Mailbag: How to Decide Which Moral Principles to Use in the Moral Argument

Dear Dr. Baggett,  

What underlying principle determines which moral principles should be accepted by the “gods”? Every religion is different and wouldn’t one have to assume that all religions share a moral common ground? It seems to me that one has to first specify their metaphysics (perhaps even their epistemology) before arguing from morality.  

Thank you for taking the time out of your day to read this email. God bless!  

In Christ,  

Matthew  

Hi Matthew, 

Thanks for the note. 

This sounds like a question of first principles. Here I tend think morality has a sort of primacy. A German philosopher named Hermann Lotze affirmed a principle that our metaphysics is rooted in morality. This is rather different from what often gets affirmed today—start with metaphysics and epistemology, and then fit everything else in and around those disciplines. Lotze thought it okay to start with morality, sensing that it is somehow fundamental. I'm inclined to agree.  Following Mark Linville, I call this "Lotze's Dictum." I see something like such a principle at the heart of the moral apologetics enterprise.  

Then, following Robert Adams, I tend to think, based on basic credulity principles and such, that we are entitled to think that our moral convictions of the deepest ingression can be taken as generally reliable. Without some such assumption, there's not much hope of constructing anything like a moral argument. But again, if morality is considered for principled reasons a real indicator of reality, and evidentially significant in enabling us to figure out aspects of the world, these starting points seem eminently reasonable to me. If someone demurs, they're perfectly entitled to, of course, but I don't find there to be compelling reasons for me to overly concerned with their skepticism on the matter. I simply don't think I'm surer of just about anything than I am that, say, torturing kids for fun is wrong. So to me this can function axiomatically. I don't have apodictic certainty, but such an aim is unrealistically high. As I said in class, putting it this way makes it seem like affirming moral objectivism is nothing more than an intuitive matter, but I think there's a lot more to it than that. That's more appearance than reality. But for a starting point, it's not bad. 

Up until now religion and God haven't played any part in the conversation, you will note. We're just talking about a basic axiomatic moral principle or two. Once one becomes convinced of something like moral realism, the question then becomes, what worldview best accounts for the existence of objective moral facts (again, if such there be)? Now, there are two matters here: the modality of these truths, and the content of these truths. Some might simply wish to run a moral argument based on moral realism--the modality of these truths--their necessary truth or existence, for example. Others might wish to delve into the content.  

As for me, I stay away from the content except a few general claims. I like the example of torturing kids for fun. It's not particularly controversial. It's something I suspect most every religion would agree on. And most every atheist. It's a likely contender for a synthetic necessary moral truth if there is one, something we're more sure of than most anything that could challenge it, perhaps even something that's properly basic (though it needn't be for the moral argument to get off the ground). In other words, its epistemic credentials are pretty impeccable, as far as I'm concerned. 

At this point if one insists we must first lay out the metaphysics of such a truth before arguing from morality, I think I'd say I don't think so. The self-evidence of the proposition in question makes it such that it's more likely to be argued from than to. The moral argument is an effort to get at the metaphysics behind such a moral truth. Getting to the metaphysics is what the moral argument tries to do. If something like an Anselmian God provides the best explanation of such a moral truth, then I consider myself altogether justified and warranted to infer, at least tentatively, to God as the likely true explanation, which is to say, the metaphysical foundation, the ontological grounding, of such a truth. 

Part of what's going on here, I think, is this: our epistemic faculties are such that we can hold our belief about child torture for fun with a high degree of assurance. This is good, since it's basically a premise in the moral argument, and the premises of an argument, if the argument is a good one, need to be strong. If you're convinced of the truth of realism, with at least this minimal content held in common across a broad array of worldviews and religious persuasions, the rest of the work the argument needs to do falls on how well theism generally (or perhaps Christianity particularly) provides the most robust explanation on offer.  

When it comes to basic moral principles, I say I lean toward focusing on noncontroversial content (the vexed questions can be taken up later; this is a matter of ethical foundations)—but it's true that I also extend my four-fold approach to include matters of performance, knowledge, and rationality. But I at least start with minimal content and matters of metaphysics and epistemology—but with a high view of what morality has to say to us and a basic confidence in pre-theoretical moral convictions of a certain stripe. It has always seemed to me that we can know with great confidence the nonnegotiable truth of at least certain basic ethical principles, which is why I'm convinced they're as good a place as any to start doing natural theology. I figure if I'm wrong, well, I'm wrong, but it's where I feel good throwing my lot. People should not be sawn in two; dignity should be upheld; etc. (I'm not saying the rest of the moral argument is this obvious, but the starting point, at least, seems to be.) 

This is all too brief, but in a nutshell, it gives you an idea of what I think. I encourage you to keep thinking about this stuff! I appreciate your note very much. 

Blessings, 

Dave B. 

---

David Baggett is professor of philosophy and Director of the Center for Moral Apologetics at Houston Baptist University.

Communion Meditation: Discerning the Body and Blood of Christ

A Twilight Musing

            “For every time you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord, until he comes.  It follows that anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of desecrating the body and blood of the Lord.  A man must test himself before eating his share of the bread and drinking from the cup.  For he who eats and drinks eats and drinks judgment on himself if he does not discern the body.”  (I Cor. 12:26-29, NEB)

            People sometimes fearfully abstain from partaking of the Lord’s Supper because they feel themselves unworthy.  But it is not these people who are most likely to desecrate the body and blood of the Lord; rather, it is those who partake of the elements with hardly a second thought as to what it means who stand in danger of eating and drinking judgment on themselves.  When Paul warns of the consequences of partaking unworthily (“That is why many of you are feeble and sick”), he may be speaking of physical illness, but he is certainly speaking of spiritual infirmity.  The experience of the Lord’s Supper is so vital and so full of power that one cannot encounter it—any more than he can encounter Christ—in a spirit of mere neutrality.  If he fails to see the body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine in a way that strengthens faith, hope, and love within him, he is hardened to the Blessed Presence of his Savior in a corresponding degree to the benefit he might have received. 

Being confronted with Christ demands a decision, and one cannot ignore Him without endangering his spiritual health.  To fail repeatedly to “discern the Body” in Christ’s memorial feast is progressively to commit spiritual suicide.

---

Dr. Elton Higgs was a faculty member in the English department of the University of Michigan-Dearborn from 1965-2001. Having retired from UM-D as Prof. of English in 2001, he now lives with his wife in Jackson, MI. He has published scholarly articles on Chaucer, Langland, the Pearl Poet, Shakespeare, and Milton. Recently, Dr. Higgs has self-published a collection of his poetry called Probing Eyes: Poems of a Lifetime, 1959-2019, as well as a book inspired by The Screwtape Letters, called The Ichabod Letters, available as an e-book from Moral Apologetics. (Ed.: Dr. Higgs was the most important mentor during undergrad for the creator of this website, and his influence was inestimable.

---

Divine Command Theory and the Euthyphro Dilemma: Part I

Editor’s note: This article was originally posted at MandM. It has been posted here with permission of author.

---

This is a talk I gave to the Philosophy Club at Glendale Community College in Phoenix, Arizona, this weekend. The talk was followed by a long discussion with some faculty, students at the college, and others who zoomed in.

In this talk, I introduced and defended a divine command theory of ethics. The talk was divided into three parts. In section I, I set out what modern divine command theories of ethics typically contend. I distinguished this from some common misunderstandings in section II. In Section III, I discussed the Euthyphro dilemma. I will suggest this objection is not the conclusive rebuttal it is often assumed to be. This first post will contain sections I and II. 

I. What is a Divine Command Theory 

For purposes of this talk, the term “divine command theory” will refer to the divine command meta-ethics defended by Robert Adam’s, William Lane Craig, William Alston, and C Stephen Evan’s. This theory contends that the property of being morally required is identical to the property of being commanded by God. [1] Where God is understood, in orthodox fashion, as a necessarily existent, all-powerful, all-knowing, essentially loving and just, immaterial person who created and providentially ordered the universe.

Note three things about this thesis:

First, it is a thesis about the nature of moral requirements, not about the nature of goodness in general. The concept of “good, is ambiguous, as is seen by the following statements “I had a really good dip in the spa pool last night”. Or “going on a low carb diet is good for you”. Or, “Carlos the Jakal was a good hitman”. The concept of the morally obligatory, or morally required, is not identical to the concept of what it is good to do. It might be good, even saintly, for me to give a kidney to benefit a stranger, but it is not an act I am obliged to do.[2] To be obligatory, an action must be more than just good or praiseworthy in some sense. Obligatory actions are actions we are required to do; another person can legitimately demand we do them. Omitting to do them without an adequate excuse renders one guilty and blameworthy. Others can justifiably blame you, censure you, and sanction you in various ways. 

Nor is this is an idiosyncratic limitation of theory. While some critics of divine command theories characterize it as an account of “goodness” or of all “all evaluative properties.”  Almost all contemporary defenders of divine command theories; Quinn, Adams, Alston, Craig, Wierenga, Hare, and  Plantinga present a divine command theory of obligation, not goodness per se. Nor is this unique to modern divine command theorists; older divine command theorists such as William Paley, John Locke, George Berkeley, and Francisco Suarez limited divine command theories to accounts of moral obligations or requirements, not to goodness in general. 

Second, the postulated relationship between moral requirements and God’s commands is one of identity. Mark Murphy refers to this sort of explanation as “informative identification”. Such as when “we explain the nature of water by identifying it with H2O or explain the nature of heat by identifying it with molecular motion”. We are aware of something we refer to as “water” and want to understand its nature. We answer this question by postulating that what we refer to as water is identical with H20; by doing this, we answer the question, “what is the nature of water?”. In this instance, divine command theorists attempt to explain the nature of a particular kind of moral property, the property of being morally required. The theory is that the property we refer to when we say “X morally required” is the property of being commanded by God.

Third, this is a thesis about the relationship between God and morality. It is not a claim about the relationship between the bible and morality. To claim that moral requirements are identical with God’s commands is not to claim our moral requirements are identical with the commandments laid down in a particular sacred text. The thesis I laid out makes no mention of any sacred text such as the Bible, Quran, Hadith, Torah or Talmud. While many divine command theorists accept that God has revealed his commands in an infallible sacred text, some do not.

Moreover, the claim that God’s commands are contained in some particular sacred text is not part of or entailed by a divine command theory itself. It is the result of other theological commitments they have. One could consistently be a divine command theorist without holding this. Divine command theories are ecumenical; they have had advocates within the Christian, Islamic, Jewish and even deist traditions.

