Public Theology & Christian Living

by Steven B. Cowan –

Among the many things that Christians believe, one very important item is the belief in objective morality.¹ This means that we believe there are moral principles that are true and obligatory regardless of whether or not any person or group believes in them. In other words, objective moral principles do not depend for their validity upon our preferences. Thus, moral objectivism is the opposite of moral relativism.

This belief in objective morality is not unique to Christianity; many other religions and worldviews agree that there is an objective moral order. Christianity is somewhat unique, however, in how it grounds or justifies the objective moral order and in what it believes to be most central to morality. In this article, I will present what I take to be the best and most defensible version of a Christian ethical theory. It is important to note that not every Christian will agree with every detail of this theory, but it is a theory which, at least in its broad contours, is accepted by most Christians.

The Dependence of Morality on God

Given that there are objective moral values, human beings might still ask: how do we explain the existence of these values? What we are asking primarily is what else would have to be true about reality and the world in which we live given the fact that objective moral values exist? What background theory or worldview would allow us to make the most sense of objective morality?

The Christian, of course, believes that morality is explained by claiming that it depends in some way upon God. On the Christian worldview, God is the most basic and fundamental reality. The objective moral values that exist cannot exist independently of God any more than stars, planets, birds, and human beings can. God is the source of being for every being other than himself. For the Christian, then, the most fundamental fact about morality is that it is grounded in, and finds its source in, God. This is the first and foundational component in a Christian moral theory.

Some Implications of Theistic Ethics
The Christian believes in the dependence of morality on God not simply because God is the source of all being, but also because he is convinced that no other worldview can adequately explain the existence of objective morality. For example, some pantheists believe that there really exists only one thing, and that one thing is an eternally existing and limitless Spirit or Mind. Moreover, this Spirit exists without change, without any distinctions in its being, completely incomprehensible to human logic or language. None of our concepts or terms can adequately describe this being; so we can say neither that it is personal nor impersonal, good nor evil, or anything else. For this reason, pantheism can provide no basis for objective moral values. For the pantheist, concepts like good and evil do not describe reality; there really isn’t any such thing as objective good and evil. This is why the Hindu philosopher Shankara said that “to him who has obtained the highest aim, no obligation can apply.”²

Likewise, naturalism—the view that all that exists is the natural, physical world—has great difficulty accounting for objective morality. According to naturalism, everything that exists sprang from a cosmic accident—the “Big Bang”— several billion years ago. The Big Bang occurred simply as the result of natural processes, unguided, undesigned. It follows from this that human beings are nothing special. We just happened to evolve from the slime in a remote corner of the universe. Human beings exist simply because some of our distant ancestors developed some random mutations that naturally selected them for survival. We are not special, we are simply lucky. And the history of evolution shows us that the human race is eventually destined to perish like the dinosaur.

In order to attribute objective, moral value to anything, whether it is human beings or dandelions, we have to have some reason to believe that something has intrinsic value—that something is valuable for its own sake. That is, if we are going to be able to say that it is wrong to take human life without a just cause, then we have to have some reason to believe that human beings are special—that there is something intrinsically valuable about human beings that sets them apart from dirt or dandelions or cockroaches (things that we see no moral prohibition against killing or destroying). On what basis may we affirm that some action is objectively right and another is wrong? It is difficult to see how the naturalist can answer this question. Atheist Richard Dawkins agrees:

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.³

According to Christian theism, however, the physical universe is the creation of God, an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent person. Moreover, the world and all it contains were created for an intelligent purpose. Human beings in particular were created in God’s image as personal beings and therefore have intrinsic value. And since human beings are created in God’s image and have intrinsic value, we can say that human beings are truly special—which means that human life is sacred and highly morally significant so that it matters how one treats his neighbor. More than that, it makes sense that God’s image-bearers would be created with a conscience—a moral sense that recognizes and intuits the objective moral values with which the universe is furnished. So, unlike atheism and pantheism—in which moral values are strange and out of place—objective morality is perfectly at home in a theistic universe. Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland expresses this truth succinctly:

