Understanding Moral Law: Freedom and Divine Care

Thank you. Well, good evening! It's great to be here. There you are! I see you guys coming in from Alabama, Georgia, Memphis, and lots of different places. Welcome to those who are coming for the first time.

Yeah, buenasetta from Martinsville, West Virginia! Absolutely, it's great to see you, Paulo. It's just fantastic to be back together again for our third week of diving into this wonderful work by C.S. Lewis. I'm just grateful for your continued presence. I'll just be honest with you; I'm always surprised when people show up. I just am. It's truly wonderful to see the hundreds that have watched, and we've had a couple of weeks actually in the thousands of people who've watched after the fact. I'm just grateful—grateful for your presence and for your time to come and study this book together in this fashion that can be done in the 21st century, like this online from all over the world.

We have people from all the way in Washington State. I just saw Joshua McCloy just showed up there from Washington State, and we've had people from China, Italy, and lots of different places that tune in each week. So, so grateful for everything and all of you—each and every one of you—and even those that watch after the fact. So if you're watching now after the fact, welcome! So glad you're here, so glad you're part of this.

I hadn't planned on putting a lot of these things on YouTube and other places, but there's just been kind of a desire for others to watch after the fact, even on platforms not like Facebook. That's what I've made available, and I've always been surprised by people watching there, and even some short takes that I've been doing on TikTok and other places like that. I'm always surprised but always grateful for your presence and your being here together.

What is an academic study in some way, but it's also meant to be a little bit more than that. Obviously, you all know I am not just a believer in God, but I am a Christian, and I do my best to live up to those standards each and every day. When I fall, I rely on the grace of God. But on the other side of it, this is more than just a book to me—not because it's holy writ, not because it is the word of God, but because it helps explain some of those things and gives context and gives depth and meaning and narrative. As a kind of professional storyteller, this is one of the things that I love.

I also see some people coming in all the way from California—Atwater, California! Welcome, Sylvia! So glad to have you with us tonight. So we're covering all the coasts. All of my dear friends in Florida, another place that tune in each week, we've been praying for you—all those of you in Georgia right now on the path of this hurricane that just came through. We've been praying for you and continue to pray for you in the aftermath of these events.

I lived in Florida a few years when my father was getting his PhD at Florida State, and I remember a couple of times when these lovely little storms once a year would come through, much like living in Arkansas. You could just have that two or three-month period where just tornadoes are going to be coming through. That's just part of life. For people outside of that, it's a little bit hard to understand what that looks like or how it feels like, but it's not always easy.

I just wanted you to know that we're praying for you. All the things that have been going on in California too, especially with—well, it depends on what part of California you are—the earthquakes or then also, I think it was a tropical storm that came through. Always keeping you guys all in my mind on that.

So, having said all that, we're going to dive into week three, which is going into chapters—if you've been following along—it's Book One, chapters three, four, and five of Mere Christianity. So we're going to do just a quick little recap just to help us kind of remind us a little bit about where we are and what we're doing.

Because I think it's helpful, especially when we look at this as a book overall, just a reminder: this was originally a radio address, and these radio addresses were specifically meant to provide comfort to a time, especially of war, where terrible things were happening, and to give voice to what is Mere Christianity—basic Christianity, the basic premise of faith and what it meant to be a Christian.

Now, Lewis is very particular that he's not trying to sell you on a brand of Christianity, but instead he's trying to tell you what the basics are. So much so that the first five chapters—really the first five whole chapters of this first book—the whole first book, in reality, is him even before he gets to the very notion that there is a God and that God is the Christian God. It is, in essence, kind of a step back and a look at what it means to be really something that exists outside of us—that there is a moral law, that there is something that is there, and it must have come from someone.

So he's making the argument—not necessarily of an intelligent designer, that's kind of a modern terminology—but that there is someone or something, a Creator, outside of where we are at this point in time.

Yes, hello from Cusco, Peru! Wow, tuning in from South America too! Fantastic! Great to have you with us.

So, again, just a quick overview of Mere Christianity: it is a book written by C.S. Lewis that explores the basic beliefs of Christianity and provides an overview of Christian theology, addressing topics such as the existence of God, the nature of morality, and the problem of evil.

