Archaeology and textual criticism are objective, scholarly disciplines that confirm the authenticity of a large portion of scripture but the Bible also gains credibility through some of its subjective attributes.  For example, its overall message of forgiveness and eternal life through submission to the moral authority of Jesus Christ has been dramatically transforming lives by the millions for centuries.

The world is filled with people who have been delivered from the oppressive constraints of apathetic and purposeless lives, depression, criminal behavior, various addictions, broken relationships, insecurity or mental illness.  The ranks of those whose grapple with existence has been eased includes the obviously destitute, but not exclusively, as those ranks also include "successful" people from all walks of life who claim they were positively and permanently changed by the “Word” of God.

Although all warranties expire at the cemetery, some relief from the ravages of civilization on the human psyche has been offered by practitioners in the fields of psychiatry, psychology, religion, and self-realization. If the entire human race were polled, however, not one person would claim that they experienced instantaneous and permanent deliverance from some overwhelming burden by sitting in a psychiatrist’s office, taking a pill, attending an AA meeting, reading a self-realization hand-book or joining a church.  Yet that is exactly what “born-again” Christians vociferously maintain happened to them.  How could words in a book accomplish something so climactic and unique?  Christians say that anyone believing and acting on the words of the Bible will experience an encounter of deep spiritual significance and that this encounter is the root cause of their transformation. Read the following scripture.

"And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him: for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." John 14:16,17

This passage is just one of many explaining that belief in the Son of God as portrayed in the Bible brings about some type of individual experience with the supernatural, in this case the “Holy Spirit”.  Christians say this experience is the spontaneous process of becoming intimate with a personality of overwhelming influence.  Historians say that “personality”, Jesus Christ, is a religious prophet from antiquity and allude to His role as the initiator of the Christian religion, but His followers do not think of Him that way.  Rather than thinking of Jesus the way Americans think of George Washington, as a founder, they say He lives, and that they have some sort of ongoing relationship with Him.  But if His power to influence individual members of the human race is no greater than any other dead man, or He is simply the product of an ancient myth and never existed, as some skeptics maintain, then millions of people all over the world are suffering from a massive delusion as to the status of this person.  They believe He is alive and has a continuing dynamic effect on their lives as opposed to being just another inspirational, but deceased, role model.  

This puts skeptics in a quandary.  How could a mass delusion of this sort perpetuate itself for thousands of years and infect millions of people who seem to be normal in all other respects?  They are holding jobs, raising families and are generally as productive as other members of their particular society.  And let us not brush this off as a mild neurosis of some sort.  People who say they have a relationship with a dead person are seriously unbalanced.  If they said they were interacting with Abraham Lincoln or Napoleon, we wouldn't turn our backs on them.  But despite the implausibility of a theory postulating that mass emotional hysteria has, for centuries, caused millions of culturally normal members of the population to claim that they have a relationship with a dead man, skeptics so adamantly insist that Jesus Christ could not be alive that a social psychosis of this sort is what they offer as an explanation for the phenomena, supposedly for scientific reasons.  They say science proves that a miracle, such as the resurrection of a man from the dead, cannot occur. So we are again confronted with the skeptical presupposition that the supernatural does not exist, although a mass psychosis of the type they propose has no historical parallel and cannot be rationally explained according to known scientific principles.  That being the case, it is irrational to conclude that millions of people are identically deluded, but instead, reasonable to consider the born again experience evidence for the Bible’s credibility. It is another instance where a prediction made in the Bible, in this case a prediction describing specific cognitive effects that God will have on individual men under certain circumstances, is fulfilled exactly as predicted. 

Of course when confronted with this, skeptics quickly shift gears and say the spiritual epiphany described by Christians results from cultural indoctrination.  They forget that the phenomena had its beginnings with grown men who said they began their relationship with Jesus Christ while living in a society that not only damned them for their new beliefs but executed the object of those beliefs, Jesus Christ, because He had fervently indicted their religious culture as hypocritical.

