Apologetics: Moral Law

All right, now we're going to do one more review

of this information. We're going to do it as

kind of a little fun activity. If you'd like

to participate, you can stand now. And if we

only have one person or up to two people standing,

I'm going to give away sparkling apple juice.

I'm going to read the question. I'm going to

go around. I'm going to each person in order.

You read the question. If you can answer the

question correctly, then you stay standing. If

you fail to answer the question correctly, you

sit down. We're going to have three people participate.

Anybody else? Going once? Not sparkling apple

juice lovers? They're not hard questions. Nice

chance to join. Come on, Alex, you joining? He's

debating with himself. His butt was off the chair

for about half a second. Okay. All right, Caleb,

you're going to go first. Okay? So here's the

question. I'm going to... Okay, I'm going to

find my starting spot here. All right. I'm going

to... Start a statement, and you're going to

finish it. One word. Okay? Everything that begins

to exist has a... That's incorrect. Has a cause.

Sorry. God does not have an ending. We also didn't

begin to exist, I guess, technically. Also, Christians

don't technically have an ending. Okay, so who's

going? Haley? Why does the Kalam argument say

the universe needs a cause? It had a beginning.

Okay. Alex, what do we call something that depends

on something else to exist? Of all these questions,

you got the hardest one, so I bet you're glad

you got up now. Of all... What do we call something

that depends on something else to exist? That

is correct. Okay, you got help from a friend.

Have a seat, Alex, sorry. Okay. Kishan, an infinite

chain of causes explains why anything exists.

True or false? An infinite chain of causes explains

why anything exists. True or false? That is false.

There is no such thing as an infinite chain of

causes. God explains why everything exists. If

you get this one right, you get a bottle of apple

juice. What kind of being does the contingency

argument say must exist? What kind of being must

exist? Not being. What kind of being does the

contingency argument say must exist? That is

correct. All right, we can go another round.

Anybody want to go again? I got more questions.

I refuse to admit defeat. I got one more bottle

of sparkling apple juice. Okay. All right, I'm

going to name, on this round, all of these ones,

I'm going to name an object, and you're going

to tell me whether or not that object is, if

it is designed or not designed. If it is designed

or not designed. Okay? Caleb, a wristwatch. Designed.

Correct. Okay, who's next? Mike, a rock. Not

designed. Very good. That was a tricky one for

me when I first looked at it. I'm like, ah, gotcha.

But a rock not really, I guess it doesn't have

that much design in it, okay? Natalie, the human

eye. What did you say? Okay, I'll give it to

you. All right. Haley, a smartphone. Yep. Kishan,

DNA. Design. Okay, we're back over here now.

Okay. I'm going to name an item, and you're going

to tell me, is that item irreducibly complex

or not? I'm going to give you the definition.

Irreducibly complex means, again, that it ceases

to function if it loses any of its parts. Okay?

Got it? All right, here we go. A mousetrap. Irreducibly

complex or not? Not. I'm sorry. It is irreducibly

complex. Have a seat. Yep. It is the simplest

thing that you can get that is irreducibly complex.

But if you take any part out of a mousetrap,

it doesn't work. Okay, here we go. Mike, ready?

A pile of sand. That is correct. Natalie, the

bacterial flagellum. Say it again? Yes, it is

irreducibly complex. All right. That's the tail

that we talked about two weeks ago. Were you

in there? I'm not sure if you were in there.

But it's a tail that is of a single -cell organism.

It goes forward, backwards, hundreds of RPMs,

all that kind of thing, but it's all part of

one cell. Okay. All right. Haley, a bicycle.

Yes. It is not. It is not irreducibly designed.

Have a seat. Okay. For example, you can ride

a bicycle without a... I'll explain in a second.

You can ride a bicycle without a seat. You can

ride a bicycle without a handlebars. Should you?

Probably not, but you can. Okay? They're just

playing a game based on the lesson from two weeks

ago. Gather information, and then we're going

to go on to this piece in a second. Okay, these

are true and false. Kishan, you get the first

true and false question. The laws of physics

could be slightly different and life would still

exist. True or false? False. Have you made up

your mind now? Final answer? It is false. That

is correct. You're still standing. Okay, Mike.

Fine -tuning refers to how carefully balanced

the universe is for life. True or false? True.

That is true. Very good. Natalie. Fine -tuning

suggests design rather than chance. True or false?

Sorry, that's true. Don't listen to the people

sitting down. You're getting the wrong answer.

Kishan, gravity could be much stronger and stars

would still form normally. True or false? False.

That is correct, false. Okay. All right. We're

down to Mike and Kishan. Sudden death, okay?

