Jesus Offering Rest and the Trinity

Today in our look through Matthew, we’re going to backtrack and go back to Matthew 11 and bring out another text. For those who are interested, we will be looking at verse 25-27 of this chapter of the gospel. The text is as follows:

25At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. 27“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

To begin with, I don’t think Jesus is at all against wisdom and learning. What he seems to be against is those who think they know it all already and thus have no desire to listen to this wandering rabbinic teacher. We have to remember that this took place after the condemnation of unrepentant cities in the face of the evidence of the apostles which would have included miraculous evidence.

However, there is a striking juxtaposition here that takes place that I have noted in an earlier blog. We see Jesus as being a humble figure often, but we have to realize that the statements that he made would have been seen as arrogant had they come from anyone else. Because they come from Jesus, I fear we don’t often notice them. It is an odd position isn’t it? We who follow Jesus so much don’t notice what he says because he says it.

We need to look at the context of Judaism and see how this would have looked before the cross and the resurrection. We have this teacher who’s doing great signs and what has he said? He’s talked about the Father which is one thing as it’s likely he used the term “abba” which a Jew would not use for God, but look at what he says in verse 27.

First, no one knows the Son except the Father. Already we are seeing a unique relationship that exists between the Father and the Son. It is after this though that Jesus says that no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son wishes to reveal him. 

Now picture you as a Jew hearing this and you want to know how to know God. Jesus tells you. You know the Father through him. This would certainly be a most unbelievable claim. How is it that you, a man, claim to be the only one through whom we may know the Father? 

What we have is further clues towards a Trinitarian picture. The Son is the one who makes knowledge of the Father known because of his unique relationship to the Father. Naturally, this will need to be fleshed out some more and we will certainly do so. It is time we as Christians stopped glancing over these passages as we read the Bible, and really began looking at what they said.

And let’s notice the oddity again. Jesus has made this claim and in verse 29, we have him telling us that he is humble. One of the constantly amazing things about Jesus is that he seems to put these two statements together and it’s hard to see a contradiction. It has been said rightly that if Jesus did not exist, we would have a hard time creating a Jesus. There is no other figure in literature like him.

Tomorrow, we shall continue going through the gospel and see what else we find.

The Transfiguration

We’re going to return to going through Matthew again. What we’re doing for those who might be reading for the first time is going through the New Testament to see the understanding of Christ therein and with that come to a deeper knowledge of the Trinity.

We’re going to be looking at the Transfiguration tonight. It takes place in Matthew 17:

1After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus. 4Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”

 5While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”

 6When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified.7But Jesus came and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.”8When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.

 9As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”

 10The disciples asked him, “Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”

 11Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” 13Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

We have to remember that this takes place after Peter’s great confession of faith which was followed by Jesus speaking of the suffering he would go through and how he would die to bring about the plan of God. Many of us especially remember Peter’s great blunder at that point.

Peter and James and John are the only ones that get to come along for this one. They go to a mountain and there’s a lot of debate about which mountain that is, but for our purposes, it really doesn’t concern us. What matters is what happened.

On the mountain, Jesus is transfigured, the word means transformed. He takes on a white far whiter than any before. Before him then appear Moses and Elijah. For the Jew, Moses was the great giver of the Law. Elijah was the great prophet. I believe there’s some pictures being drawn with the Law and the Prophets pointing to Christ.

Peter decides to speak up again. (If anything needs to be said amongst the apostles, you can always count on Peter to say it.) He recommends that they set up three shelters. One for Jesus, one for Moses, and one for Elijah. (Where were the apostles going to be?) Luke is blunt saying “He did not know what he was saying.” (Two chapters in a row. Not looking good for Peter.)

What we have next is a cloud overshadowing them, much like the Shekinah glory, and a voice saying “This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased. Listen to him.” A parallel is being drawn back to what happened at the baptism of Jesus. The disciples would need that reassurance especially in light of the suffering that was predicted.

When Christ comes, we get another eschatological clue here to what he’s saying. He is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. They believed the Messiah was to come and if such was the case, what of Elijah? Jesus points out to them that Elijah did come and they did not recognize him and did to him as they wished. The Son of Man will suffer as well. At that, they realize he is speaking about John the Baptist.

