KJV Romans 2 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; [their conscience…: or, the conscience witnessing with them; the mean…: or, between themselves] 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Many Christians claim moral superiority of having the truth on their side, judging and condeming others not having accepted their truth. But what does Paul teach? Gentiles doing by nature the things contained in the law, shewing the law written on their heart and their conscience bearing witness/judging them. How is that possible?

C.S. Lewis used the argument that the existence of universal moral values reasons for the existence of a universal moral Lawgiver. This argument of the existence of an universal accepted moral standard mirroring perfection maintains that the source of the objective moral values we experience must be an ultimately perfect Being.

C. S. LEWIS (1898-1963)

C. S. Lewis used an advanced form of the moral argument for God’s existence in his work Mere Christianity.1 Lewis argued that man’s idea of right and wrong is a clue to the meaning of the universe.2 Lewis reasoned that there must exist a universal moral law for several reasons. First, all moral disagreements between persons imply an appeal to a standard of behavior to which all persons are subject.3 People accused of doing wrong usually claim that their action did not violate the universal standard, or that they somehow had a special excuse for not submitting to the standard in this particular case.4 They do not usually deny the standard itself. Second, quarreling often occurs when one person tries to prove that the action of another person is wrong. However, the fact that two people quarrel about whether or not an action was moral implies that they agree that there is such a thing as right and wrong.5 One person claims the action was right; the other person claims the action was wrong. What they agree upon is the concept of right and wrong (the moral law).67 For instance, when confronted with imminent danger, a man may desire to run for safety but instead chooses to disregard his own well-being to rescue another. Therefore, the moral law is not man’s basic instincts. Instead, it judges between these instincts to determine which instinct is to be applied in the specific situation.8

For instance, when confronted with imminent danger, a man may desire to run for safety but instead chooses to disregard his own well-being to rescue another. Therefore, the moral law is not man’s basic instincts. Instead, it judges between these instincts to determine which instinct is to be applied in the specific situation.For instance, when confronted with imminent danger, a man may desire to run for safety but instead chooses to disregard his own well-being to rescue another. Therefore, the moral law is not man’s basic instincts. Instead, it judges between these instincts to determine which instinct is to be applied in the specific situation.For instance, when confronted with imminent danger, a man may desire to run for safety but instead chooses to disregard his own well-being to rescue another. Therefore, the moral law is not man’s basic instincts. Instead, it judges between these instincts to determine which instinct is to be applied in the specific situation.For instance, when confronted with imminent danger, a man may desire to run for safety but instead chooses to disregard his own well-being to rescue another. Therefore, the moral law is not man’s basic instincts. Instead, it judges between these instincts to determine which instinct is to be applied in the specific situation.Lewis also believed that it is wrong to say that this moral law is merely a social convention.9 For not everything that man has learned from others is a social convention. Some things, like mathematics, would be true even if it was never taught.10 The moral law is like mathematics in this respect. It is real regardless of what one’s society teaches about it.11 Social progress makes no sense unless the moral law exists independent of societies.12 If the moral law is merely invented by society, then one society (America) cannot call the actions of another society (Nazi Germany) wrong.13

Lewis declared that the moral law cannot be a law of nature.14 For a law of nature is descriptive. It describes how nature is, how it usually acts. But, the moral law does not describe how nature is. The moral law is prescriptive; it prescribes how nature ought to be.15 The moral law stands above man and judges his behavior.

Lewis concluded that there exists a moral law above all men to which they are subject.16 However, matter could not be the cause of moral laws.17 Matter gives instructions to no one. Experience shows us that mind is the cause of moral laws.18 Therefore, this universal moral law that stands above all men must come from a Mind that stands above all men.19

ENDNOTES

1 C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 15-39.C. S. Lewis, , 15-39

2 Ibid., 15.

3 Ibid., 17.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid., 17-18.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid., 22-23.

8 Ibid., 23.

9 Ibid., 24.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid., 24-25.

13 Ibid., 25.

14 Ibid., 27-29.

15 Ibid., 28.

16 Ibid., 31.

17 Ibid., 34.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.