Of course, what role sacred texts should play in our moral thinking and decision-making is important. Whether God has infallibly revealed himself in such text is a question of great interest. However, it is not the question that the divine command theorist is addressing when he says moral requirements are identical with Gods commands.

II What the Divine Command Theory is Not: Avoiding Strawman

These clarifications as to what a divine command theory enable us to address two common objections to the theory: semantic and epistemic objections.

 1. Semantic Objections

Harry Gensler expresses one common objection to a divine command theory. Gensler writes:

 “Imagine an atheist who says the following: “kindness is good, but there is no God”. If “x is good” meant “God desires x”, then this claim would be self-contradictory (since it would mean “God desires kindness, but there is no God”). But it isn’t self contradictory. So “x is good” doesn’t mean “God desires x”.[3]

Gensler concludes that the phrases “X is good” and “desired by God” are not synonymous phrases. This is a conclusion about the meaning of moral terms and words. However, a divine command theory isn’t a theory about the meaning of moral terms. It is a thesis about the nature of moral properties. It contends that the property of being morally required is identical with the property of being commanded by God.

Consequently, Gensler’s argument has an implicit assumption. If two phrases such as “x is wrong” and “X is contrary to Gods commands” are not synonymous in meaning, they cannot refer to the same property. 

 This assumption is questionable. Consider the example of water and H20; the phrase “x is a cup of water” is not synonymous with the words “x is a cup of H20”. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle could, without self-contradiction, claim “this cup is full of water and atoms don’t exist”. Yet that doesn’t entail that water is not identical to H20. “water” and “H20” are distinct non-synonymous ways of referring to what turns out to be the same property. The fact two phrases are not synonymous does not entail they are not referring to the same property. 

Gensler’s argument appears to conflate two separate questions. The question of whether the words “x is morally required” has the same meaning as the phrase “God commands x” and the question of whether those words pick out the same or distinct properties. He mistakenly takes a divine command theory as answering the first of these questions, when it is proposed as an answer to the second.

 2. Epistemic Objections

Many critics of divine command theories object that we know the truth of moral claims independently and prior to any beliefs they have about divine commands. This idea figures prominently in criticisms posed by Nowell Smith.[4], Lehrer and Corman[5], Louise Anthony[6]. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong[7]. Paul Kurtz provides an example:  

 If God is essential, then how can it be that millions of people who do not believe in God, nevertheless behave morally. On [the divine command] view they should not and so God is not essential to the moral life[8]

Like the semantic objection I just discussed, this one is based on a confusion. This objection takes a divine command theory to entail that people cannot know what is right and wrong unless they first know what God has commanded. 

 However, this is incorrect. Divine command theorists contend the property of being morally required is identical with the property of being contrary to God’s commands. If two descriptions refer to the same property, that doesn’t entail we cannot know something answers one description unless we believe something answers the other. 

 It is a fact that water is identical to H20. This does not mean that we cannot know about the existence of water unless we first know about hydrogen and oxygen. The Polynesians who first settled New Zealand around 1300 AD were very good at navigating water: they knew what water was, what rain was, and how to discern currents and tides. They had lots of justified belief about water. However, they knew nothing about atomic or molecular theory. 

---

[1]Robert M. Adams, “Divine Command Meta-Ethics Modified Again,” Journal of Religious Ethics 7:1 (1979): 76.

[2] Example from C. Stephen Evans, Kierkegaard’s Ethic of Love: Divine Commands and Moral Obligations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 16.

[3]Harry Gensler Ethics: A Contemporary Introduction (London: Routledge Publishing, 1988) 39.

[4]Patrick H. Nowell-Smith, “Morality: Religious and Secular,” in Christian Ethics and Contemporary Philosophy, ed. Ian T. Ramsey (London: SCM Press, 1966) 97.

 [5]James W. Cornman & Keith Lehrer, Philosophical Problems and Arguments (New York: MacMillan, 1979), 429.

 [6]Louise Anthony “Atheism as Perfect Piety” in Is Goodness without God Good Enough: A Debate on Faith, Secularism and Ethics, Eds. Robert K Garcia and Nathan L King (Lanham: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, 2008),67-84

 [7]  Armstrong writes, “The divine command theory makes morality unknowable [because such theories entail] we cannot know what is morally wrong, if we cannot know what God commanded … we have no sound way to determine what God commanded.” For critique, See my “Is Ethical Naturalism more Plausible than Supernaturalism: A Reply to Walter Sinnott Armstrong” Philo 15:1 (2012):19-37

 [8]Ibid 33-33, note the slippage in Kurtz statement; he goes from the claim that belief in God is unnecessary to live a moral life to the claim that God is unessential to morality. This is like arguing that; because people can fly successfully in planes without believing in the laws of aerodynamics, it follows, the laws of aerodynamics are not essential for flight.

Making Sense of Morality: A Brief Assessment of Critical Theory

Editor’s note: R. Scott Smith has graciously allowed us to republish his series, “Making Sense of Morality.” You can find the original post here.

What then should we think of critical theory (CT) and its shaping influences in these other views? I’ll consider some strengths and weaknesses.

Strengths

First, proponents rightly point out many injustices that should be addressed. They are right that too often, people in power abuse it to oppress people, which is wrong. Second, they rightly note that (for example) racial injustices can be embedded in systems, even if there are no individuals’ racist intentions. Third, reasoning morally in abstract ways can blind us to oppression and harms. We need to attend to peoples’ particular, embodied, social-historical factors in our policies, for they have to live with their good and bad effects. Fourth, people should be treated with justice, dignity, and equality.

Reality

CT proponents tend to adopt materialism and nominalism. Now, we saw with Daniel Dennett how without essences, everything becomes interpretation, yet without a way to get started and know anything. Also, with nominalism, while focuses our attention on particulars, it also undermines reality. But this end undermines all for which CT advocates have labored, for there is no real oppression or liberation, no rights or wrongs, or anything else. What they rely on to give their views strength (i.e., nominalism) actually destroys them.

Yet, if we don’t come to grips with the end result of nominalism, we can seduce ourselves to think everything is what it is in name only – due to how we have conceived of it. So, both these views lead us to think that what exists is our construct. Yet, to be consistent, that means oppression (as well as liberation) is just some particular group’s construct. Justice, dignity, and equality, all of which are good moral values, end up being just the way a particular group has constructed their morals. But that result is anything but what critical theorists want. They argue for their views as the way things really are, and the way things should be for all people. Yet, based on their own theory’s bases, they cannot be such. Indeed, they are just a particular group’s constructs, and if they try to universalize them, they actually could be imperialistic and oppressive.

Knowledge

Earlier, I explored how Kant’s epistemology led to an inability to know anything, since we cannot traverse the series of appearances that “stand between” us and something as it really is. A similar problem resurfaces with historicism. Here, we cannot access reality directly; we can know it only insofar as we interpret it. Now, there is a very good point to be made here: what we experience we do need to interpret. It is one thing for me to see an animal in my yard; it is another for me to see it as one of our pets and act accordingly.

Similarly, the strength of CT claims depends upon our ability to see real people in real conditions, and see them as unjust. But, can we do this on historicism? I do not think so. Since we can never access something real as it is in itself, apart from our interpretation, it seems we only access our interpretation (call it I1) thereof. But, now a new regress appears. I1 is real, but, per the theory, I cannot access it as it really is, but only as I interpret it (I2). But then that same repetition occurs with I3, I4, and so on, without a way to ever get started. Knowledge becomes impossible on historicism. (Moreover, how can we even form an interpretation if we cannot access something as it really is, even if we do not know it exhaustively?)

Ethics

So, justice, dignity, and equality are nothing but our constructs, and they cannot be preserved due to the reasons above. Plus, since they are just “up to us,” it is possible (conceivable) that their moral goodness could have turned out otherwise.

Further, the fundamental duty on CT (that we are to liberate the oppressed from the oppressors) seems to lead to never-ending violence. Since there are only two groups, once the oppressed have been liberated, now they are the oppressors, and they and the former oppressors have switched places. But, now the cycle must repeat endlessly, with wanton violence.

Though CT identifies real injustices and oppression, it cannot hope to be an adequate basis to address them.

Lord’s Supper Meditation: Connecting with the Father

A Twilight Musing  

            Jesus’ last discourse with his disciples (as presented in John 14-17) is permeated with references to His Father, as is his whole life.  He makes it clear that the Father is the source of everything that the Son is bringing to the world, and that the Son has no significance except as an interpreter of and an avenue to the Father.  All things are bound up in the Father, for from the Father Jesus proceeded, and to Him He was to return (Jn. 16:28).  Paul says that in the consummation of all things, Christ will “hand over the kingdom to God the Father,” so that “the Son himself will be made subject to Him . . . so that God may be all in all” (I Cor. 15:24-28).  In the account of the Last Supper in Matthew 26, Jesus noted that this last partaking of the wine with them looked forward to the time when He would “drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.“  In view of this complete focus of Jesus on His Father, how should we understand the focus on Jesus and His death (“Do this in remembrance of me”) in our observances of the Lord’s Supper?

            First, our only link with the Father is through the incarnate Son of God, that form in which He was most distinct from God the Father, and the only form in which He could experience the redemptive death necessary for the deliverance of humankind.  Secondly, God, the Father, was in Christ, reconciling Himself through the death of His Son to the world of fallen humans.  So in partaking of the Lord’s Supper, we receive both the Father and the Son, and if the Supper is properly observed, we depart having received anew the grace of the Holy Spirit that enables us to walk in newness of life.

---

Dr. Elton Higgs was a faculty member in the English department of the University of Michigan-Dearborn from 1965-2001. Having retired from UM-D as Prof. of English in 2001, he now lives with his wife in Jackson, MI. He has published scholarly articles on Chaucer, Langland, the Pearl Poet, Shakespeare, and Milton. Recently, Dr. Higgs has self-published a collection of his poetry called Probing Eyes: Poems of a Lifetime, 1959-2019, as well as a book inspired by The Screwtape Letters, called The Ichabod Letters, available as an e-book from Moral Apologetics. (Ed.: Dr. Higgs was the most important mentor during undergrad for the creator of this website, and his influence was inestimable.