So at this point, we have affirmation of the unique relationship of the Son to the Father, the promise of the resurrection, and the fulfillment of prophecy in the understanding of Jesus. We shall see more of his understanding tomorrow.

Your Worst Critic

I was going to continue our series some tonight, but something I saw made me think otherwise. There are times a person is moved to write something because they know it will benefit another specifically. I’ll also admit right off that some of this is my own concern for my own self as well in that it is a boat I am usually in and so I can imagine what it’s like for others. Telling my story could benefit me, but I think it could also benefit others.

I’m a perfectionist.

I also think that if you’re a perfectionist, you never really get over being a perfectionist.

I also think everyone in ministry has some degree of perfectionism in them. I’m no exception.

I’ve told my story before as well. This is for those who need a refresher: http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/obama-socialism-and-my-story/

I’ll also add that since then, I have got a position in ministry, but I choose to not say where as that would disclose my location. 

Growing up like that, I often saw myself as weak and incapable. It’s probably one reason I never really applied myself to much. I look at where I am now in philosophy and often think “Why weren’t you thinking like that back then?”

And part of me sometimes thinks, “Why aren’t you thinking good today?”

One of my worst fears is that one day I will be seen as some charade. What if I am merely playing the part of the apologist and in the end it isn’t so? What if I don’t possess skill?

In my brighter moments, I know that this isn’t so, but sometimes the bullet from Jezebel can come and it can knock a guy out for a bit. Circumstances come in and your emotions get blown for a loop and they take your rationality with them.

But then some other things happen that pick you up. I just had a friend email me and said he wanted to send me a book. I have no idea what, but this is a highly respectable friend in the apologetics world. Some of you might know him and I think, “Wow. You were thinking about me?” 

Someone will compliment you or maybe it’ll be something else. You’ll have something really good happen at the job. If you’re a guy like me, you might develop an interest in a beautiful lady and suddenly life seems different. The last time the realization came to me, I was actually in the locker room at the Y after my weekly dip in the pool.

Now here’s something I realize. While I would say I am constantly learning, it’s not learning some new apologetics argument that brings me out. It’s simply recognizing something. My friends and family are likely telling me the truth. Some of my opponents might not recognize that, but so what?

Am I going to tell all my friends and family they’re liars?

Am I also not going to recognize who I am in Christ?

Christ didn’t make me to be William Lane Craig or Norman Geisler or Gary Habermas or Ravi Zacharias or Greg Koukl or anyone else you can think of in the field.

He made me to be me. 

Maybe I don’t think like others. Okay. That means something else as well.

They don’t think like me.

Maybe they’ll see things I won’t. 

But maybe I’ll see things they won’t.

I also have to realize I’ll make mistakes.

Who doesn’t?

I won’t always know the perfect thing to say and maybe there isn’t a perfect thing to say sometimes.

I won’t always give a stellar performance.

That’s okay.

I’m still a work in progress.

I now think to my friend who is battling with this also.

Take heart.

You’re not alone.

I’m being quite transparent here, but I’m betting if you spoke to your heroes in the faith, they’d tell you the same thing.

And you know what? I’m going to show a side that could be self-serving some, but there are going to be times that I’ll be down also.

I’ll need you to smack me upside the head then and remind me of the truth.

Just as I hope I’ve done for you.

Peter’s Confession of Faith

We’re going through the New Testament looking at the understanding of Jesus therein.  Tonight, we are at Matthew 16. This is one of the most spoken of passages on the identity of Christ. Now I know the big debate with this passage on the subject of Peter and how this ties in to the Catholic/Protestant debate. We’re not going to be debating that issue. I am interested in Mere Christianity and in promoting that which all of us who say Jesus is Lord agree with.

13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

 15“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

 16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

 17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

Mark’s version in chapter 8 of his gospel is shorter.

 27Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?” 28They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”

 29“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 
      Peter answered, “You are the Christ.”

 30Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

The ninth chapter of Luke also includes the account.

 18Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say I am?” 19They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life.”

 20“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 
      Peter answered, “The Christ of God.”

 21Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone.