So neither will cultural indoctrination suffice as an explanation for the phenomena.  Cultural indoctrination into a religious system occurs but it is an ongoing process beginning in childhood and continuing throughout one's lifetime.  Fervent Christians, including the very first ones, generally claim their experience began at a specific point in time and that it overturned everything their culture taught them to believe.

The typical response Christians meet when telling their  story of a supernatural encounter during their conversion is skepticism.  The “experience” is written off as an emotional response to some crisis in life.  They were looking for a “crutch” to lean on and Christianity filled the need. But how could an all encompassing “new leaf" remain turned for the balance of an entire life if only sustained by mere emotion? Something tangible must be present in order to nourish the mental and spiritual commitment manifested by Christians, and they will tell you it is the interaction of their very soul with that of a “person” known to them as Jesus Christ.    

We must keep in mind that Christians do not claim to be adherents to the teachings of some ancient prophet, as do members of the world's other major religions, but are boldly claiming to know Jesus Christ. They are alleging to know Him in the same way people say they know someone with whom they intimately share life. They say their "introduction" to Him deeply and profoundly affected their lives and liken it to beginning a brand new existence.

So without independently testing the truth of declarations made by Christians that Christ is alive and available for an introduction, we must admit there is no valid reason to simply dismiss the assertions of millions of people for two millennia.  Open mindedness, the mental state we seek in our search for truth, dictates that we at least take a close look at the book revealing this supposed personal relationship between men and the "Son of God”.  That is exactly what we are doing and if that book appears to be credible, we can find out for ourselves if there is any truth to the allegation that we have an opportunity to literally meet and become spiritually intimate with a man who claimed to be divine.  In the meantime, we can ask if there is other subjective evidence for the Bible’s credibility, and there is.

According to Christians, the primary by-product of the instantaneous transformation in their lives is peace of mind through the assurance of eternal life in the presence of God.  From a rational perspective though, the assurance Christians talk about is difficult to grasp. How can anyone know for sure about eternal salvation if there is no way to peek beyond the grave?  The Bible guarantees assurance through the presence of the Spirit of God.  Following are several scriptures describing the nature of that presence.

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name." John 1:12

  “The one who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself..." 1 John 5:10

"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life." 1 John 5:13

 "Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge." 2 Corinthians 1:21-22

"In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise..." Ephesians 1:13

These scriptures make the author’s intention clear.  He obviously wants those who accept the Bible’s message of submission to Christ's authority to be assured of the promises accompanying that submission.  The evidence supporting the fact that his stated intent has been realized is, again, the existence of millions of believers who claim to possess that assurance.

The Bible makes a bold statement that a certain phenomena will occur and makes good on its promise.  We are seeing an area where this book evidences tremendous credibility, the vow to initiate and maintain a particular mind-set in the lives of certain people, that mind-set being confidence in ones eternal future, and the fulfillment of that vow.

This mind set is part and parcel of the “Christian transformation” we have been referring to and, according to Christians, must have at its foundation the recognition of personal moral depravity and the sincere desire to obey God's revealed standard of morality.  It was put this way in the Book of James.

"Therefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath, for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God.  Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.  But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves."  James 1:19-22

James writes about the “righteousness of God” but can we be sure that the Bible's standard of “righteousness” is different from the ethics of mere men?  And if so, does that difference illuminate it as uniquely and divinely inspired as opposed to other forms of law like the ancient code of Hammurabi or the common law of England?  What sets the Bible apart from these and other standards of human behavior, or makes its standard any loftier?

 It embodies the only known system of law containing a claim of divine origin whose primary command is to “love” and devote oneself unconditionally to God, the originator of that law, as well as other men. The concept of love as the scale upon which all moral judgments and motives are weighed sets the Bible apart and makes it unique in the body of ethics and the rules of social behavior as historically practiced by mankind. But in order to determine if that distinctiveness provides any confidence in the Bible as being divinely revealed, we must analyze and understand how and why moral codes originate to begin with.