---

Benefits of Active Listening and Moral Apologetics for the Chaplaincy Ministry

For the first article after having been named a Senior Contributor for MoralApologetics.com, it is only appropriate to acknowledge the tremendous benefit that moral apologetics has served in my present ministry as a clinical hospice chaplain. In September of 2020, I joined a team of nine other individuals who care for patients and their families at the point of death. Numerous individuals have inquired, “How do you do that? Don’t you stay depressed all the time? Isn’t that a heavy job?” Yes, the job can be intense emotionally and spiritually. A fellow chaplain told me that the average duration of a clinical hospice chaplain is generally 2-3 years because of emotional burnout. Ironically, I have found the job to be a blessing. I have seen God move in powerful ways to change lives and to impact people in ways that I was never prepared to see.

Two skills have served as a tremendous benefit for helping me help those most in need. By no means am I saying that I have these skills mastered. I am still learning. Nonetheless, I digress. The first is a skill acquired from my chaplaincy training. Fellow chaplain Jason Kline taught me the benefits of a practice known as active listening. Active listening is a technique that carefully listens to what the person is saying and observes non-verbal cues that communicate what the person is feeling and thinking. More on this in a

While active listening is a tremendous tool, it becomes even more powerful when coupled with training in moral apologetics. This writer was highly honored to participate in Dr. David Baggett’s final course at Liberty University before he made his trek to Houston Baptist University. Truly, Liberty’s loss is HBU’s gain. For me, I wanted to take the course because I had already befriended Dr. Baggett but never had him as a professor. Even if Baggett taught a class on the benefits of chocolate ice cream, I would have taken it because I wanted to say that Dr. Baggett was my professor. Nonetheless, it could not have been more appropriate that the class was on moral apologetics. Furthermore, nothing could have prepared me for the enduring benefits that stemmed from this deeply philosophical and apologetic overview of the moral apologetic landscape. The field of moral apologetics prepared me in numerous ways to be able to help patients as a clinical chaplain and deal with the intense situations that I have encountered in my brief time in the profession. As a caveat, HIPAA laws do not permit the use of personal stories and examples in the chaplaincy field. Thus, this article will only speak in generalities as it pertains to the benefits of both active listening and moral apologetics to the task of chaplaincy ministry. As the article will show, the benefits are not only found in chaplaincy.

Benefits of Active Listening

As previously noted, active listening is a technique whereby a counselor actively participates in the conversation by observing both verbal and non-verbal cues that speak to the person’s emotional, spiritual, and physical condition. Healthline.com suggests that active listening requires eight tasks: 1. Give the person your full attention. 2. Use body language (show them you are interested in the person, don’t just say it). 3. Avoid interrupting the person. 4. Don’t fear the power of silence. 5. Reflect on the person’s communication, don’t parrot them. 6. Validate the person’s feelings. 7. Ask thoughtful questions. 8. Avoid passing judgment or offering advice.[1] All of these tips work well within the framework of moral apologetics. The eighth tip may sound counterintuitive to the apologist’s task because the apologist wants to guide the person to a personal relationship with Christ and/or strengthen his/her relationship with Christ. However, strategically asked questions can provide the same result and will allow the client to own the information for oneself. Furthermore, this fits well into the abductive argument for moral apologetics. Marybeth Baggett avers that the abductive approach “relies on and encourages bridge building, which isn’t helped by treated difficult questions as easier than they are.”[2] It just so happens that active listening works well within the abductive approach. From the brief time this writer has served as a clinical chaplain, it has been observed that the practice of active listening brings about four tremendous benefits.

1.      Encourages dialogue. Just as Baggett argued for the abductive moral argument, so also active listening encourages dialogue. There is a distinct difference between dialogue and monologue. Monologues occur when a person gives a lecture. While this is nice in the university setting, it is not preferred for one-on-one communication. If the counselor or apologist only gives the person what-for, enshrouded in the ideology of “telling it like it is,” the listener will quickly turn off his/her ears and will no longer engage in the conversation. The conversation will quickly devolve and end. However, the effective communicator is willing to hear what the other person says and how they feel. Speaking as an apologist, this is something that is missing in many circles these days.

2.      Identifies personal concerns. Active listening encourages the person to speak about their personal issues and concerns. The counselor and apologist will quickly learn why the person believes what they do. More often than not, a person’s experiences help shape one to become who they will be. Recently, an A&E documentary on the life of WWE legend Rowdy Roddy Piper spoke to the tragic events of Roddy Toombe’s early life that led to his self-destructive habits. Active listening helps to identify and detect those issues.

3.      Allows for self-assessment. The best counselors and apologists are those that can lead individuals to own the information for themselves. This is the very tactic that Jesus used. For example, Jesus asked the disciples who others said that he was before asking them poignantly, “Who do you say that I am?” (Matt. 16:15, CSB). Simon Peter owned the information for himself which came from Jesus’s strategic inquiry.

4.      Reveals personal biases and worldviews. In correlation with the second point, active listening reveals what the person believes. Non-verbal communication can serve as a huge help. Does the person wince or squirm when more difficult theological or spiritual questions are asked? What does this say about the person’s beliefs? Did the person have experiences that led them to their current spiritual reservations? Knowing the seven major worldviews is of immense value as it helps one know the foundation upon which the person’s belief system is based.[3]

Benefits of Moral Apologetics

As was shown, active listening is a powerful technique used to engage and develop a conversation with others. However, questions cannot be one-sided. Sometimes people want to know why a loving God would allow their loved one to suffer. Why is God allowing them to endure hardship and suffering? Simply answering, “Just believe God and all will be well” is not enough. Furthermore, the counselor and/or apologist needs to have a goal in mind. In the case of the moral apologist, the goal is to teach and move a person to accept the good moral nature of an Anselmian God.[4] The use of active listening within the framework of an abductive moral apologetic makes for a powerful means to assist those suffering from moral doubt for the following reasons.

1.      Provides confidence to handle the most difficult situations. Nothing can prepare someone for the outpouring of emotions when tragedy strikes. Different people mourn in different ways. Some may become loud and boisterous, whereas others become depressed and guarded. Having a moral apologetic background grounds the counselor and apologist with the confidence needed to stand amid the turbulent chaos. Like CPR for the EMS worker, ingrained moral apologetic truths become second nature to the trained moral apologetic counselor and apologist and can be quickly accessed.

2.      Grounds a person’s confusion and doubt. Eventually, the counselor and apologist will face a situation that causes them to wonder about why a certain instance occurred. This is natural. The person suffering through the tumultuous time is asking the same question with sevenfold intensity. Nonetheless, the tools in the moral apologist’s toolbox are readily available to assist both the counselor and client during the most difficult of days. Holding fast to God’s benevolent nature anchors one’s emotional and spiritual state.

3.      Reminds of the loving character of God amid the storms. Moral doubt has led many to dark places. Habermas estimates that 70-80% of doubt comes from emotional doubt.[5] Moral apologetics affords the ability to focus on the benevolent nature of God even in a world full of evil and despair. In the end, God’s moral nature is the best explanation for knowing that moral good exists and the intrinsic moral value held by all people, as they are made imagio Dei. Baggett and Walls word it well, noting that “God’s nature as the best explanation of moral good, and the fact that he has created us in his image, constitute an excellent explanation both of why we cannot avoid making moral judgments about the world and of why we cannot escape seeing evil as a problem if there is indeed a gap between the way the world is and the way it ought to be.”[6] Rather than leading the counselor and client away from God because of their moral plight, moral apologetics equips them to come closer to God during the occasion because of the goodness of God and the necessity of God as the best explanation as to why one can make moral claims in the first place.

4.      Acknowledges a better day to come. Hope can help a person through the most decadent times. Viktor Frankl reminisces on the power of hope after having survived the torturous Nazi death camps. He recalls, “The prisoner who had lost faith in the future—his future—was doomed. With his loss of belief in the future, he also lost his spiritual hold; he let himself decline and became subject to mental and physical decay.”[7] What hope does materialism offer with one’s suffering? Nothing. Moral apologetics acknowledges that a benevolent Anselmian God holds the very best in mind for his children’s future. While things may appear grim at present, a better day is coming. As I hope to show in a book I am currently writing—if God is that than which nothing greater could be perceived, then the final hope for his children is that than which nothing greater could be anticipated. The believer has hope for a perfect world created by a perfect God.

Conclusion 

Quite honestly, this article has only skimmed the surface of the great depths that the combination of active listening and moral apologetics extends to the counselor and apologist. However, this combination is not only limited to chaplaincy, but it can also be useful for every field and profession. From the academic professor to the local pastor and everyday Christian, these practices can enrichen one’s life and relationships. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, the practice of active listening disarms a person from being on edge from thinking that he/she must prove one’s intellectual prowess. In most cases, the active listener allows the other person to do the most talking. Additionally, the strength from having a moral apologetic background encourages both counselor and client alike that they are not defined by the bad situations endured, but rather they are defined by a God who loves them and cares for them more than one could ever realize. What could be better than that?

---

About the Author 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com, the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast, the author of the Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, and a Ph.D. Candidate of the Theology and Apologetics program at Liberty University. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in pastoral ministry for nearly 20 years and currently serves as a clinical chaplain and a Senior Contributor for MoralApologetics.com.

https://www.amazon.com/Laymans-Manual-Christian-Apologetics-Essentials/dp/1532697104

[1] Crystal Raypole, “Active Listening: Why it Matters and 8 Tips for Success,” Healthline.com (December 15, 2020), https://www.healthline.com/health/active-listening.

[2] David Baggett and Marybeth Baggett, The Morals of the Story: Good News about a Good God (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 51.

[3] See Brian G. Chilton, Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics: Bridging the Essentials of Apologetics from the Ivory Tower to the Everyday Christian (Eugene, OR: Resource, 2019), 40-43.

[4] That is, “God is the ground of being without whom nothing else can exist.” David Baggett and Jerry L. Walls, God & Cosmos: Moral Truth and Human Meaning (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2016), 64.

[5] Habermas in Chilton, LMOCA, 75.

[6] Baggett and Walls, God & Cosmos, 96.

[7] Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning (Boston, MS: Beacon, 2006), 74.

Editor's Recommendation: Slipping through the Cracks by Zach Breitenbach

Slipping Through the Cracks: Are Some Lost Who Would Have Been Saved in Different Circumstances?

By Breitenbach, Zachary

Over the course of my long friendship with Zach Breitenbach, he has consistently shown a remarkable willingness to keep struggling with an issue until clarity comes. I recall that he used to be a wrestler, and it would appear that he still is! Like many of the luminaries in the history of apologetics, he is willing to sit with an issue, live and wrestle with questions, and give a topic the time and effort required to do it justice. 