Matthew’s is the one we’re focusing on for Matthew takes in the most. Matthew gives him two titles. The first is the Christ, which is the first time in Matthew’s gospel that someone identifies Jesus with that title. The same happens in Mark. In Luke, he is seen as the Christ in the temple as an infant and a demon recognizes him as Christ, but no one calls him that until Peter.

Matthew speaks of him as the Son of God. These two go together. The Messiah is the very Son of God. Matthew could be pointing us back to Matthew 14:33.

Now are we going to say we have complete Trinitarian thought here? No. We are seeing a deeper understanding and it’s still a topic of discussion of how much the disciples knew and when they knew it. Peter’s confession of faith is an important indicator that this was starting to go on.

Perchance as we go along further, we will find more clues to help us out.

Walking on the Water

We’re continuing our look through the New Testament at passages highly relevant to the Trinity and especially the understanding of Christ. Tonight, we’ll be in Matthew 14.

22Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd. 23After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, 24but the boat was already a considerable distance from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it. 25During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear.

 27But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.”

 28“Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.”

 29“Come,” he said.

   Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!”

 31Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”

 32And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

Of special interest will be the Markan parallel in Mark 6.

45Immediately Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. 46After leaving them, he went up on a mountainside to pray. 47When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. 48He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, 49but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out,50because they all saw him and were terrified.

   Immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.” 51Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, 52for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened.

Mark 6 is brought up because when Matthew describes the incident, it could be he had this passage from Job 9 in mind.

8 He alone stretches out the heavens 
       and treads on the waves of the sea.

Many times though when a passage is referenced in the New Testament, it has not just in mind the Old Testament reference but the surrounding context as well. What does that have to do with Mark? Mark says that Jesus was about to pass by them. Let’s look at Job 9:11 with that in mind.

 11 When he passes me, I cannot see him; 
       when he goes by, I cannot perceive him.

The same word is used in this case. It is likely then that this is in mind. Keep in mind that this is referring to YHWH.

Jesus also says “It is I,” in many of our translations but it is literally ego eimi. Now that could simply be “I am,” the way many would say it to describe their condition. If I back then said “I am cold,” it would not be seen as a reference to deity. However, that Jesus says it alone and knowing the way Matthew has been portraying Jesus, he could be expecting his readers to draw something more out of it.

Finally, when we get to Matthew 14:33, we see the conclusion that Jesus is worshipped. Mark has them in awe which is Mark’s style. Mark is a writer of fear and trembling wanting to leave his readers in awe, which makes the traditional ending of his gospel in Mark 16:8 fitting. 

This is more than just showing respect. This is a recognition of who Jesus is in light of a miraculous event. We might wonder, “then how could the disciples be so foolish after coming to a knowledge of who Jesus is?!”

Maybe instead of asking that about them, we should ask it about ourselves.

One Greater Is Here

First off, my thanks goes out to T-Shirt Ninja for his compliment to the latest blog. It’s good to know that he’s appreciated and I’m pleased that he liked my blog also on looking at the Problem of Evil from the dentist’s chair. (Which I must experience AGAIN on the 11th. Joy joy joy.)

Tonight, we’re continuing our look at Trinitarian references in the gospels and we’re at Matthew 12. We’ve got two verses to look to tonight. 

41The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. 42The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.

I’d like to note something first off in this. The demeanor Jesus has as he says these things is incredible. I would like to consider myself to be a good apologist and one of my heroes in the field has been Ravi Zacharias. I also do have others such as Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig, Greg Koukl, Gary Habermas, etc.

I’d like you to consider though if I showed up at a conference that I had been invited to speak at as a new entry in the field and stood up and said, “You all just heard an excellent talk by Ravi Zacharias. Well let me tell you that someone greater than Ravi is here!” and then I pointed at myself. You would be thinking “Do I really need to listen to this arrogant guy up here?” Even if it was true, which I’m not saying it is, you wouldn’t want to listen!

The same would happen if I stood up and said such for any of the other names. Even if you didn’t think they were that good, you’d know that by and large they are considered to be and you would quickly mark me as someone arrogant and not worth listening to.

Yet somehow, when Jesus makes these statements, he’s not usually seen as arrogant. If you asked people to describe Jesus, arrogant is not a word they would normally use.

