Matt's First Response

To begin I would like to extend my thanks to Jonathan Fairbridge for inviting me discuss the topic before us. In the short time I have gotten to know Jonathan as a friend and fellow teacher in Thailand I have been impressed by both his intelligence and his fervor to see the life of Christ revealed in greater measure. I do believe I share with Jonathan many of his concerns and criticisms on how a great portion of the Church has become contented to prop herself up as being the best edifice of religion and in so doing has failed miserably in both discovering God and sharing Him with a world desperate for His life and truth. I do believe this dialogue is not only significant but also timely and unique. The reader may initially be surprised to find that both Jonathan and I are committed Christians, yet one has sincere questions about the value of Christian apologetics and the alleged necessity to anchor morality into God’s existence. Unlike Jonathan, I do not view apologetics (or human reason for that matter) to be a crutch to true spiritual apprehension or maturity. I have no doubt that it CAN be but I see no reason to warrant that it MUST be. There are always two ditches on either side of the path of life and I have no doubt that an endeavor to apprehend God solely through strict rationality, argument and logic will ultimately leave one far removed from the true, spiritual treasures of faith, love and hope. However if one were to completely discard human reason, argument and logic from their faith it could potentially open one up to a host of wolfish beliefs disguised in spiritual sheep’s wool. As soon as our Lord Jesus’ feet left the earth we see such attempts of the Enemy to infiltrate the Church and rob her of her true faith. Ever since its conception the Church has had to battle numerous deceptions that would tempt her to depart from her inherited faith. A short perusal into early church history will reveal God’s providence in raising up wise shepherds to apologetically defend the true faith against some of these humanistic philosophies. In saying that I have no doubt that Jonathan is reacting against an extreme dependence on apologetics as if apologetic reasoning was necessary for true belief. While I can appreciate his concern I believe his reaction is so strong he simply falls into the opposite ditch. In my understanding I do not see apologetics as being necessary for faith but I do see it as being quite useful in the proper context. I can explain why in more detail if Jonathan would like me to elaborate. I do believe an a priori rejection of apologetics is the under-girding support structure for Jonathan’s position concerning the discussion at hand. For this reason I believe it will be necessary to question Jonathan’s dismissal of human reasoning in relation to spiritual value at a later time in the discussion.

My goal in this dialogue is to demonstrate that theism (or supernaturalism) is the only sufficient explanation that can account for objective morality. I will seek to show that a non-theistic position (naturalism) simply does not have the recourses to explain the full breadth of moral values.

Since this is my first posting I will content myself with critiquing some of John’s comments as well as responding to some of the queries he raised. After John posts the particulars of his position, I will lay out my case for why I believe theism provides the only sure foundation for morality to rest upon. One of John’s criticisms is that the “traditional, Christian, theistic explanation of morality has not been inconsistent but inadequate. God has not provided an explanation, but has actually been the explanation.” John feels that appealing to God as the final explanatory answer is akin to saying, “I don’t know.” For the most part I think this is a valid point and it could be that ushering G-O-D into the conclusion is a mark of laziness on the part of some. I will try my best to provide more than these three letters and actually explain why anchoring morality into God’s existence is the most reasonable and fitting conclusion one can come make. In saying that I’m not quite sure John’s contention is fully warranted. If the theist position is that morality is ultimately anchored into God’s existence than it is a bit unreasonable to require the theist to explain their position in terms which go beyond God, such that God’s existence is no longer the explanation. If John is saying the theist can’t just repeat the mantra, “God is the explanation” without explaining why God is the best explanation for morality’s existence, than I can definitely elaborate on the “why.” But if John is contending that the theist must continue his defense past God’s existence than it would be pointless for me to oblige. At some point both of our positions will have to arrive at some self-explanatory stopping point beyond which the discussion can go no further. My position posits a metaphysical ultimate and morality is defined in terms of its approximation to this. I have yet to see John’s ultimate but since he disavows the need of God’s existence I would have to assume that he will simply say, “Morality just is. Right and wrong exist independent of God.” I see great weakness here but I await John’s explanation before commenting further.