This delightful book is a product of such laudable patience, tenacity, and labor, and the result does not disappoint. To the contrary, he has done the Christian, philosophical, apologetic, and theological community a wonderful service. Unafraid to tackle prohibitively difficult questions, the prodigiously gifted author has the expansive mind and requisite skill and aptitude to navigate their contours, often with penetrating profundity. He is unrelenting in his search for a theory that is at once both philosophically rigorous and biblically sound. 

One of the significant challenges assailing those who believe in a wholly good and loving God is to make sense of the category of the “contingently lost” (i.e., those who are lost but would have been saved in other circumstances that God could have brought about). Indeed, this problem is intractable enough that some insist that no sense can be made of it at all, and that no one is ultimately unredeemed in the actual world if they are redeemed in some other world that is feasible for God to make. This deep existential issue of whether some people “slip through the cracks,” as it were, can hardly be overstated, shedding light by turns on the human condition and questions of ultimate meaning and significance, the nature of reality and the very character of God. 

Breitenbach’s original theodicy offered here is both extremely thoughtful and eminently worthy of careful consideration. Canvassing and digesting, integrating and synthesizing an array of disparate discussions—from Reformed epistemology to Molinism, from exclusivism to theodicy—he makes accessible and brings to life wide, important, and difficult literatures, deftly navigating their nuances and generating real clarity in the process. 

With lucid prose and crystal clear explanations, he has written a wonderful book that is both philosophically astute and historically informed, and both theologically sophisticated and biblically faithful. He does not make the job he carves out for himself an easy one. He aims to effect a rapprochement of nothing less than the conjunction of exclusivism and the possibility of some people being contingently lost, a God of perfect love (for all) and substantive doctrines of sovereignty—albeit decidedly non-Calvinist variants of election and predestination. His interlocutors may agree or disagree with his analysis, but they will be unable responsibly to ignore it. 

-David Baggett, Executive Editor

Making Sense of Morality: Liberation, Feminist, & Queer Ethics

Editor’s note: R. Scott Smith has graciously allowed us to republish his series, “Making Sense of Morality.” You can find the original post here.

Introduction

In this essay, I will survey key points of three theories that have been deeply shaped by critical theory (CT). I will try to draw out their ethical implications. In the next essay, I will assess CT.

Liberation Theology

The first is liberation theology. We will explore it through the teachings of the Catholic theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez (b. 1928). His ideas have been widely influential in Latin America and the west.

For him, the purpose of liberation is achieve freedom from anything that hinders humans’ fulfillment and communion with God and one another. Economic oppression is a key, but not the only, form of domination. In general, liberation is from sin. Yet, liberation can take many forms, such as by abolishing private property, changing the access to power by the exploited, and using a social revolution to break dependencies, such as upon the United States and its capitalist system. In his mind, socialism is far more fruitful as a political organization.

Rather than stressing abstract, universal principles, Gutiérrez focuses on concrete, particular people and their embodiment of oppression and suffering. For him, he endorses the interpretive lens of liberation as normative, and he sees liberation as a dominant biblical theme. So, we should read Scripture through this lens and in light of our embodied experience.  

Feminist Ethics of Welch and Harrison

There are varieties of feminist thought, but here I will look at two exemplars, Sharon Welch and Bev Harrison. For them, feminism follows CT in some key ways. First, feminist thought assumes the dynamic of oppression by oppressors. Second, it rejects many dualisms, such as of body and soul. Third, it stresses embodied, situated particulars in a historicist epistemology. Fourth, it rejects universals and essential natures.

For Sharon Welch (b. 1952), by attending to universal, abstract theorizing, we overlook practical effects thereof. For example, if we attend to the actual history of Christianity, she thinks we can see “the denial by the church and by Western culture of full humanity to women and minorities” (Welch, 59). Welch also embraces a historicist view of truth (Welch, 10). Our concepts are contingent upon our historical conditions.

Bev Harrison (d. 2012) agrees that we are historically situated. All our concepts, including our norms, dualisms, and even what is right or wrong are the social constructs of a given people. Since all knowledge is a construct, based on the particulars in a given setting, she thinks we should focus on praxis versus abstract theory in ethics.

Our historical situatedness entails we are embodied beings. To her, mind-body dualism is mistaken for various reasons. For one, we cannot pry the body off the soul, for all knowledge is body mediated. Two, it denigrates the body. Third, dualism entails difference and therefore subjugation.

To her, male-female dualism grounds patriarchy and its oppression of women. Further, other oppressive power relations and injustices are interrelated with sexism. These include racism, economic exploitation, and cultural imperialism, from all of which we need liberation.

Gender Studies and Queer Theory

Gender studies focuses on embodied particulars and historically situated knowledge. The American Psychological Association defines gender as “the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for boys and men or girls and women.” Gender identity is an interpretation of oneself as a particular individual, without reference to universals or essences. Yet, it is not separated from groups, and these in turn are tied to oppression.

Moreover, queer theorists reject heteronormativity and male-female “binary” thinking as static and oppressive views. Michele Foucault (d. 1984) thought there is no essence to sex. Judith Butler (b. 1956) describes gender as “the repeated stylization of the body, a set of repeated acts within a highly rigid regulatory frame that congeal over time to produce the appearance of substance, of a natural sort of being” (Butler, 45). Thus, queer theory creates many possibilities for how to conceive of one’s sexuality, resulting in a perception of having a liberated sexuality, notwithstanding one’s anatomy.

For Further Reading

Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity

Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, rev. ed.

Bev Harrison, Making the Connections: Essays in Feminist Social Ethics

R. Scott Smith, In Search of Moral Knowledge, ch. 8

Sharon Welch, Communities of Resistance and Solidarity

“What is the Difference Between Sex and Gender?”

---

R. Scott Smith is a Christian philosopher and apologist, with special interests in ethics, knowledge, and seeing the body of Christ live in the fullness of the Spirit and truth.

---

Lord’s Supper Meditation: Children of the Father

A Twilight Musing

            Jesus’ last discourse with his disciples (as presented in John 14-17) is permeated with references to His Father--as is his whole life.  He makes it clear that the Father is the source of everything that the Son is bringing to the world, and that the Son has no significance except as an interpreter of and an avenue to the Father.  From the Father Jesus proceeded, and to Him He was to return (Jn. 16:28).  Paul says that in the consummation of all things, Christ will “hand over the kingdom to God the Father,” so that “the Son himself will be made subject to him,” and “God may be all in all” (I Cor. 15:24-28).  In the account of the Last Supper in Matthew 26, Jesus noted that this last partaking of the wine with them looked forward to the time when He would “drink it anew with [them] in [His] Father’s kingdom.”  What is to be made of the complete focus of Jesus on His Father as it relates to the institution of the Lord’s Supper?

            Perhaps the key to answering this question lies in Jesus’ emphasis in His last discourse to His disciples on the oneness of Himself and His Father, and the corresponding oneness He prays that His disciples will have after He leaves them (Jn. 17:11, 20-23).  The identification between Father and Son is so close that Jesus can tell His disciples that “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).  So when Jesus, in instituting the Lord’s Supper, told His disciples to “do this in remembrance of me,” He was inviting them (and us) to remember also that through Jesus’ sacrifice, His Father has become our Father, too.  Consequently, we have received “the spirit of sonship,” whereby the Holy Spirit “cries out with our spirits, “Abba, Father!” (Rom. 8:15-16).

            So when we partake of the Lord’s Supper, it is a remembrance not only of what Christ did for us, but of the new and ongoing relationship with the Father which His death and resurrection restored.  Jesus is not only our Savior, but our elder Brother, the exemplar of submission to the will of our Father.  Moreover, just as people were able to see the Father in the Son, so we are, through the Spirit of the crucified and risen Christ within us, to reflect the Father and the Son.

---

Dr. Elton Higgs was a faculty member in the English department of the University of Michigan-Dearborn from 1965-2001. Having retired from UM-D as Prof. of English in 2001, he now lives with his wife in Jackson, MI. He has published scholarly articles on Chaucer, Langland, the Pearl Poet, Shakespeare, and Milton. Recently, Dr. Higgs has self-published a collection of his poetry called Probing Eyes: Poems of a Lifetime, 1959-2019, as well as a book inspired by The Screwtape Letters, called The Ichabod Letters, available as an e-book from Moral Apologetics. (Ed.: Dr. Higgs was the most important mentor during undergrad for the creator of this website, and his influence was inestimable.

---

How the Resurrection Impacts Theology

In September of 1993, my grandmother, Eva Chilton, passed away from a long battle with congestive heart failure. She was the first of my grandparents to pass. My grandmother was a kind, loving woman who used to play board games with us grandchildren. Her smile was illuminating, and her laughter was infectious. Having grown up in church, my young ears heard numerous stories about the afterlife and divine promises. However, being the ever so skeptically minded person as I am, I wanted to know if those promises were true. How could I know that my grandmother was okay?

Previously, I had read a story in Guideposts magazine about a person who prayed that God would send a sign after their loved one’s passing to confirm that the loved one was okay. The article noted that God sent a lightning bolt to verify that the loved one was okay. My mind began to ponder that if the prayer worked for that person, surely it would also work for me. Thus, a few days before my grandmother’s passing, I asked the Lord to do the same for me. I asked for God to send a lightning bolt to assure me that my grandmother was okay when she passed. It was in late September which was not as conducive for lightning storms in the foothills of northwestern North Carolina, as opposed to the balmy, humid months of July and August. That is not to say that lightning storms never happen in late September, just that they are not as likely.

The day came when my grandmother passed. The family met in my grandparent’s home. It was an old house built in the early 1900s. The shutters were filled with asbestos insulation, fine as long as you do not perturb it. An old closet had been transformed into a bathroom, replacing the former outhouse used years before the home’s indoor plumbing was installed. The front of the home led into a large living room which was closed during the colder months due to the woodstove being on the other side of the home. A door led to a bedroom to the left. Across the living room was a door that led into a family room/bedroom. To the left of the family room was the kitchen which led out the back door. The kitchen and family room normally received the most traffic.

On this evening, I found myself in the quiet confines of the living room and peering outdoors into the empty darkness of the sorrowful September night. Everything seemed much darker on that evening because my grandmother was gone. However, the darkness would soon be replaced with brilliant colors of white and blue as two lightning bolts struck on either side of the house. A bolt hit near to where I was sitting, while another bolt hit on the other side of the home where my grandfather and Reverend Gilmer Denny, a pastor friend of the family, were sitting. Outside of losing power for a few brief seconds, nothing in the home was damaged. After a few minutes of initial shock, the Spirit of God reminded me of the prayer that had been previously appealed. At least to my teenage mind, the sign confirmed that my grandmother was just fine. She was in her heavenly home.

