Geisler vs Fletcher on ethics

1 Cor. 10:13 only promises victory from temptation, not deliverance from moral dilemmas.  In fact, the very fact of martyrdom means the martyr isn’t delivered from at least one bad consequence.

Degrees of Absolutism

Explained:

  1. There are higher and lower moral laws.
  2. There are unavoidable moral conflicts
  3. No guilt is imputed for the unavoidable.

Illustrated:

  1. Love for God is more important than love for man.
  2. Obey God over Government
  3. Mercy over veracity (Nazis at the door).

 

  1. Can one really define agape-love without recourse to revelation? Why can we privilege the term agape, itself drawn from revelation, while saying the rest of revelation is off-limits?
  2. Unless there is some cognitive content to what “love” is, then one doesn’t really know what I am commanded to do.
  3. Fletcher says we can’t “milk universals from a universal” (Fletcher 27). What he means is we can make principles from “the law of love,” but not rules. But why not?
  4. who gets to determine what “good” means? Fletcher himself? From where does he get this knowledge? From Jesus and the Bible? That sounds like literalism. Even worse, his position offers no protection to minority viewpoint, since by definition they will never been in the “greater” number.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s