All right, I'll start the sentence. You give

me the final word. You ready, Mike? No helping

from the sitting down people. Language comes

from a... Give me the final word. Say it again.

I'm sorry, that's incorrect. All right, Kishan,

you have to get one more to win the bottle of

sparkling grape juice. Computer code. comes from

a... I'm sorry, that is incorrect. It comes from

a mind. No sparkling apple juice for you, sir.

Okay, all right. So those arguments... All are

designed to help us in conversations. When people

are asking, how do you know that there is a God?

So you can go back over them. I'll give a copy.

We did a quiz. I'll give you a copy of the quiz

to each person that came in. So you don't have

to fill it out now. Just keep it for yourself.

All right, and then today's worksheet is coming

around. Where is today's worksheet? Here it is.

If you look on the back, you will see some written

words. The blanks are filled in with those words

as we go through. And then as you fill, we're

going to do a little thing at the end. So as

you fill in each word as we go through it, you

can put a hash mark in the back. I'll try to

remind you each time because you're going to

count the number of times that you use that word.

Okay. Also, you'll notice on the back that there

are three words that I have not given you. So

at the end, you want to know what those three

words are and how many times they're used. Okay.

So it's a little game that we're playing while

we do the worksheet. If you don't like fun, you

don't have to play. All right. So, and I apologize.

The words are actually on the bottom of the front.

So you should be looking at the part that has

the words on the bottom. I might have said the

back, but this is the front of the page. This

is the front page. Okay. So the words on the

front. Can you guys give me the name of the game

that we played the one time where I left early

that day? I'll look it up. I don't know the name

of it either, but yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

All right. So here we go. We're starting on the

top page. It says, does law exist? A biblical...

And moral case. Cosmological arguments for God's

existence. So we already did this. So this is

just a review for you. Until we get down to a

certain point. This is just a review for anybody

who wasn't here. We should kind of know it. Everything

that begins to exist has a cause. It starts with

a U. The universe began to exist. Therefore,

that's another U. The universe has a transcendent

cause. That's a big word, transcendent. But what

it means is that it's an outside cause. It's

not something that's subject to the rules of

the universe. Okay? So if it began to exist,

then something made it start. Yep, so those are

both universe. Okay? Then it says common cosmological

arguments. These are the ones we just went over,

we reviewed, and we're on the quiz, and we're

just filling them in. So the Kalam cosmological

argument says the universe began. That's another

U. Don't forget to put your hash marks on the

bottom to count the number of times you use the

word universe. The contingency argument says

that something had to be necessary. Nothing that

exists is necessary, but something had to be

necessary to start it. That's something he's

got. The first cause argument says, you've got

cause, effect, cause, effect, back to the beginning.

The first thing had to be an uncaused cause.

That's start, that's God. The Lebnizian cosmological

argument says that everything has to have a reason

outside of itself to exist. So you can't say,

why does water exist? Well, water, that doesn't

mean anything. That's not... That's not how reason

works. Why does water exist? Well, because something

made water. So everything has to have a reason

outside of itself to exist, and that reason is

God. The Thomastic argument from motion says

that there are actual things, and all actual

things were at one time potentially things, before

they were actual things, and to move from potential

to actual. Something has to do that. In creation,

babies do not spring into existence. They are

made a certain way. Arts and crafts made a certain

way. So if you take a rock and you make a statue

out of it, the statue is potential until the

rock is made into the statue. But something has

to make it into the statue. The watchmaker, irreducible

complexity, fine -tuning as that D is? Design,

yep. Information is communication between minds,

right? So even if, now we're getting into today,

even if someone resists cosmological arguments,

so even if they're arguing with you about, yeah,

I'm not sure about whether that's right or not,

they still have to account for something that

every human lives with daily, and that is called

morality, okay? So now we're going to, what today's

argument, we're really into it now, is we're

going to look at the moral argument for God's

existence. And the statement of the moral argument,

there's a bunch of times we're going to say the

word moral. Every time you see a capital M, it's

the word moral. The statement of the moral argument

is this. If objective moral values and duties

exist, then law exists. Objective moral values

and duties do exist, therefore law exists. Now,

the law points to a lawgiver, right? And that's

where we're going with this. But there is a push.

There is a compelling argument. Something is

causing these feelings that we have to go a certain

way. Competing moral theories and why they fall

short. So the first one is called relativism.

The definition, moral truth, varies from person

to person or group to group. So basically, you

believe what you believe, I believe what I believe.

what I believe is right, what you believe is

right, even if we disagree. It doesn't really

make any sense, but that's what they say. So

the problem with moral relativism is you can't

condemn truth. Sorry. We did need a volunteer

to go listen to Bible verses. Is it 7 .05 already?