Off of that, let me see here. There's kind of this importance that I want us to remind—like why we're sitting in Book One particularly right now. Obviously, we're going in order, but I don't want us to miss—sometimes when you get into the chapters, we can miss the larger picture of what Book One is trying to do.

And that's what we're finishing up tonight: studying Book One of Mere Christianity is crucial. It establishes the foundation for understanding the moral law, the source of the law, and the problem of evil, which are fundamental concepts explored throughout the book.

So this first part of the book, which is called Book One, it's these first five chapters. These are key components to his arguments that he will make. So he's laying a foundation, and so it's easy for us—if you just skip ahead or you read it or you go chapter by chapter or you get too in-depth—you can miss the grander narrative of what he's trying to do.

And also, not forget the context. The context of all of this is that there's a war going on—a world war going on—and evil has a very specific face in a very specific place. So to try to balance all of this out, he's trying to just lay the basic arguments instead of just randomly saying this is right, this is wrong. Instead of saying, "Okay, where does that come from? How do we arrive at such a thing? How do we know this to be true? How do we know what truth is?"

And so he's making these foundational claims.

In chapter three, it's the reality of the law. So just some quick broad overview breakdowns, and then we'll dive into some actual quotes, some things from the book. At the end, in chapter five, I have actually quite a long section I want to read with you because I think it's so valuable and so important for us to spend some time in it.

So, understanding the law discussed in chapter three—in chapter three of Mere Christianity, the meaning of the law is explained as the moral and the natural law that is universally applicable and serves as a reflection of the existence of a higher power.

This is a little bit confusing at times for us to understand, but he's basically saying because there is this law, this law exists, and we can't just say because it exists, then thus there must be—then the law itself is by itself. The law just kind of is. He's going to say, "No, that means that somebody had to have set forth the law."

That there's something that is being defined by the law, where someone is defining the law. And so he specifically says the reflection of an existence of a higher power.

From there, moral and natural law, he explores these concepts. Moral law refers to the principles of right and wrong that govern human behavior, while natural law is the belief that there are inherent moral laws built into the nature of the universe that guide human conduct.

In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis delves into these concepts and explores their implications for our understanding of ethics and the existence of a higher power. In fact, he uses, in chapter three in particular, quite a bit of this argument of rocks and trees—that a tree does what a tree does.

In fact, we often would say, but they're also bound by certain things. They're bound by whether or not they get enough nutrients. Rocks, for example—while you might be able to change their view or what they look like, the reality is that a rock will always be a rock.

Now, you may change it and shape it and make it into something like a building or a brick or something of that nature, but the reality is the rock will not do anything outside of what a rock does. That is what he's arguing is this concept of nature—it's natural law.

If you throw a rock, the rock does not stop to think, "Oh, I forgot there's gravity. I should fall." Instead, he's saying a rock will do what rocks do because they are bound by natural law.

Instead, humans do something different. In fact, if you think back to the first chapters, we know what the moral law is, and yet we don't always do what we know the moral law tells us is right.

That we seem to exist outside or have the ability to think outside of what the rest of the world is bound by these laws—these natural laws. And so if there are these natural laws out there that we're not bound by, the argument is that there's something different about us.

There's also something different about the law that governs us.

So understanding that universality—there's a universal nature of this that he argues kind of in the first book, especially the first couple of chapters, especially that all cultures and all people have been bound by this. They see this, they feel it.

Even the idea of right and wrong, and it's helpful to understand that the universality of this law is crucial to grasp the fundamental principles that govern human behavior and morality as it transcends cultural and societal boundaries, providing a universal framework for justice and fairness.

In fact, it's not just some cultures that have decided that killing and murder is wrong; it's all human cultures that have decided that at some point in time. There's never been, as I was talking with my students the other day, a naturally atheistic culture in history.

There have been those who have rebelled against those things and said, "You know, this is what we're going to do," but that is not the case. It's a natural evolution of just human beings who just said, "Yes, we're doing this outright."

We've never believed in a god; we've never thought of a higher power; we've never thought this was right, this was wrong from historical and cultural perspectives. That place has never existed.

You might look at what happens, especially in the 20th century, with what happens when nations choose to think that there is no longer— you could think post-modernism—you think we no longer believe that there is a right and wrong, or right and wrong is subjective, or we only do that which is better for the collective.