There is the naturalist view and, of course, it is based on the presupposition that naturalism explains life’s origin and that Darwinian evolution explains the ultimate arrival of morality through mankind.  Naturalists believe all moral codes, including the Bible’s, originated solely within the mind of man over time according to principals of natural selection, that moral codes are a survival mechanism for societies and appear late in earth’s history because societies themselves appear late in earth’s history.  They say moral codes forbidding murder and theft, for example, by levying punishment upon the individual guilty of violating any such code, protect the social order and promote survival of the species.  It sounds plausible except that upon analysis, it seems that naturalists have overlooked what appears to be an inherent trait within our species, the conscience.

The conscience is an inner itch making us feel irritatingly uneasy when we have failed to do the right thing, which is a vastly different concept than feeling guilt because of an overt legal infraction.  A dog will display guilt after urinating on the carpet but is completely incapable of feeling guilt for failing to share its food with a neighbor’s puppy. That brand of moral sensitivity is reserved for mankind, a species created in the image of a God who, according to the Bible, says we should love our neighbors. The sweeping presence of this altruistic sixth sense within our species is difficult to reconcile if our appearance on earth was driven by natural selection, that is, survival of the fittest.

We suspect that the occasional moral uneasiness we feel is something more than a learned response to impending punishment, as in the case of a dog who knows it has misbehaved, because it surfaces even when we haven't done something “illegal”.  Maybe we gloated at someone's misfortune or broke a promise or passed by someone in need, ignoring his plight because we were too busy.  Maybe we lied about our busy schedule to someone who was really looking forward to seeing us.  In any case, human beings are distressingly subject to the awareness that selfishness is subtle moral erosion, that self-indulgence is wrong. But if egocentric behavior is not prohibited and we are judicially “innocent”, why does it bother us?  Probably because there has been an ethical or moral transgression and our conscience has served as judge and jury.  As moral creatures, we have the ability to recognize right and wrong and when we fail to do what is right, we know it.  Just because we haven't violated one of society’s laws, which change with the wind, it doesn't necessarily follow that a law hasn't been broken.  One probably has, our Creator's.

In fact, the very concept of right and wrong or good and evil is nonsense if we are products of naturalist evolution and posses no more of the “spirit” of God than sharks, wolves or hawks.  It would be ludicrous to brand one of these creatures “evil” or “guilty” for eating a neighbor’s infant and killing its parent for interfering.  It would be equally absurd to expect those creatures, our supposed kinfolk, to behave in a “virtuous” manner by “mercifully” sparing the life of a competitor for food, concepts incompatible with a pure survival instinct.  Abstractions such as generosity, mercy and self-sacrifice manifest themselves significantly only in the human species, and very often in the midst of tragedies like genocide, famine or plague when those “evils” would actually assist the survival of modern man if they were promoted or allowed to run their course.  There is obvious agreement between vastly differing cultures that such things are bad and that to eliminate them is good, meaning there is universal agreement as to what mankind’s moral sixth sense perceives as worthy or corrupt. 

The human conscience, the desire for virtue by men of all races, the ubiquitous recognition of the very concept of evil - these realities fit far more easily into the model of a universe populated by an innately moral species created by an innately moral God.  A naturalist would say guilt associated with the failure to be virtuous is a learned response to a specific cultural ethical standard. But the question is, how could virtue become a cross-cultural universal goal within a species whose primary instinct was simply to survive?

 We assume a creator because of the scientific evidence and further assume he provided us with a conscience because its presence is incompatible with naturalist dogma.  It is responsible for our development as the only morally concerned species on earth.  The primary result of that development is our concept of law.  Because we are moral beings, we establish laws governing behavior and administer punishment to those who violate those laws. We consider punishment suiting the crime to be just and the administration of justice to be a virtue. When a law has been broken, guilt is determined. The matter of guilt is sometimes in question but once that determination is made, there is never a question of whether or not punishment is warranted.  It is always the consequence of guilt or justice could not be served.

We establish laws, determine guilt and punish offenders because that is what moral beings do.  A fair inference would be that the judicial parameters regulating the moral standard of a moral God who had created moral beings would be similar to his creatures, only perfect.  The supposition would be that when God’s standard has been breached, guilt is imputed and justice must be administered.  Why would it be otherwise?  Let’s explore the possibility a little further.

