As there is one overriding fact,(That there is a sovereign God) there can be only one moral absolute. It would make sense that the one moral absolute could be directly derived from the one over riding fact.
When we make a list of moral absolutes we run into numerous problems. It seems that even in Scripture moral absolutes sometimes come into conflict. One must be subordinated to the other. This gives rise to a number of questions. How can a truth be considered absolute and still occasionally not be applicable? Does not the irresolvable conflict invalidate the absolute nature of the subordinated imperative? To suggest that God will always make it possible to act in accord with all absolutes seems contrary to the teaching of Scripture and experience. (Rahab choosing between the spy's life and lying and being held up as on of great faith, Obey every ordinance of government when some ordances contradict)
Some argue that this conundrum leads to having no moral absolutes. However, the logic that there is at least one moral absolute is inescapable. Even if one suggests that there are no moral absolutes he is actually positing that there is no other moral absolute than the one which states there are none. This is in the end is a statement that cannot be affirmed without negating itself-a clear indication of being false.
So if the position that there are no moral absolutes is not true, and if there can only be one, then there must be a moral absolute that is so encompassing that it covers all morality and yet cannot be internally contradicted. In the end there can only be one moral absolute to which all other ethics and moral truth become derivatives and subordinate. That moral absolute is the glory of God. God’s glory is different than man’s glory. Man’s glory is derived from what he does. God’s glory is what He is—His character.
When we make a list of moral absolutes we run into numerous problems. It seems that even in Scripture moral absolutes sometimes come into conflict. One must be subordinated to the other. This gives rise to a number of questions. How can a truth be considered absolute and still occasionally not be applicable? Does not the irresolvable conflict invalidate the absolute nature of the subordinated imperative? To suggest that God will always make it possible to act in accord with all absolutes seems contrary to the teaching of Scripture and experience. (Rahab choosing between the spy's life and lying and being held up as on of great faith, Obey every ordinance of government when some ordances contradict)
Some argue that this conundrum leads to having no moral absolutes. However, the logic that there is at least one moral absolute is inescapable. Even if one suggests that there are no moral absolutes he is actually positing that there is no other moral absolute than the one which states there are none. This is in the end is a statement that cannot be affirmed without negating itself-a clear indication of being false.
So if the position that there are no moral absolutes is not true, and if there can only be one, then there must be a moral absolute that is so encompassing that it covers all morality and yet cannot be internally contradicted. In the end there can only be one moral absolute to which all other ethics and moral truth become derivatives and subordinate. That moral absolute is the glory of God. God’s glory is different than man’s glory. Man’s glory is derived from what he does. God’s glory is what He is—His character.
In the end there can only be one moral absolute to which all other ethics and moral truth become derivatives and subordinate. That moral absolute is the glory of God. God’s glory is different than man’s glory. Man’s glory is derived from what he does. God’s glory is what He is—His character.
One may be tempted to ask, “Which character quality is the absolute?” This is would be a great question except that God’s character is simple. In a sense it is like the difference between fresh and homogenized milk. Fresh milk can be broken down in to cream, butter milk and (what ever else milk breaks down into). God is homogenized milk—the same throughout and not broken down into component parts. We talk about God’s love or God’s mercy or God’s justice as if they were separate qualities. It is necessary to do this so that we can grasp and understand what facet of God’s overall character we are talking about. In reality these qualities cannot be understood separately and indeed they are not separate. God’s love can only be completely understood in the context of His holiness, grace, justice, etc. To try to make any one character quality preeminent is like shining only red light on a painting of many colors and thinking that we can interpret the whole magnificence of the picture. Only with the whole spectrum can we understand each part or what is to be illuminated.
It was interesting in a recent theological debate to have reactionary books from two sides suggesting that the other side took away from the glory of God. On the one hand it was said that not knowing all things exhaustively took away from the glory of God. On the other hand it was suggested that a God who could not work within a flexible framework was not as glorious as one who could work with uncertainties. Each came to what God must be, based upon what they thought was more glorious. What ever God is, is glorious, not whatever is glorious is what God is.
One of the reasons the Jews missed Christ as the Messiah is that when they looked at the two descriptions of the Messiah as conquering king and suffering servant they thought the conquering king was more glorious and therefore anything distracting from that was unacceptable. Some today reject the earthly reign of Christ because they feel that the suffering servant is the glorious standard that would be detracted from by a conquering king. In truth, without both aspects Jesus Christ would be reduced to something less than the full glory of God. We often do this when we have preconceived ideas of what God should be or do based on personal preference or theology. It is the emphasis of one character quality over others that leads to most heresy and misguided Christianity.
Now we get to the bottom line question, “What is the moral action to be taken in any given situation?” The answer: "That action which reflects God’s character." In other words, what would God do in this situation. It is not “What is the loving thing” or “What is the just thing.” These are only one facet of God’s character and out of balance with the whole. So while speaking the truth is most often the right thing to do, it may not always be. The question is “Does truthfulness most demonstrate God’s character in this instance.”
This one moral absolute then becomes the measure of all moral activity and the achievement of this becomes the greatest good for all moral creatures.
One may be tempted to ask, “Which character quality is the absolute?” This is would be a great question except that God’s character is simple. In a sense it is like the difference between fresh and homogenized milk. Fresh milk can be broken down in to cream, butter milk and (what ever else milk breaks down into). God is homogenized milk—the same throughout and not broken down into component parts. We talk about God’s love or God’s mercy or God’s justice as if they were separate qualities. It is necessary to do this so that we can grasp and understand what facet of God’s overall character we are talking about. In reality these qualities cannot be understood separately and indeed they are not separate. God’s love can only be completely understood in the context of His holiness, grace, justice, etc. To try to make any one character quality preeminent is like shining only red light on a painting of many colors and thinking that we can interpret the whole magnificence of the picture. Only with the whole spectrum can we understand each part or what is to be illuminated.
It was interesting in a recent theological debate to have reactionary books from two sides suggesting that the other side took away from the glory of God. On the one hand it was said that not knowing all things exhaustively took away from the glory of God. On the other hand it was suggested that a God who could not work within a flexible framework was not as glorious as one who could work with uncertainties. Each came to what God must be, based upon what they thought was more glorious. What ever God is, is glorious, not whatever is glorious is what God is.
One of the reasons the Jews missed Christ as the Messiah is that when they looked at the two descriptions of the Messiah as conquering king and suffering servant they thought the conquering king was more glorious and therefore anything distracting from that was unacceptable. Some today reject the earthly reign of Christ because they feel that the suffering servant is the glorious standard that would be detracted from by a conquering king. In truth, without both aspects Jesus Christ would be reduced to something less than the full glory of God. We often do this when we have preconceived ideas of what God should be or do based on personal preference or theology. It is the emphasis of one character quality over others that leads to most heresy and misguided Christianity.
Now we get to the bottom line question, “What is the moral action to be taken in any given situation?” The answer: "That action which reflects God’s character." In other words, what would God do in this situation. It is not “What is the loving thing” or “What is the just thing.” These are only one facet of God’s character and out of balance with the whole. So while speaking the truth is most often the right thing to do, it may not always be. The question is “Does truthfulness most demonstrate God’s character in this instance.”
This one moral absolute then becomes the measure of all moral activity and the achievement of this becomes the greatest good for all moral creatures.