And you will end up seeing the bloodiest century in the history of mankind—easily the bloodiest. You have Russia in the 1950s, 60s, 70s; you have China in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and the rest before the fall of the wall in Europe.

You also have not just Mao Zedong in China, but you also have Pol Pot in Cambodia—places where they took on the premise of "We decide what is right and wrong, and this is not wrong to do this."

You can go back to Hitler and so forth, where the idea of right and wrong has been completely tossed aside. And we know and we feel that there is something wrong with that very thought process.

Yet, if we're just honest for a second, that is the cultural norm that is being pushed right now. It's this idea that truth is subjective, morality is subjective.

In fact, we see it in our school systems today; we see it in a lot of different places—this idea of subjectivity as to what is right and what is wrong.

And the grand irony is that none of us are stopping—or many of us are not stopping for two seconds to stop and go, "Based off of what are we saying this?" If truly there—we are just, you know, a cosmic accident that happened and came out of nowhere, none of us has the right to decide what is right and what is wrong.

If, however, there is a God and there is a moral lawgiver, then the things that he has set forth for our flourishing and for our good should be those things that guide us.

And so in this chapter, C.S. Lewis explores the concept of the moral law as a universal phenomenon. He emphasizes that this law isn't just a subjective creation of societies or individuals, but is rather an objective reality that transcends cultural boundaries.

Lewis likens the moral law to the law of physics. Just as physical laws govern the behavior of the natural world, the moral law governs human behavior.

Lewis's argument centers on the idea that the existence of a shared moral code points to a lawgiver who has instilled the sense of morality in all humans. He addresses the common counter-argument that cultural differences suggest a lack of universal morality, countering that while cultures may have varying interpretations of certain moral issues, the underlying principles are remarkably consistent.

He asserts that the existence of a shared moral framework implies a source beyond the material world.

So just to give you a quote that kind of gives this delight: "This law or rule or way of life is what we call the law of nature. Human beings all over Earth have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way and cannot really get rid of it."

Now, this is a fascinating thing because, as I just noted for the last century and a half, we have been doing everything we can to try to get rid of this. You look at some of the most famous statements from atheists and even philosophers in the last 150 years.

I think there was one—I forget specifically who it was—but in the next hundred years, God will be dead; there will be no more need for God. That certainly hasn't been the case.

There has been this push from major cultures and places to subjugate religion and faith to the side, so much to a point where it elevates the idea of mankind or the social aspect of what is good for everyone.

I'm not really trying to get into the politics of it, but I do want you to know this is where a lot of the underlying concepts of political movements come from—from socialism to communism and the rest—comes from this idea of power structures and taking back and trying to do better and so forth.

But at the detriment that there is no good except for that which we decide is good—what is betterment for the whole as opposed to better for the one.

And so there's a lot of movements within the political world that are deeply affected by this type of study, by this type of mentality, by this type of understanding, especially when they do their best to get rid of it, even though they cannot.

Because ultimately, they will come back to, "Is this right or is this wrong?"

And the world has happened in World War II. Is there is wrong? And we will fight this evil. No extermination of an entire people, a race of people, is evil. It's wrong. You can't do it; you shouldn't do it.

No, you should not do testing on people in those senses. And if you just go back into 2021, 2022, 2023, we have had these moments of cultural shifts and friction of what is true and what is not, what is real and what is not, and what people agree with and what they don't—misinformation, disinformation, and the rest.

And so what I'm really getting at is Lewis is not saying anything new. In fact, Lewis is saying something that keeps resonating over and over again in history.

And in fact, most of us have just experienced this again just a few years ago and are still experiencing this right now about what happens when people reject the thing that we all feel.

Now, you and I believe that not only we cannot get rid of it—this understanding that there is a way in which we should live—but what happens when a world is at war with that? That we shouldn't have to do that; instead, we decide what is right and what is wrong.

So chapter four dives in a little bit further. This is the source of the law. In chapter four of Mere Christianity, Lewis delves into the source of the law, presenting arguments from design and the existence of a lawmaker to help us understand the foundation of moral law and its implications for humanity.

The argument from design presented in chapter four explores the idea that the intricate design and order observed in the universe suggests the existence of a deliberate Creator or designer.

