>My reasoning on the point is similar to that of Phil Johnson in his recent
>book REASON IN THE BALANCE. Is marriage of man or God? If of man, anything
>man agrees to goes. Who's to judge - the Grand Sez Who?
>If marriage is of God, as I'm assuming anyone who
>joined ASA agrees with (but dissenters, please speak up), shouldn't that be
>part of the justification of a conclusion?
I don't know what Phil Johnson said, but Carson expresses a common sentiment
I have heard among evangelicals: that the secular world, without benefit of
the Bible as a moral authority, is "off the hook" in the sense that "anything
man agrees to goes. Who's to judge?"
Note the implication of this: that if we are believers, we have no right
to dictate ethics to anyone who is not a believer. Even regarding views
about marriage, children etc. No matter how heinous the crime, in this
view we can expect no moral responsibility on the part of unbelievers.
Cast in this light, I'm sure anyone can see that this view is invalid.
Sometimes in our terminology we can become "too Christian". We talk about
a "Christian" way to do science, a "Christian world view", a "Christian
environmental ethic". Poppycock. If something is right, it is right,
irrespective of religious belief or lack thereof.
"All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and
all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. ... When
Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are
a law unto themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show
that what the law requires is written on their hearts...." Rom. 2:12-15
Paul Arveson, Research Physicist
Code 724, NSWC, Bethesda, MD 20084
(301) 227-3831 (W) (301) 227-1914 (FAX) (301) 816-9459 (H)