Morality is more at home and less ad hoc in a theistic universe than in an atheistic universe. This is because God is a postulated entity who is Himself good. He has the property of goodness. Men are made in his image and to be a human being is to be a member of a natural kind that is not merely defined biologically, but is also defined in terms of moral properties. I have intrinsic value or worth as I reflect the intrinsic value of God and His worth.⁴

The Euthyphro Dilemma
So, the Christian believes that morality is dependent on God. Yet dependent in what way? Over the centuries, many Christians have said that morality is dependent on God in this sense: God, by divine command or fiat, simply stipulates what is good and bad, right and wrong. That is, God freely creates moral values ex nihilo. This view is called the Divine Command Theory (DCT). On this view, what makes an action right is simply the fact that it is commanded by God. And what makes an action wrong is that it is forbidden by God.

There is a serious objection that may be raised to DCT, however. It is called the Euthyphro Dilemma. This objection goes back over 2,000 years to the Greek philosopher Socrates. On one occasion, Socrates had a debate on the nature of morality with a man named Euthyphro who maintained that what is holy (i.e., moral) is whatever the gods like. Socrates then asked Euthyphro a difficult question: “Is something holy because the gods like it, or do the gods like it because it is holy?” In a similar vein, someone today might ask in regard to Christian ethics, “Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?”

This question poses a dilemma for the theist who wants to ground morality in the existence of God. On the one hand, if God commands something because it is good, then it would seem that morality is independent of God. When God makes a command, he is merely recognizing a moral standard which exists apart from him. This option would undermine our foundational commitment to the notion objective moral values depend upon God.

On the other hand, if we say that something is good because God commands it (as advocates of DCT claim), then it would seem that good and bad are entirely arbitrary. If all that makes something good or bad is simply the fact that God commanded (or forbade) it, then God’s commands could very well have been different than they actually are. If God had said that murder and rape are good, then they would be, by definition, good! This option would actually reduce morality to a form of subjective relativism—only in this case God is the one who gets to choose what is right and wrong. Yet, we believe that morality is deeper and more significant than that. We have seen that morality is objective, not relative.

The Euthyphro dilemma is not the last word on the relation of God to morality, however. The problem is that it is a false dilemma—it fails to consider a third alternative. It is true that many Christian theists have defended the DCT, but not all have. Some have adopted what might be called, for lack of a better name, the Modified Divine Command Theory (MDCT). On the MDCT it is neither the case that God commands something because it is good, nor that something is good because God commands it. Rather, it is more correct to say that something is good insofar as it reflects God’s immutable and necessarily good nature. Philosopher Mark Linville explains,

What ought Euthyphro to have said to Socrates’ difficult question? Perhaps the answer is found in the suggestion that we are faced with a false dilemma. Much of the Christian theological tradition maintains that it is not God’s arbitrary will that is the standard but, rather, God’s fixed nature. . . .An appeal to God’s nature rather than his arbitrary will allows us to maintain that God wills right actions because they are right: his will expresses his nature and his nature is the source of morality. And because morality finds its source in God’s nature, such a reply will not thereby commit us to saying that morality rests upon something independent of God.⁵  So, the Euthyphro dilemma does not should be an insurmountable obstacle to affirming that morality does indeed depend upon the existence of God.

Christianity and Normative Ethics

So far we have seen that a Christian ethical theory holds that there are objective moral values and that these moral values depend upon God. Up to this point, we have been engaged in a discussion of metaethics—that branch of ethics that deals with the nature and relation of ethical concepts. Now we delve into the area of normative ethics—that sphere of ethical theory that attempts to delineate the content of morality and provide decision-procedures for living ethically in the world. We will elaborate a normative Christian ethical theory by addressing four questions: (1) What is the ultimate goal or aim of Christian ethics?, (2) Is Christian ethics primarily deontological or teleological?, (3) How do we acquire ethical knowledge?, and (4) What are our ethical obligations?

What is the Ultimate Goal of Christian Ethics?

The Christian faith is unashamedly God-centered. That is, we believe that God is the most important thing that exists. Since he is absolutely perfect morally and in every other way, since he is supremely good and holy, it follows that God himself is the highest good (summum bonum). This means that all things exist not only because of him, but also for him. As the Apostle Paul declares in Scripture, “All things were created by him and for him” (Col. 1:16b). Likewise, the Westminster Catechism asks the question, “What is the chief end [i.e., purpose] of man?” And the answer is clear: “To glorify God and enjoy him forever.”