You also see there where Lewis explores the idea of a lawmaker behind the law, presenting the argument from design and discussing the existence of a divine Creator as the ultimate source of moral and natural law.

In this chapter, Lewis again kind of delves into the implications of the moral law for the existence of a higher power.

Now, notice at this point in time he is not referencing the premise of God or a Christian God or any of those things. He is simply making the argument from philosophy—making a rational argument.

He's making an argument devoid really of religious argument. He is simply saying, "Since this is true, and I believe this is true, and we can all not just agree with it, but we all feel it. And even if you disagree with it, you have to give me a reason how you disagree with it because you do feel it; you do understand it."

And so if that's the case, he says, "I'm going to take the next step and say that there is someone that is a lawgiver."

So he argues the existence of the moral law suggests the existence of a moral lawgiver. Lewis suggests that if the universe operates under a consistent moral framework, then there must be a transcendent entity that established this framework.

He refers to this entity as the divine reality, or as we would call it, God. That this divine reality is creating something. If you have a clock, you must have a clockmaker. This is kind of the premise that he lays out.

Lewis presents a philosophical and theological argument from design. He posits that just as the existence of a physical law implies a lawgiver, the existence of a moral law implies a moral lawgiver.

He introduces the concept of a natural or moral argument for the existence of God. Lewis acknowledges that this argument doesn't provide a detailed understanding of God's nature, but it does suggest a rational basis for belief in a higher power.

Now, this is a key component because there's a lot of people that would argue that faith in God is irrational somehow—that it doesn't actually make any sense.

In fact, it was a few years back when we were hearing a sentence that was, I think, a response to a book from an atheist friend of mine, and the book's title was "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist."

And his response was, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be a Christian." And his argument was that there's no such thing as God, there's no such thing as all these things.

And he was making, in essence, the same argument. Lewis comes back around and, in essence, is laying out this argument and saying, "Because of their physical laws, and when we see physical laws, we believe that somebody had to have set those laws into motion. Because why do they interact in that way? If it's random chance, what are the odds of that?"

And the odds have been calculated, and it's unbelievably not close to being a real rational belief that that might happen. Thus, the existence of a moral law that we feel, that we know to be right or wrong in those moments, implies a moral lawgiver.

Thus, he introduces this concept, and it's a fascinating concept.

And so here's a quote that kind of gives this: "Human beings all over the Earth have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way and cannot really get rid of it."

Secondly, that they do not, in fact, behave in that way. They know the law of nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundations of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

Now, this is a fascinating notion because did you catch the last part? They know the law of nature; they break it. These two facts—so not only do we know that which we ought to do, and we choose not to, but when we break it, we also know that what we chose was the wrong thing, which is also a sign that there is something beyond just the law—that there must be something that we have broken against, someone that has set something forth.

And this is a notion that we don't often think about. It's not that just we broke the law; it's we broke the law that someone wrote, that someone put in place.

And so when you think just in the world, you know, there's the law—like if I was to speed home tonight and get pulled over by a police officer, the law is not just that police officer. The law is the lawmakers who put it into place.

It's the actual writing of the law; it's the actual thinking of the law—the creator. So that law did not just come into existence; it has been there, and it was created by someone else.

So it's not that I just broke the law; it's also I broke that which had been set forth by others and by a specific person—the creator of that law.

If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe, no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house.

Now, I love this little note that he kind of plays out here because he's making this argument that God or this divine nature that had created all these things would not be, in essence, bound by the things within the creation.

That he would not have to showcase himself within that creation as part of the creation inherently to be real. And so he makes this notion of no more than an architect of a house could actually be a wall or a staircase or a fireplace.

To be one of those things would necessarily negate the fact that he was the creator.

If there does exist an absolute goodness, it must hate most of what we do. This is the terrible fix we are in. If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all our efforts are, in the long run, hopeless.

And so I do love that this concept of knowing—well, the balance, the paradox is what we're often seeing here.

Years ago, I tried to explain to a friend of mine the premise of joy, and it's really hard to explain joy without also understanding the depths of sorrow. You see, there are things that can make us happy in the moment, but joy is different than happiness.

Joy is a state of being. Joy is something that one not just chooses, but it's something that becomes part of who a person is. And when you understand sorrow and understand the depths of sorrow, then when you find the joy and the peace that comes with knowing God, it's just something different.