Even though this story is told 28 years after it occurred, the memory still vividly resonates in my mind because of the impact it made on me. In like manner, the resurrection of Christ impacts our theological framework. The apostle Paul taught that if the resurrection were not true, then people would be most pitied, the Christian message would be untrue, and Christian teachers would be found to be liars (1 Cor. 15:12-19). But if the resurrection is true, then, everything changes. Paul notes, “But as it is, Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also comes through a man. For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:20-22).[1] The resurrection’s veracity impacts the totality of a person’s theological worldview. Much could be said of this issue, but to constrain the article’s scope, only three theological areas of impact will be described.

The Resurrection Impacts the Theological Views of the Afterlife and Eternity

If the resurrection is true, then one has firsthand evidence that life exists beyond the grave. 1 Corinthians 15:20 holds that Jesus’s resurrection serves as the firstfruits for those who have already passed. The aspect of firstfruits refers to the Jewish practice of taking the first and best portion of a harvest and giving it to God.[2] The people were to bring the first sheaf of the harvest to the priest for him to wave the sheaf before God (Lev. 23:10-14). Figuratively, Jews understood that this taught them to place God first in all that they said and did. In the NT, it was understood that Jesus represented the best of us all. In like manner, just as Jesus had risen from the dead, so shall others be raised from the dead. Life exists beyond the scope of this world. The proof of the afterlife is found in an empty tomb and by the transformed lives who have encountered the One who defeated death.

The Resurrection Impacts the Theological Views of Purpose and Value

If there is a resurrection and an afterlife, then that must indicate that people have an innate purpose and value. God’s creation is important. Even more, the human race bears the divine imprint—otherwise known as the imagio Dei. As such, no life is a mistake. No person is without value and purpose. This writer spoke at a church on one occasion where a mother and father were in attendance, along with their numerous foster children. The mother said that because she was unable to bear children, she wanted to share her love with children who did not have parents. The message was on Jeremiah chapter one. The point was made that God foreknows each person before the person is born, just as was the case with the prophet Jeremiah. The point continued to note that because of God’s foreknowledge and calling, no one is worthless and without value. Furthermore, every life has a purpose. One of the children began crying as she looked at her mother. The mother wrapped her arm around the child. After the service, the mother expressed her appreciation to me for the message. She said that the child’s biological mother had told her that she was a mistake and was worthless. However, the mother emphasized that God had given her a purpose in this life and that her life was highly valued.

The resurrection of Christ confirms the value and worth of each person. If the resurrection is true, then, retrospectively, the atoning sacrifice of the cross is confirmed, and the mission of Christ is validated. The resurrection is God’s stamp of approval for the mission of Christ. The mission of Christ is evidence of God’s benevolent love and compassion for all of humanity. For Christ was not sent to condemn the world, but rather that the world through him might be saved (John 3:17)—emphasis again on the world, not just the frozen chosen.

The Resurrection Impacts the Theological Views of Ethics and Virtue

If the resurrection confirms that there is an afterlife and that human beings hold purpose and value, then, practically, the resurrection impacts ethics and value. If the resurrection is true, then how people treat one another matters. Why? Because the resurrection confirms the message of Jesus. Ben Witherington notes that “Jesus expected his audience to respond to his works in faith and with repentance. This suggests that his duty was more than just performing acts of compassion. Rather, he was calling God’s people back to their source in view of the inbreaking dominion of God … the power of God must be used to help people.”[3] Jesus commanded his disciples to love others and to even pray for those with whom they differ (Matt. 5:44). Doing good for others is not only commanded and exhibited by Jesus, but it also illustrates the kingdom of God to those in need and compels others to enter this domain.

This article comes on the heels of seven months spent in clinical chaplaincy ministry. Quite honestly, God’s power has been exhibited more in these past seven months than was personally experienced in the past 20 years of pastoral ministry. Prayers have been answered in remarkable ways; people have expressed their deepest appreciation for the work being done; people have had encounters with God; and souls have come to know the Lord. Those things occur in pastoral ministry, but not to the level that has been witnessed in chaplaincy ministry. Why is that? Perhaps it is because chaplains find themselves on the front lines of ministry. Rather than sitting in an office, quarantined from the quagmire of human experience, the chaplain finds oneself in the trenches with those most in need. Chaplaincy has taught the value of Jesus’s teaching, firsthand, that when a cup of water, or a good deed, is given to one who thirsts, it is also given to Jesus (Mark 9:41). This is not to discredit pastoral ministry in the least. I have many fond memories of the pastorate. Who knows? God may use me there again in the future. Nonetheless, the point simply advocates that to demonstrate the love of God, believers must be willing to serve those most in need without judgment. In other words, believers must be willing to get their hands dirty. Christ died and defeated death to give life to humanity. That means that every person is worth saving. That also means that every person is of dignity, worth, and value. The book of Revelation portrays a scene where individuals from every tribe, nation, and tongue surround the throne of God while giving him praise (Rev. 7:9). If true, then the resurrection allows no room for racism or favoritism based on socioeconomic standards. The resurrection demands a superior ethical and moral code to be held by each believer.

Conclusion

The article began with a story of a lightning bolt that fixated my attention heavenward. Later in life, two other lightning bolt experiences transformed my life. The final experience will be shared another day. Insofar as this article goes, the second lightning bolt experience occurred when the resurrection of Jesus was understood to be a historical fact. My life has been transformed just as has the lives of countless others. The resurrection not only serves as the linchpin for the Christian worldview, but it also validates the entire theological framework upon which the biblical worldview is built. Christians may differ on modes of baptism, Bible translations, and styles of singing. However, a Christian cannot deny the historical resurrection of Christ. If the resurrection is denied, then the entire foundation for the Christian worldview collapses, and the walls come tumbling down. Paul verifies that very line of thought in 1 Corinthians 15. Yet if the resurrection did occur, then everything changes. A person may find it revolutionary to acknowledge that Jesus’s resurrection is not some comic book tale told on framed color-filled pages. Jesus’s resurrection is a historical fact that validates the afterlife, ethical values, and human purpose. The world’s woes will not be solved by political pundits and legislation. Rather, the solution is found in an empty tomb and on an occupied throne at the right hand of God the Father. But one day, the throne will be unoccupied as numerous other tombs are left emptied. That is all because the resurrection is true.

---

About the Author

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com, the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast, the author of the Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, and a Ph.D. Candidate of the Theology and Apologetics program at Liberty University. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in pastoral ministry for nearly 20 years and currently serves as a clinical chaplain.

Brian is a Senior Contributor for MoralApologetics.com

https://www.amazon.com/Laymans-Manual-Christian-Apologetics-Essentials/dp/1532697104

© 2021. BellatorChristi.com.

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2017).

[2] A. Boyd Luter, “Firstfruits,” The Lexham Bible Dictionary, John D. Barry, ed, et al (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

[3] Ben Witherington, III, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990), 176.

Making Sense of Morality: Critical Theory Overview

Editor’s note: R. Scott Smith has graciously allowed us to republish his series, “Making Sense of Morality.” You can find the original post here.

Introduction

Naturalistic ethics remains a dominant moral approach in the west. But there are at least two other contemporary kinds of ethics. They are critical theory and its particular versions, as well as postmodernism. I will start with critical theory (CT), with a focus today on social justice. 

Overview of Critical Theory

Social justice has a long and venerable history, including efforts such as abolishing British and American slavery; caring for the vulnerable, such as the poor, widows, orphans, and minorities; and caring for the sick, such as through building hospitals. Today, however, there seems to be a “new kind” of social justice that focuses on issues such as (1) economic justice through the redistribution of resources; (2) freedom from discrimination due to one’s gender identity, and to be given positive rights on that basis; (3) environmental justice; and (4) racism and reparations.

Often, these contemporary efforts seem to be grounded in CT, which has a deep influence in the humanities, whether at secular or religious institutions. CT has spawned a number of specific studies, such as critical race, ethnic, legal, gender and queer, and cultural studies. It is having much influence in part because proponents are identifying some real injustices which should be addressed, such as racism, sexism, slavery, economic oppression, mistreatment of women, etc.

Based on several key philosophical positions, and Marxist-inspired thought, CT began in the “Frankfurt school.” That school included several key thinkers, such as Max Horkheimer (d. 1973), Theodor Adorno (d. 1969), and Herbert Marcuse (d. 1979). CT also was influenced by Antonio Gramsci (d. 1937), and all four were influenced significantly by Karl Marx (d. 1883).

Three Key Positions

Some of the reasons for the influence of CT is that it taps into accepted views we have seen. First, it accepts materialism: reality is made of matter, without any essences. Second, everything is particular (nominalism). Third, in terms of knowledge, it accepts historicism.

Historicism is like the view we saw in Kant, that we cannot know reality as it is in itself (i.e., directly). CT rejects knowledge of universal truths for all people at all times and places, for that would require a universal standpoint. Instead, historicists believe all knowledge is situated: it is socially-based and embedded in a given historical location and time. Our situatedness shapes how we interpret reality, and, like a set of lenses, we always experience and interpret reality through that interpretive framework. Yet, we cannot take off our glasses and get a direct, uninterpreted gaze into reality itself. Everything is our interpretation, drawn from our particular historical location.

Nietzsche (d. 1900) helped give rise to historicism, too. As a naturalist, he denied any essences. Also, due to nominalism, there are no literal identities between any two things; we construct things by taking them to be identical. Unlike Kant, there are no truths of reason (a priori). Indeed, things like the will are just words, the way we happen to talk. Even that we are the subjects of our thoughts is just an interpretation according to our grammatical formulae. Our teaching how to use words deceives us to think such things are real. Indeed, claims to know what is real just reflect our will to power, when actually all knowledge is perspectival.

Ethics 

Now, CT posits that there are two groups, the oppressors and the oppressed. A critical theory seeks to liberate people from domination and oppression and increase freedom in all their forms. Ethically, our fundamental duty is to liberate the oppressed. That is done by leveling power and redistributing resources (i.e., material solutions, since matter is what is real). This means an equality of outcomes, not opportunity.

Moreover, traditional western societies’ institutions oppress and alienate people from their true selves by disrespect, disapproval, and social inequalities. Instead, people are to be free to live as they want (e.g., define their own sexuality). For secular critical theorists, this liberation is accomplished in part by the state’s coercive power.