Yeah, go ahead. And then you get the blanks filled

in later. Come back after. To listen to Bible

verses. I think they're in the classroom. Okay,

so what this does is it reduces morality to opinion.

But if you check it out, like, that really isn't

true. Like, you could say it's okay to kill somebody.

You might think it's okay to kill somebody. When

it comes to be you, you're going to disagree.

There's something going to change your mind.

It's not okay to kill me, right? So moral, like

that relativism, that doesn't really work. But

that's what people are trying to say works, but

it doesn't. Cultural relativism is next. So moral

standards are determined by societal norms. So

this means like what everybody in society thinks

is okay, that's what's okay. And what everybody

in society thinks is wrong, that's what's wrong.

And it's like a cross section of what everybody

thinks. The problem is cultures cannot be morally

corrected. So the murder cultures, for example,

where it's okay to murder people to take everything

that they want. Somebody else goes in there and

you can't help them because now they think it's

okay to kill people and take whatever they want.

Reformers then become immoral by definition.

So Jesus would be immoral. Gandhi, immoral. Mother

Teresa, immoral. Martin Luther King, immoral.

It doesn't make any sense because these are all

reformers who are trying to help society be better.

So based on cultural relativism, they would all

be horrible villains. And we know that's not

true. So that doesn't hold. Then there's called

conventionalism. So morality is created by laws

or social agreements. So if we make a contract,

we make a law, we have a constitutional amendment,

whatever, that determines what's moral. We have

that in Ohio right now where abortion is illegal.

So Ohioans, by law, think it's okay to have abortions

for any reason. But that's not really moral,

that's law. Okay? That's the government's rules.

And so if the government ever makes a rule, like

you have to bow down to this gold statue every

time someone plays music, we would say no. That's

what Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego did. And

we would be thrown into a burning furnace. And

that's not the kind of society that God wants

us to live in. Okay? The problem with this is

that laws describe power, not moral truth. Unjust

laws expose the flaw. So whenever that comes

out, we know it's wrong. Then there's ethical

subjectivism. So the definition, moral judgments

express personal feelings or preferences. So

basically, whatever you really think. Disagreements

become meaningless. Then we have a word that

starts with a W. Wrong just means I dislike.

So when somebody says, I think raping small children

is wrong, somebody else can say, well, that just

means you don't like it. That's not right. So

disagreements become meaningless. Then we have

the one that we kind of believe in. It's called

objective morality. The definition is moral truths

exist independent of human belief or opinion.

So they are what they are. It doesn't matter

what you think about them. You may disagree today,

agree tomorrow, and disagree next week, but they're

not going to change, okay? And you can argue

this, right? If you're talking with somebody,

even if their moral truths are frayed, like if

they don't quite get it, they're not sure what

to think about certain things, they're still

going to have some things that they think are

wrong. And that means that most of the other

ones that we just talked about are ruled out.

There has to be objective morals that exist that

people agree with. So this matches our human

moral experience. It allows real right and wrong.

So we can have real right and wrong. So all non

-objective views lack logical wholeness. They

cannot explain moral obligation, blank, or moral

authority. So what do you think that blank in

the middle there might, what word would you put

in there? You don't have the first letter. So

what is the other thing that they can't explain?

I got Tim said law. Somebody else said something

else. Could be conscience, but since I gave you

that one, it shouldn't be. Morals. Okay. So the

word I, when I wrote it, the word I thought of

was guilt. People feel guilt about doing wrong.

Right? So you did something wrong, then you feel

guilt, and you don't know why you feel guilt.

And we're going to... Or shame. Shame would be

the same thing. Right? So I agree. Those things

are close enough together. They're not the same

thing, but they're close enough together. It

also would not explain shame. We wouldn't have

any reason to feel ashamed if we can set our

own standards. You just change the standard every

time you start to feel bad. So, okay, now we're

going on to the back. So this part's harder because

you have to flip back and forth to use the words.

Sorry about that. Okay? Alright, so A. What morality

is and is not? So morality is prescriptive. Do

you know what that word means? Like when you

get a prescription from the doctor, for example,

what is the doctor actually saying? What does

the prescription do? Well, that's the end result,

hopefully, if it doesn't screw you up, right?

Treat the symptoms sooner than that. What does

it literally do? The doctor writes the prescription.

What do you do with it? You take it to the pharmacist

to get it filled, right? So what the doctor is

doing is the doctor is directing the pharmacist

what medicine to give you. That's what the prescription

actually does, right? The medicine does all of

the other things once you get it. But a prescription

tells somebody what to do. And what we are arguing

is that moral rules are prescriptive. They tell

us what to do. It makes sense. As in, don't torture

small children, for example. run over your neighbor's

car with your 10 -speed or your neighbor's dog

with your truck. Certainly don't do it on purpose,

right? So we have moral rules where they're prescriptive.