And so when Lewis says, "If there does not exist an absolute goodness, then all our efforts in the long run are hopeless," he's saying if there is no good, then what's the point of anything?

How do we even put words into the idea of sorrow or sadness if there is no hope? If there is no goodness truly, because it's all random and nothing matters, then why in the world would sorrow matter? Why in the world would joy matter? None of those things would have any ultimate value in the end.

And possibly, I would say probably my favorite quote from this whole entire area is this: "We all want progress, but progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road. In that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man."

Now, this is going into chapter five, and we're going to get into that in a second here. But the overall premise of what he's just saying here is that all each one of us wants to move forward. Each one of us wants to grow or to be better, to have more, to do all those things.

That's a fairly common notion as a human being. But he does note this specifically: that if you're on the wrong path, then turning around is actually progress.

If you're taking the wrong turn, if you believe the wrong things, if you don't have your life set on the things that will help you go where you want to go, then you can keep running down the path you're going, but you are no sooner and no closer to the things that actually you desire the most.

And that's a fascinating notion because we often think that the most progressive of a man can be is just the more you push the limits, the more you keep going, the more you push yourself, instead of realizing that if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road.

In that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive of all men.

So chapter five is when we dive into the problem of evil. The problem of evil is an age-old philosophical dilemma that questions how the existence of evil can be reconciled with the concept of a good and all-powerful God.

And in chapter five of Mere Christianity, Lewis explores this problem in depth, discussing the paradox of good and evil in the human capacity for both.

Now, I do want to note already that Lewis is still not referencing God. He's still calling it a divine nature. He's trying to argue from people who would dismiss outright religion and say, "Look, this has nothing to do with religion."

Yet this is everything to do with this thing you know is true—a moral law and a natural law is true, and I believe you all agree with me. Then if that is true, then there must be a lawgiver.

And if there must be a lawgiver, then we need to look at what those laws are for and how we understand evil off of them.

So this paradox of good and evil is a concept that examines the coexistence of good and evil in the world and how they can both exist simultaneously, often posing a philosophical and moral dilemma for individuals and societies alike.

The problem of good and evil goes back to the very beginning. Understanding this valid balance often is between virtue and vice in a lot of ways.

In order to analyze the human capacity for both good and evil, it is essential to delve into the intricate balance between virtue and vice, exploring the inherent qualities within individuals that drive their actions towards moral goodness and malevolence.

This is where Lewis would say you have a moral law; you have specific things that you know are right or wrong, and it is your virtues or your vices that ultimately you will listen to that will push you towards moral goodness or malevolence.

In this chapter, Lewis confronts the implications of the moral law for human behavior. He acknowledges that although humans possess a sense of moral duty, they frequently fail to live up to the standard.

Lewis attributes this inconsistency to the concept of sin, which he defines as the deviation from the moral law.

Now, if you're a Christian or you're a believer, none of this is new to you. This terminology will not be new to you in any way, shape, or form.

And so you'll have a deep understanding of what this means of sin and so forth, but he's specifically making an argument from a philosophical perspective that deviating away from that which you know to be true is sin. It's a breaking of the moral law.

Lewis takes a realistic view of human nature, recognizing the tension between our innate understanding of morality and our capacity to make morally flawed choices.

He argues that the presence of the moral law, combined with human imperfections, implies the need for a solution to bridge the gap between what humans should be and what they are.

Lewis hints at the concept of redemption and points towards the Christian idea of repentance and forgiveness. He doesn't get there fully, but this is where he starts pointing them to that.

And here's a note specifically—a quote from that chapter. He says, "And we cannot get rid of it. Underneath it all, there is that feeling that we ought to be and are not what we were meant to be."

In fact, I dare say this is one that I find the most common as a discussion point for a lot of my students, atheist friends, agnostics, and others that I talk with online along the way is that ultimately there is a feeling that there is something more than what we are, and we're not yet there.

And we're not, but we're meant for something more than this. Lewis is going to start laying out what he believes that to be.

A couple of other fantastic quotes from this section before we dive into this last chapter, and I really want to read a large section of it together.

"We have cause to be uneasy. If we have a conscience, we shall feel that we have a cause to be uneasy if we take seriously the fact that we are creatures of a moral law. It is not easy to see why we should not be judged by a moral judge."