These statements though of Jesus’s are quite similar to what I had put in my own mouth, but it is the demeanor of Jesus and how he is that makes us think that not only are they not arrogant, but they could very well be true! Look at the first one.

He speaks of Jonah who spoke to the Ninevites, a prophet who spoke to a wicked nation, and those people repented. Jesus is speaking to a nation that has hardened its hearts to YHWH and they are not responding and Jesus is saying “One greater than the prophet is here.” Jonah was a man called of God with a message and Jesus, speaking in a time when there has been 400 years of silence is claiming to be greater than a prophet in the Old Testament.

The next one is even more astounding. Solomon was a great king in Israel’s history noted for his wisdom and knowledge and bringing Israel to a time of unique wealth and prosperity. It was this king that the queen of Sheba journeyed to meet just to hear of his wisdom. 

One greater than Solomon is here in Jesus.

Solomon had God’s Wisdom. Jesus IS that Wisdom though. It is not just a possession but it is his very nature. We should think of the shock these statements would have brought to the hearers. On Jesus, they seem almost casual. It should astound us about him. If we ever thought about it, we would truly see what the guards said in John 7. “No one ever spoke like this man!”

The big question also though is, “Is what he said true?” I am reminded of C.S. Lewis’s trilemma. He is either God, a lunatic, or the very devil of Hell. No simply good teacher would say these kinds of things. Yet Jesus did. A lunatic might say these kinds of things, but do we really consider Jesus a lunatic?

The question is which are you going to see him as? God, a lunatic, or the worst blasphemer that ever lived?

The choice is yours.

Jesus and Beelzebub

We’re returning to our regular schedule now going through the gospel of Matthew and looking for Trinitarian references. Tonight, we’re in chapter 12. 

22Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?” 24But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”

 25Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

 29“Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house.

 30“He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

A parallel is in Luke 11:

 14Jesus was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon left, the man who had been mute spoke, and the crowd was amazed. 15But some of them said, “By Beelzebub,[g] the prince of demons, he is driving out demons.” 16Others tested him by asking for a sign from heaven. 17Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them: “Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall. 18If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand? I say this because you claim that I drive out demons by Beelzebub. 19Now if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your followers drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 20But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.

The challenge from the Pharisees is that Jesus can drive out the demons because he’s in league with them. Jesus’s reply though shows that that couldn’t be the case.  If Satan fights against himself, then there’s no wayhis kingdom can stand. 

Also, if Jesus drives them out, then by what power do the Pharisees drive them out? Jesus claims though to do it by the Spirit of God indicating that the Kingdom has come. Luke has an interesting term here. He says “The finger of God.” Readers should remember that the finger of God was what the magicians attributed the plague of insects to in Exodus 8:19. It was the creating of life from non-life,  something that is only God’s prerogative. Luke is saying that same force is at work in Jesus.

Matthew’s emphasis is the Kingdom and what we see in Matthew is a foretaste of what that kingdom will be. Jesus heals the sick for there will be no sick there. Jesus casts out demons because Satan will have no presence there. This is a high view of Jesus for he believes that this kingdom has come in his own person. 

Let’s also notice something. Jesus says blasphemy against him will be forgiven, but not blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. This should strike our modalist friends. If these two were the same person, then it would seem the penalty would be the same. 

Now let’s also comfort some troubled Christians.

Some of you might be troubled, as I once was, that you have committed this sin. I’d like to point out some things.

First off, Jesus did not say this sin had been committed, though I think it was awfully close!

Second off, I think this was a unique situation as this was dealing with the incarnate Son of God and thus, I think this sin is that which is done in the face of extraextraordinary evidence.

Third, this sin is not a one-time deal. This is a lifetime sin and it is a lifetime of rebelling against God and what has been revealed. The reason it is unforgivable is that you do not believe in the one who is able to forgive you. 

Rest assured, if you fear you’ve committed this sin, you haven’t. The concern that you might have shows your deep love for God and no one who has a deep love for God could be guilty of an unforgivable sin.

Tomorrow, we shall continue through Matthew’s gospel.

