for the Nazis made their
own laws for their time.
As Justice Robert Jackson had said at the Nuremberg trials, it was some higher law that
transcends the provincial and the transient.
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.
That was the nature of the law that they had to have violated.
Also Warren, go ahead, somehow Warren points to such an objective standard.
somehow, but he does point to an objective standard as the only justifiable basis upon
which one can judge that there is moral degeneration.
Witness the Nazi regime based on Hitler's whims and fancies and moral progress.
So moral argument number two can be formulated precisely like this.
Premise number one, if we can know that there is objective moral evil
then we can know that there is a transcendent law that can be violated.
Premise two, if we can know that, that a transcendent law was violated, then we can know
that there is a transcendent moral lawgiver.
You cannot have a law without a lawgiver.
Premise three, we can know that there is objective moral evil.
Four, therefore we can know that there is a transcendent law that can be violated.
Thus the overall conclusion in Moral Argument 2, we can know that there is a transcendent
moral lawgiver, otherwise known as God.
This argument turns on its premise number 3, we can know that there is objective moral
evil.
We asked, how can a person know that there is objective evil?
For example, how can one know that the Nazis
committed evil in their treatment of the Jews.
I pointed two ways of knowing that an action is evil.
One would be by natural moral law and the other would be that given in the Bible, the Word
of God, given that that is the case, that would tell us what is moral and immoral.
We will look at the Bible as being the Word of God in a subsequent lesson.
So we have a good deal of attention.
that can be given and was given last time to natural moral law and that study included a
close look at Romans 2 12 to 16 which lends itself nicely into today's That passage reads,
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.
Notice how conscience is described in verse 15 of that passage in Romans 2 that reads
again, 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.
And that conscience is something that's unique, I think, to humans that uh we are the only
part of God's creation that have a conscience like as described here.
And that's really important.
So let's talk about that conscience even further.
Well, conscience is described as distinct from the reservoir of knowledge in the mind.
This is proved by the term also, given that the Bible is the Word of God, again coming
later as proof, is proved by the term also in the New King James or therewith in the
American Standard.
Again, notice verse 15 of Romans 2, their conscience also
bearing witness, or the ASV, the American Standard Version of 1901, their conscience
bearing witness, therewith, it says.
So 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 accompanies that knowledge.
Doing the actual right
requires both the prompter, the conscience, and the accompanying knowledge of the actual
right.
Note then that uh there are different meanings of the word with, which we should point
out.
One meaning is the width of means.
I traveled here, for example, by means of, that is, with my automobile.
Another meaning of the word with is that of accompaniment.
My wife was with me.
So again, verse 15 of Romans 2, their conscience also bearing witness and their conscience
bearing witness their with.
The Greek word translated also bearing witness or bearing witness their with is a form of
the compound word sum martyrao.
Sum here means with, that's the with of accompaniment.
and matru etro is a word that means to bear witness.
That's a Greek word in the original language of Romans chapter 2.
So to bear witness with.
It's interesting to note also for further thought that the Greek and English word for
conscience also has sum with and con from Latin with respectively.
The Greek word behind conscience is sunadesis, literally with knowledge.
The English word comes from the Latin, the English word is conscience.
means with in Latin and science refers to knowledge.
So on conscience in Romans 2.15, Warren once again offers a helpful explanation.
He offers a graphic
we'll just try to give a word picture here on this audio, a graphic that explains Romans
chapter 2 verse 15, the expression, the work of the law written in their heart.
That would be an instance of what one believes is right.
And then there is the conscience, says, bearing witness therewith, the conscience urges
one to choose what one believes is right.
And then thoughts, evaluation after the deed, here we have accusing or else excusing self.
And so then there we have a good assessment emerging out of Romans 2 verse 15 of what the
conscience is and how it functions.
And now we move on now to the argument, the moral argument, 3 as I call it, the conscience
argument for the existence of God.
And there is a writer who was very helpful along these lines.
His name is John Henry Newman.