And so setting forth this idea of if there is a moral law, then that means that there are consequences. There are things by which we must live and how we must live and why we must live and what the purpose of our existence is—all of these things become very, very powerful questions that need to be answered.

If there is a moral law, then there is a moral judge. There is one that must hold us to that moral law.

"When a man is getting better, he understands more and more clearly the evil that is still left in him. When a man is getting worse, he understands his own badness less and less. A moderately bad man knows he is not very good; a thoroughly bad man thinks he is all right."

Now, if I could just lay this before you—if there was a quote that kind of just delved into a lot of where I would see our world today's mentality, especially with the things that we know are evil and we see are evil and we experience our evil, yet our consciences have become seared in these arenas—in areas whether it's sexuality or gender or the premise of what is right and what is wrong.

And our culture—who is right and who is wrong—it's so easy to get lost in names and Democrats and Republicans and all of these different things that we miss out on the fact that for some, there's been no self-reflection at all.

Because as Lewis would put it, "A moderately bad man knows he is not very good." There are those out there who still have a conscience and know that the things that they do are not good.

You had a thoroughly bad man thinks he is right in the things that he is doing. And if there is nothing that explains more our culture right now than that, I don't know what it is.

That just says some people just think that they're right, even though they have become so evil in their very ways—the things that they think, the things that they do—that it seems so weird to those who might be of the Christian faith or of different faiths to look at it and go, "How could you ever accept such a thing?"

Lewis kind of gives a philosophical argument for that very notion.

Now, it seems to me that we should never solve the ethical problem until we solve the metaphysical problem. And the metaphysical problem is this: Is there a real right and wrong?

Now, I love this question that he sets forth because in putting it there, he's posing again the moral problem: Is there a real right and wrong? And if there is, that means that there's a moral lawgiver, but there is a moral law and that we are then bound by that moral law.

And when we choose and we break that moral law, something happens. There has to be a consequence for those things.

So in chapter five, and I'm going to pull out my book here, and this is my copy of the book that I have. I know quite a few have got—I think there's about two different versions, but they're all the same in most ways.

And so I'm going to read a couple of passages specifically, starting in chapter five, just together. And if you want to follow along, I'm on chapter five, starting in the very, very first line from there.

Because I just want to see something interesting that he does and how he writes and how his audience is going to take this.

Now, again, remember this was live on air, but he did make some changes for the book. But live on air, I love that he starts off by acknowledging how some people might have reacted to what he has said previously.

So he says, "I ended my last chapter with the idea that in the moral law, somebody or something from beyond the material universe was actually getting at us. And I expect when I reached that point, some of you felt a certain annoyance."

Now, I just be honest with you, I've absolutely found this point where I've had philosophical discussions with people where they ultimately get to a point where they feel like, "Oh, now you're about to talk about God, aren't you?" And that's their reaction.

And I can tell that's exactly what Lewis is kind of getting at here. You may even have thought that I had played a trick on you—that I have been carefully wrapping up to look like philosophy, what turns out to be more religious jaw.

You may have felt you were ready to listen to me as long as you thought I had anything new to say, but if it turns out to be only religion, well, the world has tried that. You cannot put the clock back.

If anyone feeling that way, I should like to say three things to him.

Now, this is interesting because for me, it reminded me of Acts 17 and Paul, where the Athenians stood around every day just listening to all the things that were new. It's the same premise.

Even this reaction to religious and religious law and religious ideas is nothing new, really, historically.

He says this: "First, as to putting the clock back, would you think I was joking if I said that you can put a clock back and that if the clock is wrong, it is often a very sensible thing to do? But I would rather get away from that whole idea of clocks. We all want progress."

And this is part of the quote I read earlier, but progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be.

And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road.

In that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.

We have all seen this when doing arithmetic. When I have started to sum the wrong way, the sooner I admit this and go back and start again, the faster I shall get on.

There is nothing progressive about being pig-headed and refusing to admit a mistake.

Now, I love this because he's dealing with an address basically saying if you're just going to dismiss this outright because of this idea that you have already dismissed and you know everything about religion, might I suggest that what if you're wrong?

And if you're wrong, the most progressive person will actually listen to this and hear me out going forward.

And I do love the way that he even used the math and the rest to kind of get people to understand this.