For Further Reading

Max Horkheimer, Critical Theory

Friedrich Nietzsche, “Life, Knowledge, and Self-Consciousness,” and “Prejudices of Philosophers,” in Nineteenth-Century Philosophy, ed. Patrick Gardiner

Roger Scruton, Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left

---

R. Scott Smith is a Christian philosopher and apologist, with special interests in ethics, knowledge, and seeing the body of Christ live in the fullness of the Spirit and truth.

---

Divining the Absence

The question haunts many, if not all, of us: “What do people gain from all the toil at which they toil under the sun.... For all their days are full of pain, and their work is a vexation; even at night their minds do not rest. This also is vanity.” What fascinates is not only the query itself, but the question within the question: Why does this question arise in one creature of the solar system, Homo sapiens, and, why is the creature burdened by it?

Ancient Israel’s King Solomon is uniquely positioned to raise such a query. His material resources know no bounds. Solomon, like few others, has the opportunity both to live life to its ultimate, and the brilliance to contemplate it. Dominating the region from the Euphrates to the Gaza, King Solomon’s daily board consists of a thousand bushels of fine flour and meal, thirty oxen, and one hundred sheep plus deer and fowl. His annual gold income of 50,000 pounds amounts to $1.4 billion dollars. With over one thousand women in his possession, he can enjoy the company of a different woman every day for nearly three years. His wisdom is reputed to have surpassed the wisest from Egypt to the East.

After contemplating an experiment toiling and pleasuring with his materiality, his conclusion is as startling as it is counterintuitive: “Whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I kept my heart from no pleasure, for my heart found pleasure in all my toil, and this was my reward for all my toil. Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had spent in doing it, and again, all was vanity and a chasing after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun.”

Bring to mind Solomon’s question: “What do people gain from all the toil at which they toil under the sun?” The word ‘gain’ means profit or surplus; it is the amount of value gained exceeding value expended. ‘Toil’ is work and labor but more broadly portrayed in Ecclesiastes as the human struggle for a satisfying and fulfilling life. The temporary gain Solomon finds for all his toil is “pleasure in all my toil.” Specifically, “what I have seen to be good and fitting” is “to eat, to drink and enjoy oneself in all one’s labor in which he toils.” From the ancient philosopher Epicurus to guitarist Dave Matthews, “eat, drink and be merry” is a common rule for making the most of our toiling lot. Certainly, we like-minded laborers are one with Thomas Jefferson whom Daniel Webster observes “enjoys his dinner well, taking with meat a large proportion of vegetables.” Today we may alter it to “taking with our French fries and salad a large proportion of ribeye steak!”

 For the time being, Solomon concludes, the most gain this natural, cosmic order can offer is taking pleasure in fulfilling natural biological needs. The difference between us and the other creatures, like the grey squirrel or white-tailed deer, is we are aware of enjoying the satisfaction that results from our toil. So far, Solomon’s conclusion agrees with modern-day, non-theistic naturalism. The sole return Homo sapiens can expect for the sweat of the brow is of this natural world; this is all there is. There is nothing more.

Solomon foresees naturalism’s viewpoint as inadequate. “What do people gain from all the toil?” Not enough. “All human toil is for the mouth, yet the appetite is not satisfied,” laments Solomon. Does the pleasure of eating and drinking not just offset, but provide a surplus of benefit to the pain and suffering of the struggle to secure fulfilling existence? Truth be told, eating and drinking and enjoying ourselves is but unsatisfying satisfaction! Like no other creature in the universe, given the satisfaction of eating and drinking, some of us have a taste for something more – something beyond the givenness of this fixed natural order.

 Given the assumptions of naturalism—(a) the natural order is a closed system; (b) there is no reality – no God – outside of it; and (c) humans are creatures of this natural order—we would expect Homo sapiens, like every other creature, to have its needs met within the natural order. The fact that humans seek something beyond the satisfaction of natural needs raises its own question: “Why”? Why are some of us, even one of us, unlike other animals, not satisfied with only the fulfillment of natural, bodily needs? Could our unfulfillment be due to not having enough of this natural world? Apparently not. John D. Rockefeller, whose net worth was one percent of the US economy, could have anything and everything in any amount. Yet he confirmed Solomon’s experience. “His eyes were not satisfied with riches” when he said enough money was having “just a little bit more.”

Others like mid-twentieth century, sultry jazz singer Peggy Lee croons the human quest when she sings, “Is that all there is? ... As I sat there watching I had the feeling that something was missing. I don’t know what, but when it was over, I said to myself, ‘Is that all there is to the circus?’” Mega rock singer Bono of U2 attests to the human search for something absent when he wails, “And I still haven’t found what I’m looking for.”

Why do humans bear witness to the absence of ultimate fulfillment when they enjoy complete, bodily satisfaction? Why even raise the question, “What do people gain from all the toil?” Like a carpenter’s dovetail, the “tail” of absence attractively fits the “pin” of the presence of the supernatural God. The abiding absence is the beautiful entre to supra-natural fulfillment in the God of eternity. The question and its question within have an appealing reply in the supply of an eternal God. He is the countervailing reality needed to offset the troubled striving for the fulfilled life. God provides an abundance of true “profit” and surplus exceeding the painful and grievous struggle for fulfillment in this temporal world. Solomon sees it through a glass dimly: “God has also set eternity in their heart …. Fear God.” The satisfaction of real gain and advantage from life’s toil anticipates the summons of the Coming One, “Come to me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest…. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.”

---

Tom is currently a retired Elder in the Virginia Annual Conference. He has pastored churches in Virginia, California and England. Studying John Wesley’s theology, he received his Ph.D. and M.A. degrees from the University of Bristol, Bristol, England and his Master of Divinity degree from Asbury Theological Seminary. While a student, he and his wife Pam lived in John Wesley’s Chapel “The New Room”, Bristol, England, the first established Methodist preaching house. Tom was a faculty member of Asbury Theological Seminary. He has contributed articles to Methodist History and the Wesleyan Theological Journal. He and his wife have two children, daughter Karissa, who is an attorney in Richmond, Virginia, and, John, who is a recent graduate of Regent University. Being a part of the development of their grandson Beau is a rich reward. Tom enjoys a good book by a crackling fire with an English cup of tea. His life text is, ‘Jesus, confirm my heart’s desire, to work and speak and think for thee’

Making Sense of Morality: Problems with Naturalism 3

Editor’s note: R. Scott Smith has graciously allowed us to republish his series, “Making Sense of Morality.” You can find the original post here.

Introduction

Previously, I explored issues with Armstrong’s naturalistic kind of properties and how we cannot have knowledge on them. Now I will look at nominalism, which seems to be the most likely naturalistic view of properties. As Wilfrid Sellars (d. 1989) remarked, “A naturalist ontology must be a nominalistic ontology” (109). Yet, I will argue that nominalism undermines knowledge, and it will do so for naturalism, too, including in ethics. Yet that undercuts our clear knowledge of our core morals.

Nominalism

Unlike realists, who affirm the reality of universals, nominalists think that everything is particular. Literally, there are no identical qualities shared between two or more things. Moreover, every particular thing is just one thing (i.e., it is simple). But, how nominalist theories treat particulars varies.

For instance, on trope nominalism, there are many particular red color tropes in a bag of red delicious apples. While they may be analyzed as being exactly similar (yet not literally identical), they are discrete red tropes; e.g., red1, red2, red3, etc. An apple is many different tropes (e.g., a color trope, a sweetness trope, a round trope, etc.) that are bundled together

For austere nominalism, there are only concrete, particular objects. They are concrete, for they are located in space and time. A red delicious apple is just one thing, a red-sweet-round-apple. Finally, metalinguistic nominalism agrees with austere nominalism that there are only concrete objects. But, it holds that the “claims apparently about universals are really disguised ways of talking about linguistic expressions” (Loux, 46).

Assessment

As we have seen, nominalism has had a lengthy, deep influence on the west, including in ethics. I traced it back to Ockham, but since Hobbes, and running through Hume, Kant, Bentham, Mill, and almost every naturalist, nominalism has dominated philosophical thought, including ethics, as well as modern science.

Yet, is it true? Consider again that on it, regardless of the specific version, something is just one thing. It is not composed of two or more things. In contrast, realists hold that when a universal property (e.g., red) is instanced in an object (an apple), that instance of red is a universal that has been particularized. The instance is the union of two things, which makes it complex.

Now, on nominalism, it seems we treat an object as a particular something. That thing might be a property like red, or a concrete object like an apple or a word. Yet, we treat each one as though it is something that is particularized. Yet, in reality, they cannot be complex. So, then it seems that either one of these things, the “particularizer” (the individuator), or the thing itself, can be eliminated without any real loss.

Suppose we eliminate the particularizer – e.g., the “1” in red1. Yet, if we do that, then we seem left with just red, the color itself, and it is not particularized. But that is what realists claim to be the case, that red is an abstract entity that is particularized when it enters into the being of some object, like an apple. So, eliminating the particularizer spells the end of nominalism.

Instead, suppose we eliminate the quality (or object). But, then we are left with just a particularizer (here, the “1”) which individuates nothing. That, however, makes no sense, for we always would ask, “one what?” In this case, the dire result is that there are no qualities or objects in reality. But, that means nominalism undermines reality.

Since nominalism maintains that every particular is just one thing, we can take either route without any difference in reality. In that case, we can take the latter option, and so we see that nominalism cannot preserve any qualities in reality whatsoever. There would not be any people, animals, plants, beliefs, and certainly not any morals. Nominalism undermines our core morals, as well as morality altogether. Moreover, it undermines naturalism as false.

For Further Reading

Keith Campbell, Abstract Particulars

Michael Loux, Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction, 3rd ed.

Wilfrid Sellars, Naturalism and Ontology

R. Scott Smith,“Tropes and Some Ontological Prerequisites for Knowledge,” Metaphysica 20:2 (2019)

---

R. Scott Smith is a Christian philosopher and apologist, with special interests in ethics, knowledge, and seeing the body of Christ live in the fullness of the Spirit and truth.

---

Meditation on the Lord’s Supper: Organ Transplant and Blood Transfusion

           Modern medicine has made possible some marvelous operations to mend and heal the body.  Knees and hips, and even a heart can be replaced.  Perhaps we can make a spiritual application of these wonders by seeing how the Great Physician works in mending and healing His people when they take the Lord’s Supper.

           When we take the bread of Communion, we can think of the promised exchange of our mortal, decaying carcass for the perfect, eternal housing manifested by the risen Christ, “who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body” (Phil. 3:21).  As we eat the bread together, we share in the marvel of that total “transplant,” not only as a future event, but as a present renewal of our fleshly being by the power of the Holy Spirit God has placed within us.