Against Moral Relativism

I was at a Super Bowl Party tonight so I’m tired (And I have to say, the flowers commercial won tonight) and not wanting to write something new. Thus, the following is a copy of an opening post I did on the Theology Web community in a debate defending moral absolutism. Enjoy:

I first wish to offer my thanks to the TWeb community for allowing us to have such a debate and I do appreciate my opponent agreeing to the debate. One reason I choose to debate this point is that I believe that moral relativism is a deadly cancer that will destroy any working body of government in a society it exists in.

 

One distinction should be noted. I am not arguing in this thread whether some things are moral in a particular sense, such as “Is abortion moral?” That’s for a different debate. I am arguing the position that there are propositions that can be made about morality that are true in the absolute sense. What those propositions are I do not choose to focus on so the question of “Is homosexual practice moral?” will depend on establishing if there is such a thing as moral first. Does the question even have meaning?

 

Realizing that there are space constraints for the debate, I will be giving my reasons why I believe moral relativism to be faulty and why moral absolutism is a true and far more livable philosophy. I will leave it to my opponent to give the arguments for moral relativism. Note that my opponent has chosen to say that there are no moral absolutes, so in order for his case to succeed, he must not only answer any positions I give, but he must also give his own reasons for why someone should think moral relativism is true.

 

Throughout history, the view of my opponent has been the minority. The idea of man being the measure of all things is found in Protagoras, whom Plato does not paint in a negative light, although his teachings definitely were shown that way and a writer like Aristophanes in his play “The Clouds,” would show the chaos that broke loose when moral conventions were gone.

 

When we read Plato, we find his highest form to be the form of the good. We read Aristotle speaking of how one can live a life of virtue to conform oneself to reality. We read that the highest good is that which is desirable for its own sake and that that is ultimately happiness, though not in the sense of “having a good time.” Aristotle was not a hedonist.

 

As philosophy moves through the ages, we see virtue being emphasized and we get to the medievals like Augustine and Aquinas who say goodness is being. Evil is the privation of that which is supposed to be there by nature. It is no evil that a rock is blind. It is an evil that a man is.

 

As we keep going into the modern period, we still see morality being accepted. A writer like Kant says that one of the things that holds him in awe is the moral law within. Philosophers have argued different theories of morality, but most have agreed that there is such a thing as morality.

 

Note that this morality was also seen as binding on persons. Kant called it the moral law. Laws are meant to have an effect on us. Where you live, there are laws on the books and you are expected to abide by those laws. The laws do not make you reply. It is your choice whether you submit or not.

 

My contention will be that when the philosophers spoke of the moral law, they were speaking of something real that they all knew was binding on them. They might have got their interpretations wrong, but that doesn’t change the objectivity of what they were interpreting any more than different views of the origin of the universe changes the truth of the origin of the universe. If absolute unity is essential to truth, then there is very little that is true and ultimately, we’d end up in relativism as things become true as more people agree.

 

I will also say that people are making knowledge claims about moral realities. One person can say “I believe God exists” and another can say “I don’t believe God exists” and both of them can be stating the truth because both of them are stating something about something subjective to them.

 

Let us suppose instead that the first one said “I know God exists,” and the second said “I know God doesn’t exist.” At this point, even if you’re unfamiliar with the arguments, you can be sure of one thing. One of them is wrong. They are making a claim about the world outside of them and claiming that the proposition “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist” corresponds to reality.

 

Now let’s bring that to morality. One person can say “I believe abortion for any reason is wrong.” Another one can say “I believe abortion for any reason is right.” We would have no problem saying that both of those statements are true. The first does believe abortion is wrong for any reason and the second right.

 

If they changed the word “believe” to “know” though, we’d be dealing with a claim about reality and at this point, we have three options that we can believe. The first is to say the first person is right. The second is to say the second person is. The third is to say that it’s a meaningless claim so neither of them is right.

 

Why can’t we say both of them are right? For the same reason both of them can’t be right about the existence of God. He either does exist or he doesn’t. The last option is the one I believe moral relativism will lead to in the end. In fact, it has to. If either of the statements is a moral absolute, then relativism is refuted. After all, if someone holds the first position, then he is not making a truth statement about reality, and yet he is making a moral statement. Moral statements about reality can only be wrong if there is some moral truth to reality.