Our Creator, as a moral being, must define the basic attributes of righteousness and we would expect that he gave us the ability to recognize the truth of those attributes by exercising our powers of perception as logically thinking moral beings.  A hypothetical conversation between two theists, we will call them Goodman and Smudge, will help us in that endeavor.

Over coffee, they agree that people must be good to avoid the consequences of justice meted out by a moral God.  Goodman says he's good and that he will be spared on that basis.  He defends his goodness by saying such things as, "I really don't hurt anyone; I only stole a candy bar when I was a kid; I do not dwell on bad things in my mind; I am sincerely sorry when I slip up", and so forth.

Smudge, on the other hand, says he's not good at all and accordingly will reap the consequences of his corrupt moral status.  Goodman is intrigued and asks Smudge why he thinks of himself as not good. Smudge puzzles Goodman by describing a life style identical to Goodman’s and so the two men find themselves impaled on the horns of a dilemma.  Their behavior seems to be similar but one feels he is good and the other feels he is not good. Obviously, one of them is wrong. (The dilemma they confront represents the problem created by the mass of conflicting moral systems imposed upon us by various societies. Where does the truth lie?)

They pursue the matter a little further. They decide the problem is rooted in their definition of good, so they look it up in Webster's. Webster says good means "morally excellent." Immediately they realize "good" can be defined relatively or absolutely.  In other words, they recognize that something may be thought of as perfectly good or partially good.  An "A" on a math exam would be considered excellent but if the "A" was achieved because of a score of 95%, it wasn't a perfect "A". Smudge admits that he defines good as perfectly good and thinks his theft of a candy bar disqualifies him from being perfectly good because the theft was a moral flaw and he points out that Webster's definition of perfect is a "flawless condition".

Goodman takes a different approach. He analyzes the situation and sees his options. He realizes that his claim to goodness is based upon a preponderance of what he considers as goodness outweighing a minimal presence of badness.  He also recognizes that he's not perfectly good but says he's good based on a grade of 95%, or so, and that's not a problem for him as he thinks a grade of 95% will enable him to avoid judgment. He defines good as being more good than bad and says Smudge is actually good but is mistaken about the meaning of good.

They talk some more and Goodman agrees that perfect, as a concept, is valid. He agrees that the equation (.5x = x/2) is an example of a perfect concept but points out that perfection can also be relative to the situation. "A glass of water tainted with a little dust may be perfect for quenching a parched throat, but not for a lab experiment," says Goodman. They finally agree that their concepts of good and bad are both valid, but in terms of the requirement for perfect justice to be executed, maybe not.  If 95% good is acceptable, then Goodman has a chance to avoid the just hand of God, and so does Smudge. 

But Smudge challenges Goodman by insisting that perfect goodness is a requirement for avoiding judgment.  He says, "If perfection is valid as a concept, then God, as the ultimate of all concepts, must be morally perfect and if God is morally perfect, He must be perfectly just and a perfectly just God could not allow His code to be violated at all without exercising judgment.  If He did, it would violate His perfect nature. So the idea that a perfect God would allow morally flawed people to escape judgment is folly.  If He did, He would be imperfect and might even allow evil to go unpunished, or change His mind about who is good or bad, and if that were the case, why bother trying to get a good grade? Or maybe He doesn't exist at all and so again, why bother trying to get a good grade?  In fact, because we're not morally perfect and the only scenario that makes sense is a perfect God allowing only morally perfect beings to escape judgment, why bother striving for a good grade?  The pursuit of virtue is ultimately futile.  We should exercise cunning, viciousness and greed in order to take advantage of every pleasure we can, no matter how perverse, while we're here."