           In partaking of the wine of Communion, we affirm together that spiritually speaking, the function of the life-blood flowing within us is no longer merely to sustain   our mortal bodies.  In experiencing the powerful cleansing of the sacrificial blood of Christ, we have undergone (and continue to undergo) the equivalent of a complete transfusion, becoming thereby “new creatures.”  Our dominant spiritual genes are now not those of the first Adam that doom us to death, but those carried by the “new blood” of the crucified Jesus in which we have assurance of eternal Life.

           Thus we need to come to the Communion table fully aware of our being maintained as meaningful beings only through the continual life supporting treatment of the Master of Health, being continually renewed by His grace so that we can walk in wholeness, to His glory.

---

Dr. Elton Higgs was a faculty member in the English department of the University of Michigan-Dearborn from 1965-2001. Having retired from UM-D as Prof. of English in 2001, he now lives with his wife in Jackson, MI. He has published scholarly articles on Chaucer, Langland, the Pearl Poet, Shakespeare, and Milton. Recently, Dr. Higgs has self-published a collection of his poetry called Probing Eyes: Poems of a Lifetime, 1959-2019, as well as a book inspired by The Screwtape Letters, called The Ichabod Letters, available as an e-book from Moral Apologetics. (Ed.: Dr. Higgs was the most important mentor during undergrad for the creator of this website, and his influence was inestimable.

---

The Moral Argument and Christian Theology, Part III: Glorification

In earlier installments we discussed our deep need for forgiveness and moral transformation—justification and sanctification, respectively—but there is one more step: Not just to be wholly forgiven and radically transformed, but for the process to culminate. We need the good work that has been begun within us to be completed, which God promises to do at the day of Christ Jesus for those who trust him. And so what we are talking about now is the Christian category of glorification, when we are entirely conformed to the image of Jesus, morally beautified to the uttermost, every last vestige of sin having been excised and expunged.

This answers to a deep intuitive recognition of a third basic moral drive or need, or maybe aspiration—yet one, once more, beyond the reach of our own capacities without divine grace—the hunger to be perfected, turned into the best versions of ourselves, delivered entirely from the power and consequences of sin. Christianity assures us, and we have principled reasons to believe, that this is no Pollyannaish pipe dream, but a reality we can look forward to with a hope that will not disappoint.

Interestingly, Immanuel Kant thought that human beings would never achieve a “holy will,” which he considered reserved for God alone. The process of moral perfection was thus something at best approached asymptotically—we get closer and closer throughout eternity but never fully arrive at it. It is a process that is never completed, he thought, so this served as the basis of his argument for immortality, since the process must continue forever.

Christian theology, I suspect, suggests that Kant was both right and wrong. He was wrong to think we will not be perfected. The Christian doctrine of glorification is about the process of sanctification reaching an end point. Ultimately sin will be completely defeated within us, and we will find complete deliverance from its power and consequences. That is a glorious hope.

Still, Kant was also likely right that there will remain a movement, a dynamism, even after the point of glorification. For one thing, the prospect of beholding the glory and beauty and goodness of God is an unending process. For another, once full deliverance from sin comes is when the fullest life for which we were created can really begin, which even the present life already intimates at.

A. E. Taylor wrote eloquently about this in his Faith of a Moralist. Here is just one example:

The moral life does not consist merely in getting into right relations with our fellows or our Maker. That’s only preliminary to the real business: to live in them. Even in this life we have to do more than unlearn unloving. We have to practice giving love actual embodiment. This is continuous with what is morally of highest importance and value in our present life…. Heaven must be a land of delightful surprises. We should have learned to love every neighbor who crosses our path, to hate nothing that God has made, to be indifferent to none of the mirrors of His light. But even where there is no ill-will or indifference to interfere with love, it is still possible for love to grow as understanding grows.

Combining all the discussions of our last three installments, what we have here is a three-pronged moral argument based in God’s grace. It is by God’s grace we can find the forgiveness we desperately need for having fallen short of the moral standard, which we all do. It is by God’s grace we can be set free from both our subjective feelings and objective condition of guilt, and it is by God’s grace that we will be eventually entirely conformed to the image of Christ and delivered completely from sin’s power and consequences. From first to last, what answers our deepest moral needs—for forgiveness, for change, and for perfection—is the astounding grace of a good God perfect in holiness and perfect in love.

---

David Baggett is professor of philosophy and Director of the Center for Moral Apologetics at Houston Baptist University.

Editor's Recommendation: The Poetics of Evil by Phil Tallon

The Poetics of Evil: Toward an Aesthetic Theodicy

By Tallon, Philip

“Impeccably written and beautifully argued, Tallon’s book traverses impressive terrain, carving out a critical role for aesthetic considerations from beauty to tragedy to horror in a manner insightful and deeply moving. It defends the wager that beauty can put us in genuine contact with reality and makes the case that no theodicy is complete without countenancing the possibility that the artistry of God and the beauty of the incarnation vitally informs the discussion.”

— David Baggett, Executive Editor

Communion Meditation: The Assurance of Hope

A Twilight Musing

            Hope is generally an undervalued quality of the Christian life, but its ability to focus our faith and bind us together puts it high on the list of virtues in Scripture.  It is mentioned twice (vv. 4 and 13) in the first thirteen verses of Romans 15, and it is at the heart of the prayer that concludes that passage: “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.”  In the previous verses, Paul has has been urging unity in the Body of Christ through following the sacrificial example of Jesus, and he marvels that Jesus’ servanthood has brought hope even to the Gentiles.  Now Paul pulls these themes together by praying that God’s diverse people, now one in Christ, may “overflow with hope.” 

            As we meet once again to partake of the Lord’s Supper, we should reclaim the element of hope inherent in it.  When Jesus instituted it, He emphasized that it is both a celebration of his imminent presence with us and a looking backward and forward; it is a remembrance of His death “until He comes.”  Christian hope is the embodiment of our assurance, as we look steadfastly at Jesus, that neither His suffering nor ours is in vain; that servanthood leads to glory; and that death is not final.  Just as He endured the limitations of human existence and emerged victorious, we too can, through the power of the Holy Spirit, experience the wonder of God’s ability and willingness to help us break down all the barriers that threaten to tear us apart in our purely human capacity. 

            And so let us pray the prayer of Romans 15:13 together, in unity, as we partake of the bread and the wine: “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.”

---

Dr. Elton Higgs was a faculty member in the English department of the University of Michigan-Dearborn from 1965-2001. Having retired from UM-D as Prof. of English in 2001, he now lives with his wife in Jackson, MI. He has published scholarly articles on Chaucer, Langland, the Pearl Poet, Shakespeare, and Milton. Recently, Dr. Higgs has self-published a collection of his poetry called Probing Eyes: Poems of a Lifetime, 1959-2019, as well as a book inspired by The Screwtape Letters, called The Ichabod Letters, available as an e-book from Moral Apologetics. (Ed.: Dr. Higgs was the most important mentor during undergrad for the creator of this website, and his influence was inestimable.

---

Mailbag: Does Morality Need a Personal Explanation?

Good morning Dr. Baggett, 

I hope all is well with you, but I wanted to ask you a question as it pertains to Moral ontology. Now bear with me Dr. Baggett I am a novice and am just throwing thoughts out there so i may sound silly at times. However, when it comes to moral ontology I know many people who aren't theist will argue morality exist in this platonic state. That moral truths exist necessarily and we can ground them in moral Platonism therefore there is no need for God as the grounding. 

My question is this: do you think the foundation of morality (its ontology) needs to be a personal source? The reason I ask this is because when I think about morality it seems to only make sense between personal agents. Take for example humans When I kick another human for no reason that is considered immoral, however when I Kick say a rock or a tree no one looks at that and says I’m being immoral. As a matter of fact we would say that the relationship between a rock and me is more Morally apathetic, to even speak of morality between us is absurd. 

So if that's the case and morality only seems to really make sense between Personal agents. Why should we believe that Moral Platonism (a non-sentient or personal object) can even ground morality? 

Thanks for the reply and sorry for the long question Dr Baggett. 

Joshua 

              Hi Joshua! For a self-professed novice you ask an excellent question, and I think your intuition is exactly right. How we might choose to couch it could be either (among other possibilities) to say that the personal source is the only explanation or the best explanation. It may well be both but it's a bit less ambitious to argue the latter. This is what I do. A personal source of morality makes better sense of the relevant moral data than an impersonal source. After all the truths of morality don't merely seem abstract, but intimately tied to personhood. Many of the great luminaries in the history of the moral argument have shared this conviction, which inspired them to look for a personal source. Platonism is perhaps, to my thinking, the second-best account out there, and it has more than a little going for it. For example, a committed secular Platonist would agree with the thorough-going theistic ethicist on moral realism, moral cognitivism, error theory, expressivism, constructivism, and even non-naturalism. It's just the final fork in the road where they part ways: Platonism or theism. And this is where the personal nature of theism has a definitive advantage, it seems to me. But as George Mavrodes puts it, the Platonic man rightly sees morality as deeply rooted in reality, which is absolutely right. This means there's lots of common ground shared by the theist and Platonist. And even though theism posits an additional entity, as it were, there are principled reasons for doing so because the personal explanation is the better, more robust explanation, so parsimony alone can't be used to give the nod to Platonism. Besides, if Swinburne is right, a theistic explanation can often prove simpler than secular ones. We can also choose, if we wish, to be something like theistic Platonists, as Robert Adams does, which may well be the way to go. This way the eternal verities are thoughts in God's mind, or something like that, rather than existing in metaphysical limbo, as John Rist puts it. So those are a few thoughts anyway! Thanks so much for the note, and I encourage you to keep thinking these matters through, Joshua. You might peruse MoralApologetics.com for additional resources, all free. By the way, I just got done directing a dissertation by Stephen Jordan arguing that a whole range of moral facts point to a personal source rather than an impersonal one. Hopefully in time we will see a version of it in print.

Blessings, Dave

---

---

David Baggett is professor of philosophy and Director of the Center for Moral Apologetics at Houston Baptist University.

Making Sense of Morality: Problems with Naturalism 2

Editor’s note: R. Scott Smith has graciously allowed us to republish his series, “Making Sense of Morality.” You can find the original post here.

Introduction

Now I will explore a second issue with naturalism, this time from the standpoint of properties, the qualities or features of things. For naturalists, there seem to be two options for what properties can be. The first is D. M. Armstrong’s immanent universals, which I will explore here. In the next essay, I will look at nominalism, of which there are trope, austere, and metalinguistic varieties. Yet, I will argue that all face serious problems for us to have knowledge. If so, then it seems we cannot knowledge based on naturalism, even that it is true. Nor can we have knowledge about morals on it.

