Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 28:3 (Sep 1985)
Article: Should We Uphold Unchanging Moral Absolutes?
Author: Greg L. Bahnsen

---

JETS 28:3 (September 1985) p. 309

Should We Uphold Unchanging Moral Absolutes?

Greg L. Bahnsen*

Expressing philosophical hesitation about a “divine command theory of ethics,” Douglas E. Chismar and David A. Rausch in a recent issue of JETS have raised a challenge to the idea of an enduring written code of unchanging moral absolutes.1 Since the occasion of their critique was my lecture, “The Immutability of God’s Commands,2 delivered to the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society at Toronto in 1981, I am glad to offer a brief reply here.3

Cultural relativism and situationist ethics are popular twentieth-century expressions of an underlying philosophical position (ethical nominalism or existentialism) that maintains that only particulars, only individual circumstances, count in a moral judgment. 4 The morally relevant factors in any situation are too numerous for any two situations to be ethically identical, for any prescription to apply across the board. In short, there are no general classes of moral situations—no simple types or categories of cases—for which pre-established and universal dictates can determine a course of action. Every situation is unique. Thus Joseph Fletcher argues that every case must be handled on its own. No guidance in law-form can be given in advance, even when we are thinking in the vaguest way of love.5

Theonomic ethics, like every truly evangelical approach to morality, takes a decided stand against this kind of philosophical perspective. There are objective, nonarbitrary and universal principles of morality that apply in advance

*Greg Bahnsen is dean of Newport Graduate School in California.

JETS 28:3 (September 1985) p. 310

to general types (or classes) of situations.6 My lecture indicated that these principles are found in God’s character.7 As such they are not dependent upon human decision but are objective. Since they characterize the very nature of God-not simply his volition or random choice—they are not arbitrary. Since God made all things, controls all history, and knows every detail of every situation in the world, he is not prevented from making advance judgments about the same kinds of moral circumstances. Finally, since God himself is ever the same (immutable in character), the moral principles expressive of his nature are universal in validity, applying to all men in all places at all times.<...

visitor : : uid: ()