Goodman scratches his head, wondering why Smudge even makes a modest effort to be good if he feels that way, and then says he's perfect in God's eyes because he will be judged by God for his motives, which are basically good.  Smudge agrees that goodness and badness can only be judged by motive, that the outside act has nothing whatsoever to do with goodness or badness, and gives Goodman an example. He says a knife cutting flesh in surgery is a morally neutral act until the motive is discovered. If the knife is being wielded as compassionate surgery, it's good.  If the surgeon is trying to earn extra money to support his obsession for child pornography, it's bad. Goodman sees the point, that all deeds must be traced back to their motives to be qualified as good or bad and concedes that because he has been influenced by “less than ideal” motives at times, he may not be perfect, especially in God's eyes. He agrees it's no use trying to achieve perfection, as he can never totally avoid being influenced by ulterior motives.  Goodman starts fidgeting and actually becomes indignant. He asks Smudge why, if no one is perfect, should anyone be singled out and judged by God?  It doesn’t seem fair.  At this point he goes off on a tangent and warns Smudge that if he continues to think of himself as bad, it will simply cause him to experience guilt, which is not only uncomfortable but damaging to his self-esteem.

At the mention of the word guilt Smudge becomes serious.  He says guilt is like pain, a warning mechanism, and that masking guilt with self-imposed self-esteem is like taking pain killers for a hernia.  It may mask the pain so well the hernia is ignored and gets worse.  Smudge continues and makes Goodman feel really bad. He says,

"As long as you've broached the subject of guilt, consider this.  Not only are impure motives and deeds moral flaws causing imperfect moral status and disqualifying one from being considered good, they are transgressions of a perfect moral code and convey forever the status of guilt on the transgressor."

He asks Goodman what is the best course of action for a guilty man to take when standing before a judge.  Goodman walks away shaking his head and mumbling and does not even hear Smudge answer his own question. “Plead guilty and ask for mercy”, says Smudge.

If God exists, and from what we have seen in previous chapters it would appear that He does, it seems extremely difficult to avoid what Smudge insinuated. Based simply upon our morally perceptive intuitiveness, we exist in a universe governed by a perfectly just administrator with all the implications thereof.  But what Smudge failed to mention was that perfect justice could only be served if the moral code of God had been revealed to men, otherwise how could God justly hold men responsible for failing to live up to the code? How could we punish one of our children for eating all the cookies if we had never told the child it was wrong?  The Bible claims to be the unique revelation of God’s moral standard, to which we will be held accountable.  It further asserts that the standard is perfect, that all men are imperfect, that they are incapable of upholding it, that they have knowingly and willingly transgressed the standard and have ultimately set up their own.

If that be the case, then the Bible’s moral gauge may be considered subjective evidence for its overall credibility if that gauge directly corresponds with our intuitive moral instinct, is supremely unique in comparison to moral standards initiated by men, and society in general mirrors what the Bible asserts to be the moral state of men.  

So what is the biblical standard, God’s law, and how does the Bible specifically describe man in relationship to that law.  The standard is expressed in the Ten Commandments.  They are a list of dos as well as don’ts, meaning there is no escape in isolationism.  They are absolute in their nature and seem to be free of any loop-holes.  And they have never been referred to as the ten suggestions, except by those who would snicker at a firing squad.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS  Exodus 20:1-17

1. You shall have no other Gods before me.

2 You shall not make for yourself any carved image.

3 You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

4 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

5 Honor your father and mother.

6 You shall not murder.

7 You shall not commit adultery.

 Jesus Christ summed up the spirit of these commandments when he quoted from Deuteronomy and Leviticus in Matthew 22:37 while being questioned by a lawyer.

He said to him, (the lawyer)“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment and the second is like it:  You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 

In the famous “Sermon on the Mount”, also in the Book of Matthew, Christ thoroughly illustrated the requirements for perfect fulfillment of the moral law of God as expressed in His summary of the Ten Commandments. That sermon clearly declares that obedience to the moral imperatives of God is rooted in motive. We are expected to go through life respecting our neighbor’s life, property, honor and welfare above our own.  We are also expected to be thankful to God for the gift of life as sincerely virtuous beings, displaying mercy, empathy, generosity, compassion and humility while restraining the impulse to pursue our own interests. The Bible says that we intuitively know this as a species through our God given moral sense, the conscience. The Bible describes the conscience as a moral law written upon the hearts of men by God.