He wrote about this argument.
And several of his observations are especially thought-provoking.
You might think of a cloud.
Let that represent the human conscience and then an arrow that originates in that cloud
and then uh extends out beyond that cloud pointing to God.
The following are taken from an unpublished paper that I wrote some time ago where I quote
from Newton's discussion of uh the moral argument based on conscience.
There's another writer, name is Logan Paul Gage, and he summarized nicely Newman's
thinking of conscience to God like this, quote, Though God is external to us, he is known
through a wholly internal act.
The way in which he is known to us is akin to the cogito, that is the uh expression that
is attributed to René Descartes, where he said, I think, therefore I am.
Just as my existence is implicit in every act of thinking, God's existence is evident in
every act of conscience.
The point here is the cogito argument.
I think therefore I am.
Descartes, René Descartes used that to demonstrate that it is unavoidable for us to know
that we exist.
Even if we doubt our existence, then the very act of doubting implies that we must exist
because you have to exist to do the doubting.
So inescapably, when we think, we know that we exist.
uh
and then extrapolating from that over to the conscience argument.
Just as my existence is implicit in every act of thinking, God's existence is evident in
every act of conscience.
Newman held that the conscience argument for God adds personal warmth.
To illustrate Newman's point, as I say, picture an arrow that originates in the human
conscience but points to and terminates
on someone outside, another person, namely God.
There is no intermediate step.
The prodding of conscience connects us directly with God.
It prods us to see, that is, if we will let it, that the ultimate good, though external to
us, is real, personal, and near.
The conscience to God ascent
is allowing us to recognize God's voice within ourselves.
put God's voice in quote, we're not talking about divine revelation here, but there is
this inner voice, so to speak, that tells us to do the right and avoid the wrong.
Now where did this come from?
Newman puts it like this, conscience, the existence of which we cannot deny, is a proof of
the doctrine of a moral governor, unquote.
Newman continues with this moving eloquence, quote, If, on doing wrong, we feel the same
tearful, brokenhearted sorrow which overwhelms us on hurting a mother.
If, on doing right, we enjoy the same sunny serenity of mind which follows on our
receiving praise from a father, we certainly have within us the image of some person.
to whom our love and veneration look, in whose smile we find our happiness, for whom we
yearn, toward whom we direct our pleadings, in whose anger we are troubled and waste away.
We are not affectionate, he says, toward a stone, nor do we feel shame before a horse or a
dog." And he continues, "'Yet conscience, the conscience within us,
excites all these painful emotions, foreboding, self-condemnation, and on the other hand
it sheds upon us a deep peace, a sense of security, a resignation and a hope, which there
is no sensible, no earthly object to elicit.
Who is it that he sees in solitude, in darkness, in the hidden chambers of our heart?
If the cause of these emotions does not belong to this visible world, the object to which
his perception is directed must be supernatural and divine, a supreme governor.
We might add, not a thing then, not an it, but this has all the features of a person.
Yes.
And I was thinking that when children are young and of course there comes a point when
they get rebellious and all that, but when, when it's just the child and the parents,
they, they, they see, they don't want to disappoint their mom or their dad at those young
ages.
And so it's almost like their conscience is based upon the approval of their mom or dad
while they're learning things.
I'm talking about toddlers and things like that.
And, I think that's, that's, that's just a, yeah, a first step or analogy.
into the supreme being that is outside of us that but but it's a same conscience that
allows that that child to have that you know the wanting the approval of the parent at
least in the beginning of his life for whatever uh...
is that that same conscience that that looks beyond that or that has a capacity to look
beyond that to to the god and and that's why as we stated earlier some earlier episodes
that that the system of
morality must be objective and there has to be a moral lawgiver and all that comes to play
in this argument.
And it noticed that it is a personal quest there.
Mm-hmm.
So The question arises from all of this where from where did the conscience come?
That is how did we get it and this leads us to the conscience argument for God and the
argument may be precisely stated along these lines Premise number one.
