Category Archives: Apologetics

How Do Man-Made Theories Fail to Justify Morality Apart from God?

Posted by Dan C. on

Written on June 20, 2012 at American Vision by Nathaniel Darnell

What are the various philosophies of ethics that mankind adheres to? When I was in law school, I was required to examine this question as a part of my study of Professional Responsibility for attorneys. I know what you’re thinking: “Attorneys are required to study about ethics?!” Yes, it is true, and the fact that this study makes little difference on the ethical reputation of attorneys demonstrates once again what Jesus said long ago that one can “make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within [be] full of extortion and excess” (Matthew 23:25). Mere education will not make a person more ethical. Becoming truly moral begins with God changing the inside through redemption.

The Bible teaches us that there are ultimately only two schools of ethics: (1) God’s; and (2) man’s. But “as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts,” saith the Lord. (See Isaiah 55:9.)

That being the case, however, it is helpful to be aware of the prevalent variations of man’s philosophy of ethics. Below, I have adapted a book report I wrote for lawschool summarizing the ten schools of ethics observed in the world. To some of you, these descriptions may sound incredibly basic, but I think it’s good for us to review the basics at times. Each of these schools of ethics are applications of many other schools of philosophy and religion, but we’ll save the analysis on those for another time. Nearly all of the man-made schools of ethics described below have aspects of truth to them, but ultimately they each fall short. The final one does not because it is not man-made.

Might Is Right

Under the “might is right” view of ethics (sometimes called “authoritarianism”), the person who has the most power is right. Usually, this is referring to political power although it has also been applied to physical, psychological, or other kinds of power. While few people profess this view, many of them practice it. However, it has multiple flaws, including: (1) a failure to distinguish between power and goodness; (2) a historical contradiction found in the examples of men like Nero, Stalin, and Hitler.

Morals Are Mores

This view defines ethics as being determined by the ethnic group to which it belongs. The community says what is right. The view is justified under the idea that whatever the way things are (tradition) is the way they ought to be. However, many tragedies occur in the world such as murder, rape, and kidnapping tied to various culture’s traditions, but the mere fact that these things happen does not justify their morality. The Mayans, for example, traditionally killed children and offered their hearts to pagan gods. Can we really say that the fact that this activity was deeply rooted in tradition from that culture justified it?

Individual Man Is the Measure

This view holds that each person’s will determines what is right and wrong for that person. Existentialists and pure humanistic libertarians often favor this view. The problem with it is that two different people could conceivably have totally opposite but equally valid standards of ethics under this view. Thus, even something hateful or cruel may be right if a person believes it is right. Furthermore, it is a weed for chaos as every person does what is right in his own eyes.

The Human Race Is the Basis of Right

Under this view, what mankind wills determines what is right and wrong. However, the moral beliefs of mankind change over the years, and often mankind differs among itself on morals. Multiple nations often have warred with other nations having differing views of morality.

Right Is Moderation

Aristotle was one to argue that morality is found in the “golden mean.” For example, he believed that bravery is the halfway point between fear and aggression, and that pride is the halfway point between vanity and humility. The problems with this view are that sometimes the right thing to do may be the extreme thing. The first-century Christians were “extreme” when compared to the Jews or the Romans because they were challenging the status quo. There is no universal agreement among men on what is “moderate” for all subjects and time periods, and thus moderation can only be a general relative guide, not an objective one.

Right Is What Brings Pleasure

The Epicureans were among the first to profess this view. As hedonists, they believed that what brings pleasure is morally right and what brings pain is morally wrong. The good, they believed, is what brings the greatest pleasure and least pain to the greatest number of people. However, sadists receive pleasure from inflicting pain on others. So is the sadist’s pleasure good or bad? Also, is long-term pleasure or immediate pleasure the test?

Right Is the Greatest Good the for the Greatest Number

This is the utilitarian view of morality. Utilitarians believe what is good is what brings the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run. Do you detect the circular reasoning? Utilitarians also differ as to whether good should be understood in terms of quality or quantity.

Right Is What Is Desirable for Its Own Sake

Under this view, virtue is what is only desirable for its own sake. Virtue is thus an end but not a means. The weakness of this view is three-fold: First, it only states the direction of morality but fails to define it. Second, we often desire what is evil such as adultery, theft, and harm to others. Third, some things that seem good to someone are actually bad, such as suicide at a time of distress.