"who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness..." Romans 2:15

That is why, when confronted with the complete and undiminished moral law of God as revealed through Moses, the prophets and ultimately the messiah, Jesus Christ, we are instinctively aware of its pure and impeccable nature. A little honest reflection tells us we have hopelessly failed if we are measured against the moral standard of the Bible. The existence of a healthy conscience may even stir up a sense of guilt and the desire to pursue virtue.  This, however, is what Paul the Apostle had to say about the overall moral condition of men and their general reaction to the revelation of God.

Romans 1:20-25 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man... and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.  Amen.

Romans:  2:1-3 "Therefore you are without excuse, "every man of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

Romans 3:10-18 “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps [is] under their lips: Whose mouth [is] full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet [are] swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery [are] in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

2 Timothy 3:1-7 “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. Men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. This sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

These few scriptures are but a small sampling of a continuing theme appearing from beginning to end within the pages of the Bible.  That theme is the revelation of God’s moral standard to men and their failure to abide by it.  Man’s failure is consistently predicted and subsequently recorded as following one of two courses.  He either becomes religious, editing the perfect, love oriented holy code of God into a worldly miscarriage of rituals and pious attitudes he can outwardly fulfill or he rebels and sets his own standard, also one he can fulfill.  According to the Bible, all of mankind can easily be placed into one or the other of these two categories.  Furthermore, mankind believes that the perfect fulfillment of his moral system, whichever it may be, is inherently within his ability. In other words, he believes he is good according to the standard he practices, whether it be his own or the standard of the world-view to which he claims allegiance.

On the other hand, God’s moral code, as revealed in the Bible, is unique in that it is NOT attainable and CAN NOT be fulfilled by any man. If any man reads Christ’s interpretation of God’s law, noting that lust is considered adultery, the desire for revenge is considered murder, the failure to forgive and the failure to love one’s enemy is a moral transgression, to be charitable other than anonymously is hypocrisy, to pursue wealth is idolatry and even to worry about the future is a breach of trust in God, and that man still claims to be good in light of that law, he is deluded to the level of psychosis or arrogant and sanctimonious beyond comprehension.

Love is the dynamic behind God’s law and is responsible for the extensive chasm between it and man’s ability to fulfill it, as no man is capable of perfect, unconditional love on a continuing basis towards his creator and fellow man. No man could, or would, present such an impossible moral task for himself or his brethren.  But God certainly might, and so we see that simply because of the irreconcilable difference between the biblical moral code itself and the possibility of man’s adherence to it, we can consider that difference to be evidence affirming what the Bible says about itself, that it was inspired by a being other than us, presumably a perfect moral being.

But of course men object, reserving the authority as rational and intelligent social creatures to decide for themselves what is morally right or wrong, regardless of what the Bible says.  Their position, however, that of relying on human ethical systems of behavior to determine what is morally correct, may be eternally risky.  Maybe a message of moral authority and clarity is desperately needed by men naive enough to think that they can change their moral code to fit circumstances and remain aloof from the judgment of God.  Actually, in the absence of absolute moral authority, if men are left to their own devices, legal codes, that is systems ideally designed to protect the rights and lives of the individual, will instead ultimately serve the economic and cultural elite, as evidenced in the world today.

But naturalists and religious liberals, for different reasons, spend much of their time philosophically denying the guilt of an absolute moral God given code.  The worlds of psychiatry and psychology seem to join in this endeavor by promoting the idea that guilt is harmful and should be suppressed.  But the conscience serves a useful purpose and the suppression of its testimony can be devastating, akin to snipping the wires on a fire alarm because the bell is irritating. Both the bell and the conscience were created as a protective mechanism.  Both are intended to warn of danger.  When our conscience says we are guilty and we seek the advice of professionals who appease us, it is the same as a thief seeking vindication for his crimes from his fellow convicts.  They may agree with him but the judge will see it different.

