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.