Though we were created by God to bring him glory and honor in the way we live, this does not mean that our own fulfillment and happiness are of no concern to God, nor that they should be of no concern to us. The last phrase quoted from the Westminster Catechism makes this evident. We are not only to glorify God, but we are also to “enjoy him forever.” The Christian Scriptures teach that our source of satisfaction and happiness is God himself. As Augustine said, “Our hearts are restless until they rest in thee.” The psalmist declares this truth when he writes, “At your right hand are pleasures forever more” (Psalm 16:11).

True human happiness and well-being are found in relationship to God, and in being what God created us to be, namely, his image-bearers. Therefore, the Christian looks forward eagerly to the day of Christ’s return and the formation of a new heaven and a new earth in which evil and suffering are eradicated and the Lord says to his people, “Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take of the free gift of the water of life” (Revelation 22:17b).

Since the glory and enjoyment of God are the highest goods, it follows that the appropriate end of human life is to live in such a way as to please God. A truly ethical life is a life that reflects God’s holy character and will.

Deontology or Teleology?
There are basically two broad approaches to normative ethics.⁶ First, there is deontology, which is primarily a rule- or duty-based approach. For the deontologist, actions are intrinsically right or wrong independent of their consequences The second approach to normative ethics is teleology (or consequentialism). For the teleologist, actions are right or wrong depending upon their consequences. Thus, teleology is a result- or goal-oriented approach to ethics.

Christian ethics is usually understood as primarily deontological, not teleological. There are several reasons for this. First, given a metaethical view like the MDCT, Christians do believe that God has given human beings certain commands which we are obligated to obey—at least some of which admit of no exceptions and the consequences of which are thus irrelevant. For example, one absolute and exceptionless moral principle would be: always act so as to glorify God. Another might be: Never torture children for fun.

Second, given our brief analysis of the summum bonum, there will be certain ways of life that are intrinsically good and others that are bad—some actions that accord with the highest good and some that don’t. This in turn implies that some actions and behaviors will be right and others wrong independent of consequences. For example, blaspheming God or maliciously harming his image-bearers is inconsistent with a commitment to God as the summum bonum.

Third, Christian ethics is deontological because teleological ethics undermines our conviction in the existence of objective morality. We have argued that we know intuitively that some actions are right and others wrong. Let us call our most basic and intuitively known moral principles “bedrock principles.”⁷ An example of a bedrock principle that we noted above is: It is wrong to torture children for fun. The problem is that teleological ethics cannot endorse this bedrock principle absolutely. For example, the most well-known version of teleology is utilitarianism, which holds that an action is right if it produces the most happiness for the most people. But consider that there could very well be circumstances in which torturing children for fun brought about the most happiness for the most people. Imagine a situation in which one man was able to produce a great deal of happiness for most people in society. Suppose that he had the magical power to cure every disease on earth. There is only one condition. This man takes sadistic pleasure in torturing children, and he refuses to use his power unless society allows him to torture to death one child per year without criminal penalty. Utilitarianism entails that it would be right to allow this man to do these horrible deeds.

Since we know, however, that torturing children for fun is wrong—and so is allowing others to do so—utilitarianism is problematic as an ethical system and it certainly will not do as part of a Christian ethical theory.

Does this mean that consequences can play no role in a Christian ethical theory? By no means. I have said that Christian ethics is primarily deontological, but it is not entirely deontological. The Christian can allow that consequences play a role in ethical deliberation in at least two areas. First, in the resolution of ethical dilemmas. The Christian acknowledges that we live in an imperfect world, a world that is fallen. Sometimes this means that we will face situations where our various duties will conflict.

For example, I believe that I have the duty to tell the truth. I also have the duty to protect innocent human life insofar as it is possible for me to do so. But imagine that I am living in Nazi Germany in the 1940s, seeking to fulfill the latter of these duties by hiding Jews in my attic. And suppose that officers of the Gestapo come to my door and ask if I am harboring Jews in my home. In this case I am faced with a moral dilemma. I have a duty to protect the Jews and I have a duty to tell the truth. I cannot fulfill both commands. If I protect the Jews I will have to lie, thus violating one of my duties. If I tell the truth, I will violate my other duty.