In regards to John’s questions I will offer three brief responses and elaborate later if necessary.
1) WHAT IS SIN? Sin is anything contrary to God’s moral essence. Being made in God’s image sin is the failure to do what morality obliges that we ought to do as bearers of God’s image.

2) WHAT IS GOOD? The Good is anything which is in alignment or in harmony with God’s moral essence- from which flows all moral obligation to His image bearers.

3) WHAT IS THE NATURE OF GOD’S AUTHORITY? I’m not sure what is being asked. So I will answer in accordance to what I think you are driving at and you can tell me if I need to address it from a different angle. If you are asking what is the source or standard for God’s moral authority I would say this moral standard or authority is God’s very nature. God is necessarily good and therefore it is logically impossible for Him to will evil. Because His nature is necessarily good all His actions are in perfect conformity with His good nature. God’s goodness is not the fulfillment of moral obligations that exist outside Himself, but rather expressions of the way He is. This avoids both the charge of arbitrariness on the part of God as well the need for an autonomous standard that exists independent of God which He must consult before acting. It is interesting to note that when Moses asked to see God’s glory, the text reveals that God’s response is that He will show Moses His glory “by having all my GOODNESS pass before you.” (Exodus 33:18). God’s glory is equated in terms of the fact that He is wholly good. I believe this is what Jesus had in mind when he said, “No one is good except my Father.”


Towards the end his last post John implies that traditional, theological answers concerning the aforementioned questions fall quite short of the mark and he labels them as “simplistic, malleable and useless.” We aren’t told exactly where “the mark” should be or why they are simplistic and useless but we do discover his motivation in deeming them as such; that being they do not provide the “ethical vision that Christ wants us to have when we attempt to live by the Spirit…” I am all for expanding our ethical vision such that God’s kingdom is established in greater measure and I applaud John’s desire to do so. Yet I remain skeptical at best that an ethical vision that deletes the need for God can truly function in such a God honoring way. But I wish him the best.
Lastly, John points to Calvinism’s systematic appraisal of God and morals as being an example of Christian, ethical theory gone to seed. I wholeheartedly agree with John’s appraisal. Thankfully one need not be a Calvinist in order to be Christian theist. In brief Calvinism’s understanding of good and evil is based on a radical form of “Voluntarism” which states something is right simply because God willed it to be right. In contrast Non-Calvinists such as myself affirm “Christian Essentialism” which is the view that God wills X because X is right and in accordance with His own, essential, unchangeable, moral nature. So as not to mistaken, the former claim something is right merely on the basis that God willed it to be right. The later contends that God wills it because it is right. But rather than God being bound to a moral standard that exists independent or outside Himself (such as Plato’s good), God wills in perfect concert with the standard inside Himself (His necessary, moral nature). The differences may not seem all that apparent but I assure you they are. Within a Calvinist construct it is possible for God to will that love is wrong and hate and injustice are the new moral values all humans are obligated to follow- simply on the basis of God’s sovereign willing. Such a view is morally repugnant to Non-Calvinist, essentialists like myself. So I share John’s misgivings that theological lapses concerning God and ethics has helped to foster various atrocities conducted by the so-called “church.” (I’m not saying Calvinism is to blame specifically). However I do not see how grounding morality in God’s existence and morally perfect nature leaves Christianity exposed to repeat such atrocities…far from it. In fact it is the naturalist (who denies God as a moral being and moral enforcer) who runs the grave risk of reducing morality down to subjective preferences of cultural opinion. History is very much stained with that reality as well. Moreover, by John’s use of the word “atrocities” I assume he sees these actions as being objectively evil. Hypothetically if God did not exist I see no sound basis for such an objective moral condemnation to be raised.

In conclusion I would simply ask John the same questions he raised with me, as well as two additional questions.
1) What is sin?

2) What is good?

3) What is the nature/standard of God’s moral authority?

4) Why is what humans perceive as evil truly evil and good truly good? How do humans reach this assessment?

5) If God did not exist would it be wrong for a society to purge itself of innocent, mentally handicapped persons? Why or why not?

Peace.