They're not descriptive. Descriptive means they

just, like, tell what it looks like, right? So

these rules tell us what to do is the point,

okay? And there it is. Morality starts with a

T. What's the word? Tells us what ought to be

done, not merely what is. They are commands,

not suggestions. So you may think of the speed

limit as a suggestion. The speed limit is not

an example of a moral law. Therefore, in a sense,

it is a suggestion. You say, no, no, no, no one

should ever speed. I was taking my wife to the

hospital to have our fourth child. We know how

that goes, right? You go from three centimeters

dilated to like 11 in about 15 minutes. And the

next thing you know, you're taking the seatbelt

off to have the baby in the front seat of the

car. I'm telling you, I was speeding. And I'll

also tell you that if a police officer stopped

me and I had said, I'm speeding because my wife

is literally having a baby in the front seat,

he'd have led me to the hospital, let me go.

He may or may not have given me a ticket. And

if he had given me a ticket, I would have readily

paid it and not felt bad about it at all. Speed

limits are not moral laws. Moral laws are prescriptive.

They are commands. We should follow them. They're

oughts and shoulds and like that. Not. descriptions.

So moral laws bind even when inconvenient. So

if you break the moral law, you're hurting whether

you like it or not. I submit to you that when

somebody murders somebody else, it marks their

soul. It affects them. They can act like nothing

happened, but the truth is they did something.

And it's bad. And according to what God says,

the wages of sin is death. So it's terrible.

to moral laws bind even when inconvenient. They

are universal in scope, which means they are

broad across the whole world. All thinking people

ought to understand that these things are wrong

and these things are right. And there it is.

It applies to all people, all places, all times.

So again, the speed limit only applies when there

isn't a better reason to go ahead and speed.

Right, but not murdering your neighbor applies

at all times It doesn't matter now if it murder

is to kill somebody in anger if your neighbor

is trying to kill you then you Then murder doesn't

apply because that's not self -defense is not

murder, right? But it but murdering would always

be wrong Okay, so they are objective which means

someone Sees them outside their emotional reality

basically and it says right and starts with a

W and exist regardless of beliefs. I cut it off

the picture. They are authoritative. We are obligated

to obey. Very good. We are obligated to obey.

Okay, we're going to read Psalms 19, 7 -9. I'm

going to whip it out here real quick. Let me

get this. Psalms 19. The law of the Lord is perfect,

restoring the soul. The testimony of the Lord

is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts

of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart. The

commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening

the eyes. See it? And then Psalm 51. That was

1979. I said the wrong thing. And the next one

is actually Ecclesiastes 12 .13. If you get there

before me, you can read it if you want. You might.

I just saw it. I just passed it. Ecclesiastes

12 .13 says, This conclusion, when everything

has been heard, is fear God and keep his commandments

because this applies to every person. So that's

the truth of it. We now understand what moral

law is. So this is what you would do. Let's say

you're sitting with your friend and you just

went through the cosmological argument. You made

an argument for why you know there is a God.

Like, for example, they said, well, I don't know.

Why do you think there is a God? Well, let's

say you're walking in the desert and you found

a stopwatch laying there. Push the button, starts

to count the time, got a little battery, little

digital readout, whatever. Would you just assume

automatically that that just sprang into being?

Or would you think, well, somebody created that?

They'd say, well, somebody created that. I know

somebody created that. They'd say, well, the

universe has fine -tuning. It has irreducible

design. So I know that somebody created that.

Don't you think somebody created that? You think

somebody created the stopwatch, but you don't

think somebody created a world that needs 300

variables to exist? A world where the sun is

400 times the size of the moon and exactly 400

times further away? A world where DNA contains

the language that speaks to every cell? Don't

you think an intelligent designer exists? And

you're like, I mean, yeah, I get what you're

saying, but it's just not enough for me. So then

you say, well, what about morality? And they

say, well, you know, morality is different from

person to person. Some people think this is right.

Some people think that's right. And you say,

well, no, in actuality, that doesn't actually

work. Here's why relative morality doesn't work,

right? And they say, okay, well, morality is

what the government says is right. And you say,

well, no, let me tell you why that doesn't actually

work. And you get to the point of explaining

to them that morality is the prescriptive commands.

It's what we must do, right? It's what's right

to do. So let's say you get that far. Now you're

going to say what morality requires of its source.