Though some Christian ethicists have argued (in accordance with the absolutist deontological theory of Immanuel Kant) that my duty in such a case is to tell the truth and not worry about the consequences (after all, I am not going to harm the Jews, the

Nazis are!), most Christian philosophers follow W.D. Ross in distinguishing prima facie duties from ultima facie duties. In moral dilemma cases, some duties are overridden by other, more important duties. Though I have a prima facie duty to tell the truth, protecting innocent life is more important than truth-telling, and hence the latter may be superceded when it conflicts with the former. So, my ultima facie duty in this dilemma is to protect innocent human life by lying to the Nazis.⁸

A second area in which consequences should play a role in Christian ethics is in matters of public policy. Though Christian ethics rejects utilitarianism as a normative ethical system, concern for the greater good of society as a whole is not unimportant. When the state must pass legislation or make public policy, then consideration of the common good must take center stage, though (on the Christian view) not at the cost of basic human rights.

How Do We Acquire Ethical Knowledge?

The Christian ethicist may distinguish two sources of moral knowledge. We have already noted the first one: moral intuition. The Christian believes that God has created human beings with an innate awareness of basic moral truths. The Apostle Paul speaks of this in Scripture when he writes, “When Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. . .” (Romans 2:14-15). That is, even though non-Jews do not have the written law contained in the Old Testament, they nevertheless do have the law “written on their hearts.”

It is for this reason that many Christian philosophers and theologians have been strong advocates of natural law theory, the view that there is a natural knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, that can be discerned by every human being apart from special divine revelation.⁹ If God exists and has created us in his image to reflect his holy character, then it should be no surprise that there exists a natural law that provides all men with at least rudimentary moral knowledge by which to order society.

The second source of moral knowledge is revelation. More specifically, the Christian believes that God has revealed his moral will (among other things) in the Bible. The Christian believes that this revelation is necessary because our knowledge of the moral law derived from nature is clouded and skewed by the noetic (i.e., mental) effects of sin. Because we are sinful and desire to do what is contrary to God’s moral law, we can intentionally and unintentionally misinterpret and misapply the natural law. God, then, in condescending mercy, has made the moral law plainer by revealing it in written form. So, the Christian looks to natural law or intuition for moral knowledge, but even more so to the holy Scriptures.

What Are Our Moral Obligations?

Jesus himself summed up our obligations in this way: And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matt. 22:37-40)

So, the bottom line for Christian ethics are two primary commands: love God and love neighbor. Of course, this raises some questions such as: what does it mean to love God and neighbor? If removed from its biblical context, Jesus’ promulgation of our ethical obligations is unclear. We are told to love God and neighbor, but what, specifically, is the content of the term “love”? What does love actually require of us in concrete human action?

To answer this question, we must look more closely at Jesus’ statement in these verses. He does not leave us simply to guess what it means to love. Notice that he says about these two commandments that on them “depend all the Law and the Prophets.” In other words, with these two commands Jesus is telling us, first, that these two commands are a shorthand summary of the moral laws of the Old Testament. The content for what it means to love God and neighbor can be discovered by looking back to the laws and regulations that God delivered to Israel at Mt. Sinai. The most succinct statement of these laws is found in Exodus 20:1-17, the so-called Ten Commandments. Thus, if someone asks how we are to love God, the answer is: have no other gods but him, don’t take his name in vain, etc. If asked what it means to love neighbor, the answer is: don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery, etc. The Christian believes that all other ethical obligations flow out of these. For example, because we are to worship only God, it would be wrong to give absolute allegiance to the state, or to love our own comfort so much that we are unwilling to sacrifice it when it conflicts with following God’s will. Likewise, because we are to refrain from murder and, by extension, seek to protect innocent human life, we ought to have laws against driving recklessly, and we oppose abortion on demand.