Right Is Indefineable

Under this view, if good is defined in terms of something else then that something else becomes the standard of intrinsic good. Thus, those holding to this view of ethics refuse to define moral goodness at all. Without a standard of what is good, however, we have no way to distinguish between a good act and a bad act. Also, although what is right may not be defined in terms of something “more ultimate,” that does not mean it cannot be defined at all.

Good Is God’s Will

The Christian view is that good is what God wills. It is what He sovereignly decrees to happen or what He prescribes in His Word. It is what He approves by His own holy nature. While some may call this “authoritarianism,” it is not because authoritarianism occurs only when the one claiming authority is less than ultimate. God, being truly ultimate in His authority, has the right to play the role of the ultimate authority.

As Jesus  Christ said, “ there is none good but one, that is, God” (Matthew 19:17). A theory of ethics is only as good as its foundation. Since man without God is not morally good, no theory resting on man can be good either. Our ethics, our morals, and our laws, must be built on the righteous foundation of God. This is one example of why we say that law, ethics, morality, and philosophy are inescapably religious in nature.

Share

How can we discern false teachers?

Posted by Dan C. on

Matthew 7:13-23 “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. 14 “For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it. 15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 “You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 “Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 “A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 “So then, you will know them by their fruits. 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. 22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’”

False prophets are particularly dangerous because they appear to be genuine. They seemingly have the credentials of authority. What are these credentials? Jesus calls them ‘sheep’s clothing’ (verse 15).

[“He said that the false prophets were like wolves in sheep’s clothing. When the shepherd watched his flocks upon the hillside, his garment was a sheepskin, worn with the skin outside and the fleece inside. But a man might wear a shepherd’s dress and still not be a shepherd. The prophets had acquired a conventional dress. Elijah had a mantle (1 Kings 19:13,19), and that mantle had been a hairy cloak (2 Kings 1:8). That sheepskin mantle had become the uniform of the prophets, just as the Greek philosophers had worn the philosopher’s robe. It was by that mantle that the prophet could be distinguished from other men. But sometimes that garb was worn by those who had no right to wear it, for Zechariah in his picture of the great days to come says, “Neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive’’ (Zechariah 13:4). There were those who wore a prophet’s cloak, but who lived anything but a prophet’s life.” William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew (Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1963), 1, p. 286.]

The outward forms would incline one to believe these false prophets to be reliable guides. They may wear a distinctive garb which sets them apart as leaders. They may have the title ‘reverend.’ They may be men who hold positions of religious leadership. They may well have graduated from a divinity school. Indeed, they might even be seminary professors. Judging on the basis of external indications we might wrongly assume them to be reliable guides, but we must not evaluate them on such external evidence.

These false prophets can be detected by their fruits. Judging by external forms is risky; judging (if you prefer, discerning) on the basis of fruits is absolutely necessary and part of our responsibility. ‘The proof of the root is in the fruit.’ Good trees produce good fruit, and rotten trees, bad fruit. A dependable assessment of those who would be guides is that of their fruits (Matthew7:20). But, what are these fruits? One must be very careful here, for false prophets are not without religious activities. A false prophet is often accompanied by deceptive signs and by seeming wonders. Some of these are suggested in Matthew 7:22: “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in Your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?”’

We should expect false prophets to engage in acts of kindness and charity. We should expect them to perform deeds which suggest miraculous power. And we should expect that these deeds be performed under the pretext of being done by God’s power and to His glory.

“For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their deeds” (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).

We should expect false prophets to be accompanied by religious works, often unusual and spectacular, done ostensibly in the name of God. Satan willingly gives the glory to God in such cases, so long as ultimately he is able to deceive people and cause them to their allegiance and obedience him.

But are these religious activities the fruits of which the Master spoke? If not, what are they? The Scriptures frequently describe the fruits of the false prophets, so that we are left with little doubt as to what we should look for. I believe we can see the fruits of the false prophets falling into three categories.

(1) The first category of the fruits of the false prophet is their doctrine. False prophets speak from their own delusion, not by divine command (Jeremiah 23:16,21,25; Ezekiel 13:2). They do not proclaim or defend God’s word, but deny it (Jeremiah 23:17). In particular they deny unpleasant subjects such as impending judgment (Jeremiah 6:14; 28:17; Ezekiel 13:10). They offer temporary and partial relief to pressing problems (Jeremiah 8:11). Mainly, they tell people precisely what they want to hear (1 Kings 22:8, 13; 2 Timothy 4:3-4). Concerning the way of salvation they deny the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ and they reject the work of Christ on the cross (2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:2-3).