So since we now know we have morality, then where

did morality come from? They're going to say,

well, somebody figured it out. No, because it's

prescriptive. It exists everywhere. It was before

anybody figured it out. Where did it come from?

So morality deals with purpose and that's one

that you didn't get a letter for. What else does

it deal with? Purpose and... Okay, could be guilt.

Weird, but could be. Okay, I submit to you that

you could use any word like direction, control,

right? Anything like that would work. Okay, so

laws imply intention. Purpose and direction come,

if that's the word you chose, come from minds.

Okay, so somebody, if I go out in the hallway

and I find a note, first thing I'm going to go

is, well, somebody made the note, right? It's

a note. So somebody had to make it. It didn't

just spring into being all by itself. Then I'm

going to take the note and I'm going to crumple

it up, throw it away and not read it because

I don't want to know what they told me to do.

No, actually, I'm probably going to read the

note. So I look at the note and I read it and

it says, go to the cafeteria, turn on the light.

Now I'm curious as to why I should go to the

cafeteria and turn on the light, but okay, fine,

I'll go to the cafeteria and turn on the light.

And I go in there and everybody else, surprise!

And it's my surprise birthday party, right? The

point is, the direction came from a person, right?

So these laws, these moral code that we're talking

about, it comes from a person. And so that's

the moral argument in its simplest. If we have

direction, from someone outside us than there

is someone outside us. Does that make sense?

It's not your pastor, it's not your teacher,

it's not your doctor, it's not your police officer,

it's not your governor or your president or your

king, because even they have moral bindings.

Somebody's telling them what they have to do.

There's prescriptive. They're not allowed to

murder either. That kind of thing. So if there's

purpose and direction, that comes from minds.

So impersonal matter cannot comprehend. Rocks

don't comprehend. Or command, rather. Rocks don't

command. Trees don't command. Stars don't command.

Minds, body, people, they command. Authority

belongs to persons. Moral obligation requires

a lawgiver. So this is the argument. If there

are moral laws that are outside people, then

there is something outside people that's giving

those moral laws. So now if you went through

the cosmological argument with your friend, and

they're kind of teetering on the edge, but they're

not sure. Now you can make the moral argument.

The moral argument is, do you recognize what

morals are, that they exist outside you personally?

They're not subjected to you. They're not based

on laws, right? There are rules to creation that

exist outside of us. That if there are rules

and they exist outside of us, someone created

them, right? It's an argument for God. This is

another way that we know that God exists. All

right, so that brings us to our conclusion then

and some of what I just gave you. Morality must

come from a transcendent personal mind. A being

with blank purpose and authority. What do you

think? Okay, put that in there. Control would

be good. Say it again. Authority would be good.

Right? Okay, let's read James 4 .12. James 4

.12 says, gosh, this is a relatively new Bible.

Okay. There is only one lawgiver and judge, the

one who is able to save and to destroy. But who

are you judging your neighbor? Okay. So this

is a person with... Authority, design, personality,

purpose, and authority. Okay? The blank of blank.

We're on C now. Okay, so under C, you've got

the blank of blank. So T not tells. That was

weird. Okay. I'm not sure what the T was supposed

to be, but... So... We're talking about guilt,

so I'm not sure what the T was supposed to be.

I'm confused. It was probably supposed to be

a G. But anyway, or... The second blank is guilt,

and then it's guilt is universal. Okay? Humans

feel accountable, not merely embarrassed. Guilt...

presupposes a law. A law presupposes a lawgiver.

I'm going kind of fast because we're running

low on time, so if I go too fast, stop me. A

law presupposes a lawgiver. Guilt owes its force

to the authority of the lawgiver. So this is

what they're saying. If you make rules yourself

and break those rules, you will feel bad. Let's

say one New Year's Eve. You say, I'm going to

lose some weight. I'm going to start working

out and eating right. January 1st, you start

working out and eating right. And you're doing

great. Lost 10 pounds, whatever. And then January

15th, you stop working out and eating right and

you gain it all back. Now, God did not require

you to work out and lose weight. You required

yourself to work out and lose weight. So at first,

you're going to feel kind of like, oh, that sucks.

I shouldn't have quit. I was doing good. You

feel bad. You might feel some guilt. But pretty

soon, you're going to put that away. You're just

going to move on with your life. It's not going

to be a big deal because it wasn't a big deal.