Immanent Universals

Armstrong (d. 2014) holds to materialism and universals. Clearly, this is unlike Plato’s variety; for Armstrong, universals must be material. Moreover, universals are located in space-time. Consider two electrons, both with charge e. He maintains that e is a universal that is multiply located.

Now, suppose I see an object. To do that, Armstrong says there is a causal chain between me and the object. Light waves bounce off the object, and a long chain of physical states eventually impinges on my retina, travels through my optic nerve, and eventually produces a brain state (a perception) in me. If that perception is veridical, he claims I am having a true belief about that object. If the perception is an illusion, I have a false belief. In this way, Armstrong thinks we can know external, physical reality directly.

Yet, if I am but physical stuff, and there is a potentially infinite series of physical states between me and the object, it seems I cannot traverse the chain and access the object itself. It seems I can “access” just the last state. Furthermore, the immediately prior physical state that causes that belief modifies my brain. There is not a reproduction of the same physical set of originating conditions (the object) that is passed down through the chain; rather, each state modifies the subsequent one. In that case, it seems I have no hope to ever access the object as it is. Therefore, it seems on his kind of naturalism, we cannot know things as they are in reality, which would extend to morals, science, and any other topic.

These implications are important, for this causal theory of perception is not unique to Armstrong. It also has much appeal to other naturalists, such as Michael Tye and Fred Dretske.

For Further Reading

D. M. Armstrong, Perception and the Physical World

R. Scott Smith, Naturalism and Our Knowledge of Reality, ch. 1

---

R. Scott Smith is a Christian philosopher and apologist, with special interests in ethics, knowledge, and seeing the body of Christ live in the fullness of the Spirit and truth.

---

Multiple Source Attestation for the Resurrection of Jesus

Historians use various methodologies to determine the credibility of a historical story. One criterion is called the “criterion of multiple attestation.”[1] Reginald Fuller calls the criterion the “cross-section method.”[2] The criterion states that a story is authenticated if it is repeated in more than one source. As noted in a previous article, historian Paul Meier indicates that two or three sources render a historical fact “unimpeachable.”[3] Thus, it must be asked, how many early sources mention the resurrection of Jesus? Amazingly, nine early sources speak of the resurrection of Jesus.

Source #1: The Gospel of Matthew

The Gospel of Matthew serves as a source for the resurrection. Critical scholars date the material of the Gospel to AD 70. However, good reasons suggest that the Gospel may have been penned in the 50s. Nonetheless, even if the Gospel was late in its composition, the material undergirding the Gospel was much earlier. According to tradition, the First Gospel was composed by Matthew, the tax collector and disciple of Jesus, in Antioch of Syria. Matthew 28 describes the resurrection appearance to Mary Magdalene and her encounter with the angels of God (Matt. 28:1-10), Jesus’s instruction for the disciples to head to Galilee (28:7), the report of the guards to the elders, and their attempt to quiet the soldier’s reports (28:11-15), and the resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples in Galilee where he commissioned the disciples to the gospel ministry (28:16-28).

Source #2: The Gospel of Mark

The Gospel of Mark serves as another early source. While often assigned to the 60s or 70s AD, critical scholars are beginning to ascribe earlier dates to the Second Gospel, some even claiming AD 40 as a possible date for composition.[4] Regardless of the date granted to the Gospel, the sources behind the Gospel are even earlier than the text. Tradition holds that John Mark, the spiritual son of Simon Peter, collected the teachings of Peter concerning Jesus and compiled them into the Second Gospel. Most likely, he published the Gospel in Rome. The 16th chapter of the Second Gospel has been the center of debate. The earliest manuscripts end the chapter after verse 8. Even still, the first few verses denote Mary Magdalene’s experience, along with a group of female disciples, who approach the tomb of Jesus, find it empty, and are told by the angels of God that Jesus had risen (Mark 16:6). Then, they are told to inform the disciples and Peter that Jesus would meet them in Galilee (16:7). Then, the women are shown fleeing the tomb, astonished and amazed (16:8). Even if the resurrection appearances of Jesus are not described in the first 8 verses, they are certainly assumed. Jesus was proclaimed to have risen and was said to meet the disciples in Galilee. Mark most likely compressed the resurrection story to provide as much information with the limited space available.

Source #3: The Gospel of Luke

The Gospel of Luke serves as a third source. Written most likely in the early 60s, even though some scholars afford it a date in the 70s or even 80s. Despite the date, it must again be remembered that the material behind the Gospel dates earlier than the written text. Tradition states that Luke, an inseparable companion of Paul,[5] wrote the Gospel in Antioch of Syria after carefully examining eyewitness testimonies. Concerning the resurrection of Jesus, Luke describes the women’s encounter with the empty tomb and risen Jesus (Luke 24:1-8), the original disbelief of the disciples (24:9-11), Peter’s run to the tomb, and his amazement with the emptied linen cloths (24:12). Then, Luke reports Jesus’s appearance to Cleopas and another unnamed disciple (perhaps Cleopas’s wife) on the way to Emmaus (24:13-35), Jesus’s appearance to the Twelve (24:36-49), and Jesus’s ascension in the vicinity of Bethany (24:50-53).

Source #4: The Gospel of John

The Gospel of John was the last of the four Gospels to have been written. Conservative scholars argue that the Gospel was written by John the apostle c. AD 85 while he was serving as a pastor to the Church of Ephesus. Ironically, critical scholars are beginning to argue for an earlier date. Regardless of the date, as with the other Gospels, the material behind the Fourth Gospel predates the text itself. The Fourth Gospel is the only Gospel to grant two chapters to the resurrection story. John’s Gospel describes Mary’s trip to the tomb (20:1), her report to Simon Peter and the apostle John (20:2), Peter and John’s trip to the empty tomb and their bewilderment at the emptied linen cloths (20:3-10), Mary’s encounter with the risen Jesus (20:11-18), Jesus’s evening appearance to the Eleven disciples without Thomas (20:19-23), Thomas’s encounter with risen Jesus (20:24-29), John’s report of additional signs that Jesus performed after his resurrection (20:30-31), Jesus’s encounter with the disciples by the Sea of Galilee/Tiberius (21:1-14), the reinstatement of Peter into the ministry (21-15-19), Peter’s question about John’s ministry and Jesus’s rebuke (21:20-23), John’s testimony of authorship (21:24), and John’s testimony of the limitations of the Gospels’ ability to record all the deeds of Jesus (21:25).

Source #5: The Sermon Summaries of Peter

It is agreed by numerous scholars, such as Max Wilcox in his Semitisms of Acts, that the sermon summaries in the book of Acts constitute early material. As the name implies, the messages of the apostles have been summarized and compressed to help with early memorization and transmission. Peter’s summaries are found in Acts 2:14-40; 3:12-26; 4:5-12; 10:28-47; and 11:4-18. In these powerful messages, Peter boldly proclaimed, “Though he was delivered up according to God’s determined plan and foreknowledge, you used lawless people to nail him to a cross and kill him. God raised him up, ending the pains of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by death” (Acts 2:23-23). Additionally, Peter said, “God has raised this Jesus; we are all witnesses of this” (Acts 2:32). These summaries provide a powerful early source for the resurrection.

Source #6: The Sermon Summaries of Paul

Paul’s sermon summaries also serve as a source even though they are preserved in the same book. Because they originate with a different person, Paul’s messages serve as an additional source. Paul’s sermon summaries are conserved in Acts 13:16-41; 17:22-31; 20:17-35; 22:1-21; 23:1-6; 24:10-21. One of the most compelling of Paul’s sermon summaries is found in Acts 13. Paul proclaims, “When they had carried out all that had been written about him, they took him down from the tree and put him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and he appeared for many days to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people” (Acts 13:29-31). This summary is particularly interesting because it not only describes the resurrection event but also denotes the existence of an empty tomb.

Source #7: The Sermon Summary of Stephen

Stephen was the very first martyr of the Christian Church. He was a man of great wisdom and Spirit (Acts 6:10). Stephen’s message is preserved in Acts 7:1-53 and 7:56. While he does not necessarily mention the resurrection in the larger portion of his message, he confirms the resurrection of Christ before his death as he cries, “Look, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” (Acts 7:56). For this reason, Stephen’s message can also be used as an early source for the resurrection.

Source #8: The 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 Creed

Scholars hold that the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 dates to no later than two years after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Some even hold that it dates to within months of the resurrection event. The 1 Corinthians 15 creed describes Jesus’s resurrection appearances to Peter, the Twelve, a group of over 500 individuals, James, and Paul. This early creed serves as a powerful source for the resurrection, even affording additional appearances of Jesus not found in the other source material (e.g., the private appearance to Peter, James, and a group of over 500).

Source #9: The Romans 10:9 Confession

Romans 10:9 is believed to be an early confession of the church. It describes the criteria necessary for one to receive salvation. The confession reads, “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9). The essentials of Christ’s death, deity, and resurrection of preserved in this simple formulation. Romans 10:9 also serves as an additional source for the resurrection event.

Conclusion

Paul Meier holds that two or three sources for an event imply the event is beyond dispute, or unimpeachable. If two or three early sources cause an event to become beyond dispute in antiquity, then what does it say about an event when nine said extant sources denoting the event’s authenticity remain? The sources presented represent early material, in some cases extremely early material, which argues that something mysterious happened to the body of Jesus on the first Easter Sunday. This mysterious resurrection experience transforms every aspect of one’s life when it is accepted as fact. It can bring about a new relationship with God and can provide great comfort when one realizes that death has been defeated. Outside of its miraculous nature—which, quite honestly, is the only reason some people deny its authenticity—there are no good historical reasons for denying the resurrection of the Nazarene. To borrow the phrase from Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, it takes more faith to deny the resurrection of Jesus than to accept its authenticity.

---

About the Author

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com, the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast, and the author of the Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics. Brian is a Ph.D. Candidate of the Theology and Apologetics program at Liberty University. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in pastoral ministry for nearly 20 years. He currently serves as a clinical chaplain.

https://www.amazon.com/Laymans-Manual-Christian-Apologetics-Essentials/dp/1532697104

© 2021. BellatorChristi.com.

---

[1] David Alan Black and David S. Dockery, Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 133.

[2] Reginald H. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York: Scribner’s, 1965), 96-97.

[3] Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks at Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1997), 197.

[4] Maurice Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 259.

[5] Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3.14.1.