 

I contend that one of them is right because there is such a thing as goodness and there is such a thing as evil, though I would contend that evil doesn’t have ontological existence but rather is the lack of goodness, but when I speak about something being evil, I am making a statement about it that I believe corresponds to reality.

 

One of my first reasons for believing this is that this is the wisdom of the ages. This is what the philosophers have handed down to us for millennia. Now anyone is welcome to challenge a time-honored tradition, but there must be a really good argument to believe it. Let us remember that G.K. Chesterton said that before you take down a fence, the first question to ask is why it was put up in the first place.

 

The ancients did believe that some things were good and it was man’s task to find what was good. Man was not working so much to control nature but to be in harmony with nature. I don’t mean in some pantheistic sense. I mean that man did not see himself at odds with the world around him. He believed he was here for a reason and part of his task was in seeking the good.

 

This would mean then that some things are good and if Aristotle’s idea holds, some things are things we ought to desire. This does not mean that we always act accordingly. I have friends at this moment who are trying to quit smoking. They do not see it as a good, but yet, they still do it most likely because they get some good out of it, but they do not get the greater good that can come if they stop. Believing in the moral law does not mean you always follow it sadly. My friends could even light up a cigarette and say “I know smoking’s bad for me.” Someone can say that something is evil and still engage in it. If it wasn’t the case, we wouldn’t have groups like AA set up to help people trying to overcome habits destroying them.

 

But what if nothing is good? Then we can also say nothing is desirable. Why should you desire anything? It brings you pleasure? So what? Who says pleasure is a good? (And there were some in Aristotle’s day he had to contend with on that.) It helps you survive? Who says your survival is a good? It helps to a greater goal? And what makes that goal good?

 

This is the problem C.S. Lewis noted with subjective moral theories. Lewis proposes that you place yourself outside all moral theories where you supposedly have no morality and decide you want to choose an ethical system. The question arises. Why should you choose an ethical system?

 

Now you might think you need a system to survive, but there is no basis for which to argue why you should choose a system. The only one would be something pragmatic. You would be arguing for a system that works to some end, even though you will have to assume that end is something that is good. If it is not good, but simply is instead, who cares?

 

The view of moral relativism will lead to all actions being just actions. There is no good or bad to them. They only produce different results and upon what basis can those results be good or bad? You jump in a pool and save a drowning child. It’s not a good action or a bad action. It’s just an action. You jump in a pool and hold a drowning child down smothering it to death. It’s not a good action or a bad action. It’s just an action.

 

However, do we really live like this? Are there not actions that we can say we have moral revulsion at? Do we not look at events like 9/11, the holocaust, or Civil War slavery as evil? It is at this point that moral absolutism shows its strength again. Not only can it say that those are evil, it can point to perpetrators in each case and say “You have done evil and for that, you deserve to be punished.” The moral relativist can fight against it, but certainly not on moral grounds. He only fights because he does not like it. One cannot fight on moral grounds when they claim there is no moral territory to fight on. How can you say your opponent is wrong and you are right when there is no right or wrong?

 

It was these times in our history that also produced great heroes for us. In 9/11, we had young men going to enlist immediately to go fight in a war to stop those who had taken innocent lives. (And note, the concept of innocent lives only makes sense in moral absolutism. If there is no moral right or wrong, innocent or guilty make no sense.)

 

In the Holocaust, you have stories of men like Schindler who hid away several Jews to keep them safe. There were people who tried numerous times to stop Hitler. In fact, we have a movie out now called “Valkyrie” about just such an attempt. Moral absolutists can do such on moral grounds. They can look at certain actions in the world and say “evil.”

 

In Civil War slavery, you had the actions of the abolitionists in working to lead as many slaves to the north where they could be free. If moral relativism, there is no reason to celebrate that. You can if you want, but it is simply because they agree with your tastes. Do we think people risked their lives though in each of these cases for their personal tastes, or because they believed that some things are right and some things are wrong?