When Jesus says that our ethical obligation is to love God and neighbor, he is also telling us, secondly, that our obligation is not fulfilled when we merely perform the external actions that the moral law enjoins. That is, our obligation to love God is not fulfilled if we merely refrain from bowing down to idols or hold our tongues so as not to speak ill of God. Our obligation is to love God. To be sure, as noted above, loving God will involve doing all the actions required by the biblical moral law, but unless those actions are rightly motivated by a genuine, loving desire to please our heavenly Father, then those actions are without moral merit.

Similarly, I may never actually take the life or property of any other human being, but if my reason for not doing so is anything other than a benevolent feeling of brotherly love for them, then I have not done what God requires of me. Jesus could not have made this any plainer than he did in his Sermon on the Mount:

You have heard that it was said to those of old, “You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.” But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother

will be liable to the council; and whoever says, “You fool!” will be liable to the hell of fire. . . .You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.” But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt. 5:21-30)

These last considerations lead us to the final issue that we will discuss in this presentation of Christian ethical theory.

Christian Ethics and Christian Theology

A truly Christian ethical theory would be incomplete if it did not elaborate on the relationship between morality and other aspects of Christian theology, especially soteriology (i.e., the doctrine of salvation). Christianity is unique among the world’s religions in that a key tenet of our faith is that salvation is wholly by grace and not human merit. Grace may be simply defined for our purposes as the unmerited favor or blessing of God bestowed upon those who deserve his disfavor or curse. There are some important reasons why Christians believe that salvation is by grace alone.

The Impossibility of Fulfilling Our Obligations

The Bible is unequivocal in its assertion of the universality of human sin. Everyone is a rebel and a breaker of God’s law (Rom 3:10-23). Moreover, the fact that all people are law-breakers is not a coincidence. Our sinful actions and attitudes are a natural consequence of our fallen condition. As a result of man’s original fall, every human being has what may be called an innate sinful nature—a predisposition to sinful disobedience to God’s righteous law. As King David said, “I was a sinner from the time my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:5, NIV). Paul echoes this truth when he writes that “we were by nature objects of [God’s] wrath” (Eph. 2:3b). And Jesus himself informs us that “everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin” (John 8:34).

The upshot of these biblical truths is that it is impossible for any ordinary human being to fulfill his obligation to love God and neighbor. As Paul explains, “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:7-8). It is important to keep in mind here what was said in the last section, namely, that our obligation is to love God and neighbor, not simply perform the external requirements of the law. A person might do the latter, but it is not enough to satisfy God’s righteous demands.

The unmistakable implication of human sinfulness, then, is that there is absolutely no hope of any person achieving the blessing of God by his own moral effort. Moreover, for his failure to keep God’s law, each person stands condemned and subject to God’s eternal wrath (cf. Eph. 2:3; John 3:16-18). God’s law can provide no avenue by which mankind can stand in a right relationship with his creator. As Paul declares, “By works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20).” All the law can do, vis-à-vis our relationship to God, is say to each and every one of us, “You’re a sinner. You’re guilty!”

The Three Uses of the Moral Law
In light of what we have just seen, someone might ask, “Of what use is the moral law then?” If I am incapable of living up to the obligations that I have before God, then why should I care about the moral law at all? In answer to such questions, Christian theologians and philosophers distinguish three uses of the moral law.¹⁰

First, there is the pedagogical use of the law. Paul refers to this use of the law when he writes that “the Law has become our tutor [or pedagogue] to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith” (Gal. 3:24, NASB). The most important function of the moral law is to help us see our need for the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. The realization that I cannot fulfill my moral obligations should first drive me to despair of pleasing God by my own efforts and teach me secondly to look hopefully for the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

The second use of the law is the normative use. Christians emphatically reject the idea that law-keeping can earn them any favor with God. Nevertheless, the Christian is a person who has experienced regeneration or “new birth.” What this means is that the Christian is a person who has been led by God’s Holy Spirit to hate his innate sinfulness and to desire to live a holy life. What’s more, they believe that “God is at work [in them] both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13). Though Christians do not believe that they can achieve moral perfection in this life, they do believe that the law provides them a standard by which they can pursue the holiness they crave. The moral law, in other words, though impossible to keep perfectly, becomes for the Christian a rule or norm by which they can measure their moral progress.