Now, let's say you kill somebody. You decide,

I can't pay my rent this month. You go rob a

bank and you shoot the teller in the head by

accident. Your gun just goes off. You didn't

mean to do it. You're not putting that away anytime

soon, right? You're going to be attacked. There's

guilt that's going to come along with that. You

might go to jail. You might go to the death chamber,

right? If it's a state that has capital punishment.

and you're going to have to deal with for the

rest of your life that you accidentally shot

that person, didn't mean to, and you accidentally

did, and that you robbed a bank. You're going

to deal with that, right? Why? You said it was

okay for you to rob the bank. You decided it

was okay to rob the bank. And then you didn't

mean to kill the person. I mean, you don't hang

on to stubbing your toe for 40 years. But now

you accidentally killed this person and you hang

on to it. It's going to affect you psychologically.

You might have PTSD, anxiety, depression from

it. The bad things we do hang on to us. Why?

Because we have guilt. A guilt that comes from

a source that's not us. It's not just that we

broke our own rule, which is true. There is a

moral law giver. We broke the law. Now we have

guilt. Okay? We feel guilt not merely because

we broke a rule, but because we offended a person.

So when you say something mean and a person is

hurt, you might feel bad because of what you

said, but you feel more bad, you realize you

hurt them with your words. That's where the guilt

really comes in. If you say something bad about

somebody, Bob offended you. You're going to go

cuss out Bob. So you practice in the mirror and

you cuss out Bob in the mirror. Then you actually

get to Bob and you treat him kind of nice. I

mean, you're like, look, you really shouldn't

have done that because you blew off all the steam

already, right? You might feel bad about what

you said in the mirror about Bob, but not really

because you didn't really hurt Bob. Now you go

say the same thing to Bob. Now that hurts. That

affects who you are. It affects who he is. It

affects your relationship with him because you

said it to him. You did it to him, right? Tim,

make sure that door is unlocked so you can get

back in. That door is open. Okay. All right.

We never unlock this one. All right. So we feel

guilt not merely because we broke a rule, but

because we offended a person. Where do God's

moral laws come from? So that's the next question

they're going to say. So where did God get the

moral law from? Anybody got an idea? What would

you say? If I said, where did God get the moral

law from, what do you think would be the answer?

Did he make it? He made it up. Is the Ten Commandments

an exact copy of the moral law based on what

we have been talking about today? No, it's just

a small part, right? It's not an exact copy.

Does the whole Bible contain all the moral law?

If you memorized the whole Bible from beginning

to end, would you have all the moral law memorized?

No. It's just a part, right? It's just a part.

Because you have moral decisions to make. In

this Bible, you will not find anything about

how you should specifically treat Bob or how

you should talk to Bob. Bob's never mentioned

in this Bible, right? So you have to extrapolate

from what you get in the Bible how you should

act every single day and your leadership from

the Holy Spirit. And that's why the Holy Spirit

is so important because he can bring to us out

of the word and out of our experience that which

is not written therein. So the Holy Spirit can

say to you, look, what you said to Bob, That

was wrong. You need to ask him for forgiveness.

You need to confess your sin. And you need to

not do that anymore. Turn from it and follow

me instead. None of which is written in the Bible.

It's written there prescriptive on how to deal

with sin, but Bob has never mentioned, right?

So you could go, well, you know, Bob hurt me

first, so I feel justified in the way I treated

him. But now the Bible says, no, you shouldn't

treat anybody that way. Love your neighbor as

yourself. So now the Holy Spirit convicts you

and says, well, love your neighbor as yourself

means you should confess to Bob, you should ask

for forgiveness, and don't do that anymore. See

the difference? So the moral law goes way beyond

this. So the question is, where did it come from?

And I'm going to answer the question. So that

is what I just asked you there. It's called the

euthyphro question, because that's the guy who

first thought of it. Are things good? Because

that's supposed to be a G, because God commands

them. So are things good because, you probably

said lawgiver, because the lawgiver or God commands

them? Or does God command them because they are

good? That's the question. Does the lawgiver

command them because they are good? Or does God

command them, are they good because God commands

them? So here's the biblical resolution of the

question. God's moral laws flow from his nature,

not arbitrary commands. So let me give you an

example of how this works. And my family, my

family, my kids, my in -laws, my mom, know that

I follow God. So when I'm in the room, the conversation

changes. Not because I always talk about God.

I talk about whatever everybody's talking about.

It's not that. But then when we're having a conversation

and we start to go toward gossip, somebody starts

to gossip about somebody, I usually don't even

have to clear my throat. Right? But if it gets

that far and I clear my throat, it always stops.

Because people know who I am. What's like that

with God? These laws are not laws because God

spoke them or wrote them. They are out of his

character. Which is why we have success in living

by the moral laws of God when we embrace God.