That is the primary reason we need moral authority in our lives.  Without it we tend to seek appeasement for our guilt, which relieves the discomfort it causes but numbs us to the dangerous reality that our guilt will reap consequences if our moral creator is perfectly just.  It may behoove us to reflect on those consequences. The second reason we need moral authority in our lives is that our consciences will ultimately become skewed without it.  It goes without saying that we are imperfect moral creatures as we have all committed moral transgressions. So as imperfect and fundamentally self-serving moral creatures left to our own devices regarding the establishment of ethics and moral standards, we will eventually advance standards that suit our own purposes. Our consciences will become dulled to the unselfish/self-sacrificing virtues we know in our hearts represent true righteousness. Our corporate human standards will deteriorate and become corrupt. The results will be the same as those deriving from the conscious suppression of guilt.  Our consciences will no longer play an active role in preventing us from violating the true standards of righteousness and we will become ignorant and apathetic regarding the status of guilt being heaped upon us.

And further, because we are subject to imperfect and corrupt humanly devised moral standards, we will begin to reject guilt as a natural emotive response to our own behavior.  Subconsciously, we know that the guilt imposed on us by other men is falsely levied, in many cases, because the system from which the guilty verdict is rendered is flawed to begin with.  The suppression of guilt becomes commonplace and acceptable but if the guilt is justified because it results form a violation of God's code, as with men's codes, it will have consequences.

Naturalists deny the guilt of an absolute God given moral code because they deny the source of any such code, a moral God.  Therefore if the rationale for denying an absolute moral code’s existence can be discredited, that should be evidence for the existence of such a code and therefore evidence for the existence of the only being who could have originated it, God.  That is exactly what occurs through the simple exercise of reason in analyzing moral codes in general, and so because we have already digested one moral code represented as absolute and God-given, the Ten Commandments, we will use it as an example.

Consider man as the original source of the Ten Commandments.  It seems strange that Jewish nomads would tolerate the proclamation of laws commanding them, under threat of punishment for disobedience, to worship a God who demonstrated His claim to authority with miracles if there were really no miracles. It is more likely that this particular body of law originated with our maker but skeptics insist otherwise, so let’s consider four possible scenarios if they are not from God.

Either the laws are perfect or they’re not, meaning they are either correct or incorrect as to what is absolutely right or wrong.  Also, man is either perfect or not, meaning he never fails to do what is morally correct or he occasionally fails.

Here then are the four possible scenarios.

1. Man is imperfect and he gave us an imperfect set of moral laws.

2. Man is imperfect and he gave us a perfect system of law.

3. Man is perfect and he originated an imperfect moral code.

4. Man is perfect and the law he legislated is perfect.

Consider them one at a time.

Man, an imperfect moral being, originated them and they are imperfect, presumably because an imperfect being could not originate a morally perfect set of laws.  But to conclude that the Ten Commandments are imperfect, or any moral laws for that matter, regardless of why, presents a problem.  It would mean that the laws are flawed in their presentation of what is truly right and wrong.  A perfect moral law, on the other hand, would distinguish between right and wrong by stating with certainty what is right or wrong.  For the law to be judged imperfect (flawed or incorrect) would be an admission that its imperfection was based upon the existence of a perfect, unflawed and correct moral law.  Nothing can be judged imperfect except in comparison to itself in a state of perfection. To say that a state of perfection for a law is impossible is to say that any law is perfect, in and of itself, as there is no standard with which to compare it.  All laws would be unflawed and valid regardless of their source, including contradictory laws, meaning anarchy and chaos are simply brute conditions not to be rendered either good or bad. In other words, we must conclude that perfect and correct moral laws exist or be honest and abandon forever the pursuit of purpose and meaning. But if perfect moral laws do exist, man couldn’t be the source and couldn’t be trusted to pass judgment on any moral laws because of his imperfection. If perfect moral laws exist, only God could be the source.  Scenario #1 infers that God originated a perfect moral law and its discovery by us will only take place if that law is revealed to us by God. (That, by the way, is one of the reasons we have been looking at the Bible.)

Maybe imperfect man gave us a perfect set of laws by accident.  (Scenario #2)  This is as far-fetched as the accidental origin of life, but if he did and the laws are perfect, then they are true.  We are in trouble because of the first commandment, regardless of where they came from.  Skeptics must discard this scenario immediately because if they are perfect and true, we are obligated to obey them and the first one commands us to worship the God of the Bible.