(2) The second category of the fruits of the false prophets is the effect of their teaching in the lives of men. Invariably it leads to a rejection of God’s word, a rejection of biblical authority, a division among the saints (Jeremiah 23:2,14) and a life of sensuality (2 Peter 2:2). They attempt to lead men away from the truth of the gospel (Acts 13:8), and to deceive genuine Christians with false doctrine (Mark 13:22). This is also evident from the pastoral epistles (1 and 2Timothy and Titus) where Paul speaks of the need of sound or healthy doctrine (1 Tim. 4:6; 2 Tim. 4:3; Tit. 1:9; 2:1).

(3) Finally, there is the fruit of the false teachers as evidenced in their own moral character. They are easily distinguished by their pride (2 Peter 2:10), their greed (Jeremiah 8:10; Titus 1:11; 2 Peter 2:3,14) and immorality (Jeremiah 23:11,14; 2 Peter 2:14). They are men dominated by the flesh (2 Peter 2:10,12; 3:3). They prey upon the weak and the guilt-ridden (2 Timothy 3:6-7; 2 Peter 2:14,13). While they profess to know God, by their deeds they deny Him (Matthew 7:22-23; 2 Timothy 3:5; Titus 1:16). While they delight in authority, they refuse to submit to it (2 Peter 2:10).

“A blind man cannot guide a blind man, can he? Will they not both fall into a pit?” (Luke 6:39).

There are many godless guides who would lead us to the wide gate and the way which leads to destruction. These false teachers are not only blind themselves, but they lead others to destruction with them. It is the Lord Who will pronounce the final verdict and Who will sentence the false prophets to everlasting torment.

Online Source

Share

Partial Knowledge Can Still Be True Knowledge

Posted by Dan C. on

Stand to Reason Blog, 10 Dec 2010

Sometimes, when arguing that the universe requires a self-existent first cause, I’m told by Christians that I ought not argue the way Aristotle did because his god, the Unmoved Mover, was an idol and not the true God.

 
Here are some words from R.C. Sproul responding to this charge (transcribed from Sproul’s lecture, “God of the Bible vs. God of Philosophy“):

What I hear from people objecting to our labors to construct the self-existent, eternal being is that that only gets us to the First Cause, and to the God of the philosophers, and it doesn’t get us to the God of the Bible, therefore the approach is false, and what we come out with is false because it is not the complete picture. It’s only a partial picture of the true God.

 
Now, the question is this: Do we have to have a comprehensive knowledge of God in order to have true knowledge of God?…If indeed we would have to have a total, comprehensive picture of God in order to have a true understanding of God, then this would only mean…that we have no true knowledge of God. Because we certainly don’t have a comprehensive knowledge of God. In other words, what I’m saying is, even if our knowledge of God is partial, that does not mean that it’s untrue. It is true as far as it goes, and even though we grant that what we’ve achieved so far in our reasoning process is only to get to a self-existent, eternal being, that that certainly is part of what the Bible reveals to us about the character of God. Because whatever else the Bible reveals about the nature of God, the Bible certainly teaches that He is eternal, that He is self-existent, and He is the One who is the Creator of all things.

Now at that point, Aristotle says “yea, and amen.” Is Aristotle wrong? No. And the fact that a pagan philosopher agrees that there has to be a self-existent, eternal being does not vitiate the truth of the Christian claim. In fact, it agrees with it. And we’re saying, yes, we agree with Aristotle in the sense that there has to be a first cause, and that that first cause has to be self-existent, and that that first cause has to be pure actuality, and that first cause has to be pure being, and that that first cause has to be eternal. We say, thank you very much, Aristotle–you agree with us, we agree with you, on this cardinal point, which is only a partial point of our knowledge of God. But it is a crucial portion of our knowledge of God because, ladies and gentlemen, it is precisely this aspect of the Christian understanding of God that is constantly under attack by atheistic systems of thought…And so I think there’s great value in establishing that not only faith but reason, as well, demonstrates the logical necessity of having a self-existent, eternal being.

Posted by Amy Hall at 03:30 AM in AA:Amy, Apologetics | Permalink