When we intake the word, when we pray, when we

meditate, when we spend time with him, when we

worship him, when we serve and we give. You think,

well, how can serving and giving help me do the

right thing when it comes down to me and Bob

fighting it out, right? Well, the reason is because

serving and giving changes who you are in reflection

of who God is. You become a little bit more like

God when you serve and give. What is God? He's

a server and a giver. The God of the universe

who created everything chose to be a servant.

Right? So then you go, oh, well, God chose to

be a servant, so if I'm going to be with God,

I'm going to be a servant. And I don't see how

me cussing Bob out for what he did is serving.

So it changes who you are because of his presence,

and that's why we have a greater success. Okay?

So God is essentially good. The Lord is essentially

good. Psalm 119, 68. I'll read it, even though

we're running a little bit low on time. God's

word is that important. We'll read it. Side note,

Psalm 119, the entirety of Psalm 119 is essentially

about the Bible. And it is the longest psalm.

So if you want to know about God's word, there's

a place you can go look. Psalm 119. Psalm 119

.68 says, You are good. You do good. Teach me

your statutes. Spoken to God. He is good. He

does good. Teach me your statutes. Notice those

are not the same thing. Knowing that God is good,

seeing that God does good, we ask God, okay,

how do we do good? See that? Isn't that neat?

Okay. So God's moral laws flow from his nature.

They are not arbitrary commands. God is essentially

good. Moral law reflects God's holy character.

And we won't go there and read those two verses,

but I encourage you to do that on your own. but

they're very direct verses that speak to what

we're talking about. And then the conclusion

of this is morality is grounded in who the lawgiver

is or who God is, not merely what he says. Understand?

So the Ten Commandments. Are you with me? We're

going to end up on this point. I've just got

three lines left or whatever. Okay. The Ten Commandments.

Thou shalt not kill. Raise your hand if you agree.

Okay. Does the Ten Commandments say thou shalt

not kill? Now, think about it for a second. Now

raise your hand if you agree. Okay, see how that

goes? The Ten Commandments say thou shalt not

murder. Not thou shalt not kill. Anybody here

eat steak? Anybody here eat steak? You kill.

You may be paying somebody to do it for you,

but you're killing. Okay. Anybody here that would

kill a man if he came in your house and tried

to hurt your kids? Yeah. God's not telling you

you can't do that. So the problem is we look

at God's Word and we function under our best

current understanding as led by the Holy Spirit

of God's Word. So then if we don't catch the

disconnect and we say thou shalt not kill and

we go around and go, oh, I'm a pacifist. I would

never hurt anybody. You want to rape my wife?

Go ahead. No. God didn't say that. So we have

to walk with God. have the Holy Spirit, live

for the Lord, be part of the church community,

be part of the kingdom, to learn and continue

to increase our best understanding of the moral

law of the Lord so that we walk it out. And then

we will have success. But if we instead just

continue to function our best understanding,

the names of some people, for example, remember

back on the beginning, the relativism stuff?

If you look up some of the famous people who

believe in relativism or cultural relativism,

both of which don't work, they're failed systems,

they don't actually work. We're talking about

famous people. Famous Christian, supposedly,

people. Yeah. And so, you can't just follow what

other people, you have to follow God. Right?

You have to walk with the Lord. Don't follow

me. When I get it right, go ahead, follow me.

When I don't get it right, don't follow me. It's

your job. Right? But really follow Jesus is the

key. Okay, so the universe points to a... This

is all the way back to the beginning. Everybody

should have this piece. You can put a couple

different things in there, but the universe points

to what? A lawgiver, a God. Go. You need another

paper? We're like at the very end. You're going

to have a lot of work to do now, girl. All right.

I love you, and I know you will do an awesome

job, and you will enjoy it. Okay? Yeah, so the

beginning thought, the cosmological arguments

that we made, the universe points to an intelligent

creator. Right? An intelligent designer. Arguably,

right? Arguably, there are some people who follow

religions that believe in an intelligent designer

but are not saved because they've never met Jesus.

So two examples are Islam. They believe that

God created the world, the universe. God, as

best they understand, created everything. But

they just don't believe in Jesus, which means

they're going to hell. I mean, you have to go

by their profession. We're not allowed to judge

what they believe. But yeah, if they say they

believe in Jesus, I know some Muslims, a friend

of mine passed away at like 92. And he was a

practicing Muslim, sort of. In fact, he was one

of the first 12 men to help build the mosque

in Perrysburg. And he was our landlord for the

church when we were over on Main Street. And

we went to a meeting at the library to try to

get an event at the International Park. And he

shared Jesus with the people at the meeting,

just like he was a Christian. You'd swear he

was a Christian. And I asked him, I said, what

are you doing still going to the mosque? He said,

well, I built it. That's why he still went there,

because he built it. But he was a Christian by

his profession. Born again, just like you or

I, but he was still practicing in their faith.