Thirdly, there is the civil use of the law. Even though keeping the mere externals of the law is not sufficient for gaining God’s favor, this does not mean that keeping the externals of the law is unimportant in itself. It is good when men do not murder and steal even if their motives for not so doing are less than pure. Having a society in which people generally behave in an orderly, civil, and respectful manner is a good thing. So, although unregenerate men cannot keep the moral law in such a way as to earn their salvation (because their internal motivations are impure), they can be moved to uphold the externals of the law by holding forth to them the threat of punishment and the hope of reward. It is mainly for this reason, according to Christian thought, that God has established civil government (cf. Rom. 13:1-4). So, we can say that another use of the moral law (which, remember, can be known by all people naturally without special revelation) is to provide civil government with the moral standards by which to justly order society and, through the threat of punishment and the hope of reward, restrain the evil that lies in all of our hearts.¹¹

Conclusion
There is much more that can be said about Christian ethical theory. And, of course, we have barely scratched the surface regarding the application of this theory to normative ethical issues. Nonetheless, I have laid out the main contours of a Christian ethical theory that emphasizes those details that are most fundamental and preliminary to all other ethical questions.

Christian ethics is committed, above all, to the proposition that God and his glory are the summum bonum, the supreme good at which all moral action aims. Christian ethics understands that our highest obligation therefore is to love God and love neighbor in accordance with moral principles that reflect God’s immutable and necessarily good character. And Christian ethics is painfully realistic about the prospect of flawed human beings living up to God’s holy standards, and it points sinners like us to the person and work of Jesus Christ as our only hope of escaping the just consequences of our evil deeds and our only hope of ever being truly holy as God is holy.

Steven B. Cowan is Associate Director of the Apologetics Resource Center and the editor of Areopagus Journal. He is also Associate Professor of Philosophy and Apologetics at Southeastern Bible College. He is the co-author (with James Spiegel) of The Love of Wisdom: A Christian Introduction to Philosophy (B&H, 2009).

Notes

¹ For a defense of objective morality and a critique of moral relativism, see Greg Koukl’s article, “Relativism on the Ropes,” in this issue of Areopagus Journal.
² Shankara, Vedanta Sutras, 2.3.48.
³ Richard Dawkins, “God’s Utility Function,” Scientific American (Nov., 1995): 85.
⁴ J.P. Moreland and Kai Nielsen, Does God Exist? The Great Debate (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990), 119.
⁵ Mark Linville, Is Everything Permitted? Moral Values in a World without God (Norcross, GA: Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, 2001), 50-51 (emphasis his).
⁶ Many ethicists distinguish a third approach called virtue ethics which focuses on the nature of the good or virtuous person. I have much sympathy for virtue ethics, but it seems to me that virtue ethics is not a complete stand-alone normative theory, but is best understood as a necessary complement to a deontological system that underscores the character traits essential to proper moral motivation. For this reason, I will not treat virtue ethics separately here. For more on virtue ethics and its relation to deontology, see Louis P. Pojman, How Should We Live? An Introduction to Ethics (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2004).
7 I am following the lead here of Mark Linville, Is Everything Permitted?, 13-14.
⁸ The Bible itself appears to justify this solution to moral dilemmas. Both Exodus 1:15-21 and Joshua 2:4-7 involve moral dilemmas where the appropriate solution requires the telling of lies. Other dilemmas are similarly resolved by one duty overriding an apparently lesser duty (cf. e.g., Daniel 3:1-18; 6:6-16; Acts 4:18-19).
⁹ For a strong defense of natural law theory, see J. Budziszekski, Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997).
¹⁰ The first extensive treatment of the “threefold use” of the law is found in John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion II.1.304-310. A more succinct treatment can be found in David Clyde Jones, Biblical Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 117-122.
¹¹ The majority of Christians believe that the civil use of the law is limited only to what is called the “Second Table of the Law”, the last six of the Ten Commandments which have to do with our duty to other human beings. Only a small group of Christians called theonomists would argue that civil government should be concerned to promulgate and enforce the “First Table of the Law” that has to do with our duty to God. Non-theonomists rightly insist that outside of the Old Testament theocracy of Israel (which no longer exists) the state is under no obligation to enforce the right worship of the true God, but should allow religious liberty.