But maybe man is perfect and he gave us an imperfect set of laws. (scenario #3)  We have already looked at the results of an imperfect set of moral laws.  They are useless and simply witness to the existence of perfect moral laws.  Besides, this is an impossible scenario because a perfect being could not originate an imperfect set of laws without disqualifying his position of perfection.  It is also empty-headed to consider for a second that man is perfect.  Even skeptics will admit we are morally flawed, albeit reluctantly.

Well, maybe they originated with man and they are perfect because man is perfect, the last possibility available unless they are from God.  If that was the case, then man would have the capacity to obey these laws perfectly, him being the perfect author of a perfect set of laws.  We can’t do it and never could.  There hasn’t been an honest man yet who claimed he could, except One.  So far His claims are beyond dispute.  We should examine ourselves and see if we measure up.   Why can't we obey these laws?  Because we are not perfect.  Therefore scenario #4 is invalid.

In drawing the salient points from our reflections on the source of moral absolutes, we must insist that man isn't perfect, a conclusion requiring little defense.  Second, correct moral laws must exist and they are the standard upon which all morality must be compared as to its correctness.  Man can’t be trusted to establish the standard but possibly it's been revealed and the Bible appears to be a likely candidate.  The moral code of God, as revealed by Jesus Christ in his summary and explanation of the moral principals underlying the Ten Commandments, because it speaks so directly to our conscience and because it appears in a credible manuscript claiming to be inspired by our Creator, is more than likely God's law.

To adopt the opposite position is to say moral truth is relative and, as we saw in Chapter 2, that philosophy forces the adherent to live a contradiction.  He says nothing is always wrong but when his life or family are threatened, he will seek protection from the absolute variety of moral law by insisting that murder and rape are the exception to relativism.

If a moral value is relative, it must be relative to a moral value that existed previously.  In other words, if we rationalize behavior as acceptable under a particular set of circumstances, we are doing so because that behavior must have been judged as wrong sometime in the past under the same or different circumstances.  This must be so or we wouldn't find ourselves having to rationalize the behavior as right.  As we move back in time, we eventually arrive at a beginning.  The truth of moral values can’t recede beyond that point, meaning there are no previous circumstances with which to relate any particular moral dictate.  So the truth of moral values is what it was in the beginning.  The only way out of this is to insist that there is no beginning, but the reality of the big bang negates that position.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis1:1

Moral truth, therefore, lies with the “Initiator”. The Bible agrees with this and does not make the mistake of misleading its readers into living a contradiction.  It tells it like it is.  It says right is right, always was and always will be.  It doesn't subject morality to seasonal variation depending upon who organizes the biggest parade. 

The Bible gives us assurance about where the line is and what the consequences are if we cross it.  It also tells us how to get back on the right side of the line before those consequences take effect.  It teaches us that what we teach our children can in turn be passed on to their children.  It teaches with authority and does not patronize every fleeting whim.  That, in and of itself, is moral credibility.  In the interest of making a point and in fairness to the memory of Mark Twain, we will quote him out of context.

Mark Twain said, "Most people are bothered by those passages of scripture they do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand." We all understand the Ten Commandments.  What they set forth as a moral standard 3500 years ago is morally correct today.

   We have seen that evolution, as a theory for our origin, is hopelessly naive.  Nor does it offer a viable explanation for the existence of morality or the phenomena of worship.  How can it hope to rationalize man's need to create poetry, music and paintings?  It didn't, couldn't and consequently should be relegated to the past along with assumptions that the universe is infinitely old.

 We have seen the obvious stamp of intelligent planning and design within the DNA housed genetic code for all living organisms and how the universe had to be specifically organized in order to support life.  Realizing that a creator existed, we concluded that He may have revealed Himself through someone.  Because Jesus Christ claimed to be that someone, we decided to take a hard look at Him by examining His credentials, the Bible.

            We have seen the Bible to be historically correct, morally sound, immutable, life changing and irrepressible.  It is a good candidate for the revelation we have been seeking.  One vital confirmation remains and that is to authenticate the “seal” of the Creator.  If that examination bears out, we can begin the process of becoming familiar with the entity responsible for our existence.

                        CHAPTER 11

THE STAMP