 

This also leads to the moral reformers’ dilemma. If relativism is true, there is no such thing as a true moral reformer. People may think they’re moral reformers, but they’re not. Martin Luther King Jr. in being instrumental in turning civil rights around in our nation did not move us to a better system or a worse system. He just moved us to a different system

 

In fact, if society is the main force in a relativism that says that what society says is moral is moral, then the reformers are actually the problem. They’re telling the society that they are immoral. One could say that then moral reformers’ should be eliminated, but even then, that’s a nonsensical statement in relativism. Whatever happens, it just happens.

 

If this is the case, then it also means that you have the problem of moral progress. If moral relativism is true, there can be no such thing as moral progress. Progress assumes that you have a goal that you are reaching. If I am running a race, then my goal is to run to the finish line. What if I was running a race though and the finish line kept moving? What if it just jumped all over the place? I would be hard-pressed to even try. That’s not even the way it is with relativism however. If moral relativism is true, there is no finish line at all. You only say you’ve progressed and you say you’ve progressed when you’ve reached the place you are. It’s not progress. It’s just a change.

 

This also means that the problem of evil cannot be an argument from a moral relativist. If you say that there is evil in the world, then you have become a moral absolutist. Otherwise, you are just saying you don’t like the way things are. Of course, there’s no reason to like the way things are, but there’s also no reason to not like the way things are. They just go against your personal preferences which you have no reason for anyway.

However, the moral absolutist can look at evil and say that evil is a problem. Now how that problem is resolved is a whole other debate, but there is no inconsistency in someone who is a moral absolutist saying that they have a problem with the problem of evil. There is an inconsistency with the moral relativist saying it.

 

In our world today, if there is one virtue that is spoken of more than any other, it’s tolerance. As a moral absolutist, I can practice tolerance. A moral relativist has no basis. First off, let me state what I believe true tolerance is. True tolerance does not say that all ideas are right. It says all persons have a right to hold to their ideas.

 

Note that it must be an idea that is disagreed on. I go bowling with friends every Sunday night. I cannot say that I tolerate their bowling. Why? Because I like it also. If I didn’t like it, I could go along and sit and just talk to them, but because I didn’t care for bowling, I would be tolerating their bowling for the joy of talking to them.

 

It is also normally something that is substantial. If you go out to get a pizza with a friend and you like pepperoni and he likes sausage, you do not go ballistic because of his different taste in toppings. If you did, people would think that there was something wrong with you, and rightfully so.

 

Now suppose that there is something substantial. Let us suppose I have a friend who is a homosexual. I believe homosexual practice is wrong. However, this person is still my friend. I tolerate them in the classical sense. It is what the Christian means by “Love the sinner and hate the sin.” I love them as a person and do not approve of what they do. That is what tolerance is meant to be. I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.

 

I can have tolerance in moral areas because I believe there is real moral disagreement. Note that moral disagreement must exist and the only way moral disagreement can exist is if we both think we are right on a certain position concerning morality. In fact, all moral disagreements and all moral dilemmas presuppose that there is some truth to the matter that is being disagreed on. Moral dilemmas are often brought up as arguments against moral absolutism. They actually show moral absolutism. There can only be a moral problem if there is such a thing as moral truth. Consider the question of “Would you rape someone if it meant that if you didn’t, an alien force would destroy the world?” If moral absolutism is true, this is a dilemma. If relativism is true, it’s simply “Whatever happens happens.” The reason we see it as a dilemma is because we know the destruction of the world by an evil force (And note if it’s evil, then moral absolutism is true) is a bad thing, but we also know rape is as well. We are forced to decide between two evils, and remember, two evils is again a moral absolutist position.

 

My conclusion at this point, as I leave it to my opponent to bring up the arguments against moral absolutism, is that there is such a thing as good and there is such a thing as evil. If a statement like “Loving your neighbor the sake of your neighbor” is a moral good that is absolutely true, then my position is correct. If the statement “Murdering infants simply for the pleasure it brings you is evil,” is true, then my position is correct. If my opponent wishes to say there are no moral absolutes, then he will have to say that statements that are morally absolute such as those do not really have any truth content to them at all. It is certainly a position I would not want to hold to and I would hope no one in here holds to. (And if you do, if I ever have kids, you’re not babysitting.)

 

I conclude that I have given sufficient reasons to believe in moral absolutism and demonstrated that the alternative is not a viable option. If moral relativism is not true, then it follows that moral absolutism is.