The second thing—secondly, this has not yet turned exactly into a religious draw. So in fact, he's actually going to say I haven't really talked about God yet.

We have not yet got as far as the God of any actual religion, still less the God of the particular religion called Christianity.

We have only got so far as somebody or something behind the moral law. We are not taking anything from the Bible or the churches; we are trying to see what we can find out about this somebody on our own steam.

Now, this is a fascinating notion because he's making this philosophical argument where most people would naturally kind of just dive into religion instantly and use the Bible as their main source for how they would prove Mere Christianity.

Lewis is backing it up a little bit further and going, "You see, it's not just that before we get to that, we need to get to where all of this came from."

And it's God then. In fact, one of the greatest things that helped my own personal faith years ago was when I realized that God exists outside of just the Bible.

And what I mean by that is the Bible is the word of God. I believe it to be the inspired word of God. I believe it to be handed down through the ages for us, for our benefit, for our joy.

But in saying that, I also know that God exists outside of the Bible—that God existed before the Bible was written, before its compilation, before it was—and that God has made himself known, as has the scripture state, and as he has stated himself, that he exists outside.

All creation sets forth and springs forth all of the things of God. It shows us God; it can explain to God and the rest.

That I believe you can find God through the laws of nature, through the laws of those things. All of those things are part of the narrative—the grand narrative of God.

And I find it fascinating that Lewis is going, "So set aside your religious book real quick. Let's back this up and let's look at this rationally."

And then philosophically, but we're going to get there. We're going to get to a point where I'm going to tell you that I do believe that this is the God of the Bible.

And so he goes on to say, "We've only got so far as somebody or something, and I want to make it quite clear that what we find out on our own steam is something that gives us a shock.

We have two bits of evidence about the somebody. One is the universe is made. If we use that as our only clue, then I think we should have to conclude that he was a great artist, for the universe is a very beautiful place.

But also that he is quite merciless and no friend to man, for the universe is a very dangerous and terrifying place.

The other bit of evidence is that moral law, which he has put into our hands. And this is a better bit of evidence than the other because of its inside information.

You find out more about God from the moral law than from the universe in general, just as you find out more about man by listening to his conversation than by looking at a house he has built.

Now, from the second bit of evidence, we conclude that the being behind the universe is intensely interested in right conduct, in fair play, unselfishness, courage, good faith, honesty, and truthfulness.

In that sense, we should agree with the account given by Christianity and some other religions that God is good.

But do not let it go too fast here. The moral law does not give us any grounds for thinking that God is good in the sense of being indulgent or soft or sympathetic.

There is nothing indulgent about the moral law; it is as hard as nails. It tells you to do the straight thing, and it does not seem to care how painful or dangerous or difficult it is to do.

If God is like the moral law, then he is not soft. It is no use at this stage saying that when you mean by a good God is a God who can forgive.

You're going too quickly. Only a person can forgive, and we have not yet got as far as a personal God—only as far as a power behind the moral law and more like a mind than it is like something else, but it may still be very unlike a person.

Now, I love that he's making these philosophical arguments and saying, "Don't keep jumping ahead and thinking that you know where I'm going with this."

You may be right, but the reality is, is right now I'm inviting you to walk through this logically, to walk through this philosophically.

And for those who have no belief in God or have even an antithesis towards God or the scriptures or the Bible, this is a fantastic way to open conversations with them—it's just about the moral law.

Now, I'll skip down to the third point—the third and final point that he makes. He says this: "When I chose to get my real subject on this in this roundabout way, I was not trying to play any kind of trick on you. I had a different reason.

My reason was that Christianity simply does not make sense until you have faced the sort of facts I have been describing.

Christianity tells people to repent and promises them forgiveness. It therefore has nothing, as far as I know, to say to people who do not know that they have done anything to repent of and who do not feel that they need any forgiveness.

It is after you have realized that there is a real moral law and a power behind the law and that you have broken the law and put yourself wrong with the power.

It is after all this, and not a moment sooner, that Christianity begins to talk. When you know you are sick, you will listen to the doctor."

This understanding of right and wrong can often be applied to the very premise of what it would be in the stage of when we look at a child once they are growing out of their childhood and they know right and wrong, yet they choose wrong.