So that's a problem, right? And you probably

would find Baptists and Methodists and whatever

that don't believe in Jesus aren't born again,

or they say they do, but they probably won't

be in heaven either. But my point is, so the

universe points to an intelligent designer, and

people should be able to believe that, okay?

And then C points to a lawgiver. We didn't use

this word the whole time, so it's got to be the

word. Conscience. Conscience points to a lawgiver.

The fact that people can understand that there

is a moral law and that they have broken it or

that they should not break it points to a lawgiver.

So now if you have somebody who created the universe,

and that's God, and you have somebody who gives

us the transcendent moral law, and that's God,

we're starting to get a picture of who God is.

And you haven't met him yet through Jesus at

that point. But this is how you prove to some

of the ways, there are other ways, but there's

some of the ways that you prove to somebody that

God exists. So they argue, well, I don't think

God exists. And you say, well, you know, here's

some evidence that proves. So, well, if there

was some evidence, right, I can't believe that

God exists. You can't see him. You can't prove

to me, whatever. Well, you can make it good.

It takes a lot because these evidences present

it beyond a reasonable doubt. So they have to

really rebel to not accept it. Moral obligation

and guilt point then to a personal God. Scripture

confirms what reason already shows, and it says

the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

Okay, so we're done. If you did it and you marked

the boxes, you should know how many times we

used the different words. And you should have

three words in those three blanks that you didn't

have previously. And then there's binders in

the back. If you don't already have a binder,

you can get a binder and start collecting worksheets.

And if you collect the one from last week and

the quiz from today and this one, you can go

buy a book for about $30 that goes through all

the stuff I'm going to go through in the next

three times we meet. Or you can just get it here

for free. And it will be in your binder. For

free! Like a red Ferrari. Any questions? It's

a lot. I understand. We'll do a review first

thing in two weeks. And maybe make a game out

of it or something again. Okay? But really, we're

trying to equip ourselves so that when you're

talking to somebody and they say, I'm not sure

I believe in God, that you have reason -type

arguments. You can't probably admit to it, but

you have reason -type arguments. One of the things

that I, even like long before I considered coming

out of high school, I argued for like 45 minutes

with my science teacher. because I called him

out on something he said here in class, and one

of the things was, like we were talking about

how the universe was creating everything, and

he made the statement, you can't create something

from nothing. Right. So I called him out on it,

and he told me that the universe was created

from nothing. Exactly. Yeah, that's an example.

Perfect example. So every law of science says

you cannot bring anything to be actual without

something actual doing it. You can't change one

thing to another. You can't create something

new. You can't do that. It's breaking the laws

of science. But then you find all these scientists,

and it's not all. Most scientists conclude that

there's an intelligent designer. About 65 % of

scientists conclude that there's an intelligent

designer, the statistics say. So that's a lot.

All right, let's pray. Here we have snacks and

cafeteria, and a little bit of time to fellowship,

and I'm around for any questions. Father in heaven,

thank you so much for just being there for us.

Lord, I thank you for the none -too -subtle reminder

today that while your word is good and our study

skills are important and our time in prayer and

meditation are great, they are a gift from you

and we should really delve into them, that there

is nothing at all that compares to your presence.

That you being with us, in us, at work in us,

changing us, growing us, helping us step up,

calling us out. Lord, that you put everything

old behind and made everything new. These are

all things that no one but you can do. Not by

any amount of effort. And I just pray, Lord,

that we would always remember that and walk it

out. And that we would be not terrified, not

even afraid or anxious when somebody says, well,

how do you know for sure that there is a God?

And it will always be easiest for us to say something

like, because I have personally experienced Him.

I have the Holy Spirit in my heart. I gave my

life to the Lord and He's done so many things

and shared from our personal testimony and that's

all good stuff. But for a lost person who refuses

to hear it, we want to be able to make a reasoned

defense, a good argument for why we know that

anyone should accept that God is real. Then we'll

get around to, we're going to get there in a

couple weeks, get around to, based on you existing,

what does that mean we should do with Jesus?

What does that mean that we should do with God

in the flesh? And there's no question that you

should be Lord of everything. and especially

of us and of our hearts and of our minds and

whatever we can do for the rest of our time here

on earth. We praise you for all of it. If there

happens to be somebody in this room who has not

surrendered their life to you in earnest, and

they're wrestling around with whether or not

they would ever talk to somebody about Jesus

or whether or not they would submit to a moral

law or whether they have lived their life the

way they think they should as opposed to the

way you say they should, then I just ask you

to help them repent and turn to you and be saved.