There is a conscience within us
In premise two, either that conscience came from macroevolution or it came from the
creative act of God.
By macroevolution we mean the development of matter over eons of time and where you have
tooth and claw and blood uh represented and enacted.
time and time and time again.
uh That's the picture of macroevolution.
Whereas the other idea is that this originated from God.
And with which is conscience consistent?
With the vicious, alleged evolution over eons of time?
Or is it more consistent?
by its nature, with the nature of God Himself created, a created act of God, consistent
then with the Creator Himself, a personal being.
Well, I'm going to argue that it cannot be from macroevolution.
This is because, one, conscience is of a different nature than matter is.
Conscience is personal, not impersonal material, not matter in motion.
which is the stuff which alleged macroevolution changes over eons.
Second, the aim of macroevolution is survival, read in tooth and claw.
That hardly is oughtness.
And therefore, it is the case, we conclude, that the conscience came from God and
therefore God must exist.
There we have then the powerful conscience arguments.
argument for the existence of God.
Any comments on that?
Yes, I was just thinking the uh macroevolution, which is, you know, various forms and
flavors of that.
But I mean, as we even discussed in previous episodes is that that can't even explain
anything.
And that is in the world.
Ultimately, I mean, there is microevolution, which is, suppose the antithesis, I don't
know anyway, antithesis, but microevolution is where, you know,
uh...
animals can adapt example insect can become immune to certain pesticides or whatever you
know yet micro right but that doesn't mean that book in turn to a a bird or something like
that and so macro is just false all the way and then
also that whole spectrum of macro evolution is to begin with, we've alluded to earlier in
earlier uh lessons, sessions.
And that is that uh where did the material come from that allegedly evolved over these
eons of time?
That's an issue.
And if you can't get the tree started, then you can't have the tree to begin with.
And then the alleged tree, the development over periods of time, you've got the survival
of the fittest.
Again, the aim of evolution is survival at any expense.
uh It's uh it's blood.
It's death.
It's suffering and so forth This hardly is of the nature of the conscience the conscience
rather is a personal quality that we can recognize within us and Is something that uh
prompts us to do the good?
Yeah, and And ripping somebody else some other being a part with your teeth so that you
can eat in it's hardly the good not consistent with the
conscience within us.
And the conscience is not something that we can empirically uh measure or see.
It's separate, even though it's contained in our being.
It does appear that nature of mind not matter.
That's another aspect of this that could be elaborated upon.
So having demonstrated then in this series of uh episodes where we talked about the
existence of God, we talked about the so-called teleological argument, we talked about the
cosmological argument, and we've given three formulations of the
moral argument, one of them being this uh argument from conscience.
All that leads to the conclusion that God exists, I believe that we can check that off in
the overall argument.
If God exists and the Bible is the word of God and the Bible teaches a particular
doctrine.
and that doctrine would have to be true where God is giving his case.
The first step then, God exists, again I think we can check that off and I would like us
now to move on in the next session to the next step in this uh series of evidences that
we're giving, namely that the Bible is the Word of God and provide an argument that so
concludes.
Yes, and that uh will be our next episode, episode number nine.
We will get into the next phase of this proving that the Bible is the Word of God.
However, I do want to point out that especially last week, uh this material that we
covered on Romans 2, and know a lot of preachers are asked questions about Romans 2, 14
and following, and I just want to let you guys know and George know that this is some of
the best material that I've ever come across on Romans 2.
about the Gentiles doing by nature things contained in the law.
And some really good material that you'll want to go back and listen to if you're just
tuning in now and have a pen and paper ready to take notes, very good material.
Or you can even email the Florida School of Preaching at fsop at fsop.net and we'd be
happy to send you some material and answer any questions that you may have.
But we are really.
appreciating George for being with us in this very rich study, and we're glad that you
joined us too.
And so we'd invite you next time to tune back in to the Harvester Podcast, and we will
look at and examine arguments to prove that the Bible is the Word of God.