We often refer to this, in essence, as kind of the age of accountability. So very broadly, this is kind of what he's talking about.

There's this age of accountability; there's this understanding that happens when you know right and wrong and you choose it, and you choose the wrong thing—that there is a breaking at that point.

You know you are sick, and in being sick, you need a doctor.

And so he's utilizing terminologies that are outside the religious world, outside the religious premise specifically, to help lead people who might not be open at this point in time to the idea of the Bible or the scriptures or God, but instead encourage them to look at it rationally, to look at it philosophically and go, "If this is true, and when this happens, this is when Christianity steps into play."

Once you come to this realization that there is a moral law and a moral lawgiver who will judge the actions of those and how we react to that moral law, and when we react to that moral law and realize we have broken it, that's where we are called to something more, called to something different.

Just really quickly, in closing up here, I just want to note this: he does go through these different perspectives—the philosophical perspective, as I noted, the religious perspective, and the ethical perspective.

These perspectives are fascinating little kind of breakdowns. In essence, from a philosophical perspective, Lewis's argument stands on the existence of an objective moral law and its implications on a higher power, but he's drawing this from, again, philosophy.

It's not necessarily religion. Then he gets into kind of the religious perspective, where he acknowledges where he might be going with this, but he keeps drawing people kind of back.

And he's saying, "Look, yes, we are going to be talking about monotheism and talking about God and talking about a lawgiver, but not just from there."

He's also going into this ethical premise of what is right and what is wrong. And so he's dealing with multiple perspectives, which allows for people from a lot of different backgrounds to kind of be able to come at it in different ways, which I always love.

He's not a one-trick pony when it comes to this. He has multiple ways in which he's inviting people to have this conversation, whether it's philosophical, religious, or ethical.

And I truly do love the way that he works through all of these different things.

I want to close out tonight by just telling you how much I appreciate you all, but I never want to leave you without under this kind of a tidbit here, I guess, at the end.

And really what I want to get to is this: that the God of the Bible and the God that Lewis is setting forth and Lewis is making an argument for loves you and cares for you, and the laws that he has set forth are for our good and for our flourishing.

We often miss that in our modern culture. We miss that because we have misapplied the idea of "Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not" to a point where we think that those are restrictive, when in reality, they are freeing.

And I've given this analogy before, but I'll give it here too, and it's this: imagine you were to go up to someone and say, "Let's play a game," and they go, "Okay." And then you turn to them and say, "You go first."

I did this the other night, and what happens is the person kind of freezes up and they go, "Well, I don't know what the game is. What are we talking about? What are we doing?"

And the very ultimate aspect of that is we think that having all choice, giving us all freedom, actually ends up—we act like it would be a good thing, but in reality, it's terrifying.

We don't know what to do; we don't know how to live; we don't know how to do anything at that point in time. But if there are parameters and we know what is right and what is wrong, if we have a moral law that says, "Do not murder," or "Be kind and be good and love one another and serve one another," that if that is the case, that is from a loving God who loves and cares for you and cares for me.

Because he's given us the parameters to live in the world that he created, and he created us for good, for human flourishing.

And so my invitation to you tonight is that with this law, this moral law that is set forth, that you may be kicking against, that you may be going, "You know, I don't really know if I believe in this moral law," let me encourage you to realize that historically, in the argument he's making, it's philosophical; it's not necessarily religious.

But he's also inviting you to realize that this God that exists outside of time, outside of space, outside of matter, is there for your good and has created a place for you in this world.

And he is not far from each one of us, and he wants you to know that he loves you.

In the future weeks, you're going to see more and more how he plays that out—how he has shown himself and revealed himself through his moral law, but also through a direct connection of his Son.

So with that in mind, I just want you all to know I love you all. I'm so grateful for your presence tonight and for your being here, for your comments and the rest.

If you ever have any questions or thoughts, please add them into the chat at any point in time. I really would love to hear from you.

I appreciate your consistency in being here each Thursday night. If you're watching after the fact, I'm so grateful you tune in later.

Never forget I'm here for you. If I can serve you in any way, in any capacity, please let me know.

I love you all. Until next week, I cannot wait to see you all dive into the next couple of chapters. They're fantastic; you're going to love them.

It really is going to be a wonderful time together. Until then, we will see you next time. Have a wonderful night. Thank you!