The relationship between biblical laws and the covenants or testaments has been the centered of much debate through church history. Today views range from there being no laws that apply to Christians to the view that every law in the Bible is still enforced. All Old Testament Laws Cancelled by Greg Gibson offers a version of the New Covenant Theology view. Gibson contends that “All Old Testament laws are cancelled, and all New Testament laws are for our obedience.” (p7)

 

In the first part of the book, Gibson entertains nine objections to his thesis that all Old Testament laws are cancelled. These include the notion that the Ten Commandments are the eternal “moral law” of God, that Christ did not come to abolish the law, that there is only one covenant of grace, and that all scripture is God-breathed and useful. The second part of the book provides eight reasons why Gibson believes all Old Testament laws have been cancelled. They include the claim that the Decalogue is the foundational document of the Old Covenant, that the law cannot be divided, that the Jerusalem Council did not require obedience to the law from gentiles, and that the Decalogue had an historical beginning and end.

 

Part three moves on to the second part of Gibson’s thesis; that all New Testament laws are for our obedience. He responds to antinomian arguments that we’re not under law, but under grace and that the only law is love. He then provides four reasons why Christians must obey the New Testament laws. He cites the mere presence of hundreds of commands given after the cross, points out the sin is lawlessness, and focuses on the praise the Bible has for the law of Christ.

 

The book’s conclusion centers on the issue of sanctification. Gibson argues that sanctification must by Christ-centered instead of law-centered. At the end of the book are two appendices. One considered that objection that New Covenant Theology allows for beastiallity and incest and the other offers thirteen ways we should still use the Old Testament.

 

All Old Testament Laws Cancelled makes many good arguments based on the Bible, and these good arguments make the book a worthwhile read for those familiar with the debate. However, I believe there are at least two significant problems with the book, and these are reflected in the title. It really should be “All Old Covenant Laws Fulfilled.”

 

 The first problem is that Gibson is not persuasive that all Old Testament laws are cancelled. In Genesis 9:6 God gives a law against murder to Noah. This law is clearly pre-Sinai and therefore not part of the Mosaic Covenant. Jesus is the priest of a “better covenant” according to Hebrews, not a better testament. Hebrews tells us that with a new priest there is a change in the law and the old covenant is obsolete. Gibson fails to show how a law (such as Gen 9:6) in the same testament as a particular covenant (such as the old covenant) is subject to the same conditions as laws actually given within that covenant. His logic would lead us to expect God to flood the earth again since His promise to Noah is in the Old Testament and must have been cancelled by Christ.

 

The second problem has to do with “cancelled.” We journey into dangerous territory when we replace biblical terminology. The Bible never refers to the Old Covenant (or Testament) laws as cancelled. Instead, Christ is described as having fulfilled the law and prophets. Christ being born in Bethlehem did not cancel the prophecy that He would be born there- His birth fulfilled it. Changing the terminology in this way does something to Christ’s vicarious death on our behalf. Christ’s fulfilling the law for us is far more valuable and precious than if He were to simply cancel the law. Cancellation often implies incompleteness, and there is nothing incomplete about Christ’s work on the cross.

In the wake of global tragedies, citizens of the United States typically step up and donate more money than any other nation. However, it seems that in relation to the amount of money we take in, we don’t have as much to be proud about. This is especially remarkable since America is, more than most countries, a “Christian nation,” and accurate Christian teaching encourages giving to those in need. In Passing the Plate, sociologists Christian Smith and Michael Emerson explore the reasons why “most contemporary American Christians are remarkably ungenerous.”(3)

The authors estimate that in 2005 Christians (who are church members) in the United States had a collective total income over $2 trillion, but they only donated less than 4% of their income. “If American Christians were to give from their income generously—not lavishly, mind you, only generously—they could transform the world, starting right away.” (11) If these same Christians gave 10% of their income, another $46 billion would be available to help people around the world. The authors provide many pages of examples of how this money could be spent effectively.

In the second chapter a number of facts are offered in an effort to reach explanations for the lack of generosity. The first is that 20% of all American Christians do not give a single penny to any church or charity. Next, of those who do give, they give very little, between 2-4%. Another fact presented is that despite the massive growth of average income, American Christians give proportionally less today than they did 80 years ago.

Given these facts, as well as several others, the authors propose nine hypothesizes to explain why American Christians don’t give more. These explanations include high living costs, unperceived needs, distrust, ignorance about what their traditions teach, and failure to make giving a routine practice. They “test” each hypothesis against the evidence they’ve gathered for this study.

The fourth chapter provides anecdotes from interviews with pastors and church goers on the subject of financial giving. Many of the responses they gathered corresponded with the statistical information they provided earlier. These interviews help the reader understand the information from a more personal perspective. In the fifth chapter, the authors provide the results of an “experiment” they conducted during the interviews- they generated responses to a hypothetical situation where 10% giving became a requirement for church membership. Only 7% said they would begin tithing, while 76% they would not tithe at all.

The book conclude with six explanations for the lack of generous giving by American Christians: 1) America’s culture of mass consumption 2) Pastors’ fear of discussing money 3) Ignorance of Christian teaching about financial giving 4) Mistrust for leadership or organizations 5) Lack of conversations about money among Christians 6) Failure to adopt routine methods for giving. The authors provide more than a dozen ideas for how leaders can lead Christians to lead more generously. Appendices provide summaries of various denominational teachings on giving, data sources, and statistical charts.

Overall Passing the Plate is a convicting and interesting book. It’s disappointing to see how little American Christians actually give out of their income, and it’s challenging to see what could be done if we gave only 10%. While I think the conclusions are accurate and helpful, the authors repeatedly explained that more research needed to be done on particular points. Given how often they excused themselves from providing a conclusion for this reason, one might expect them to do more research before writing this book. However, most of these points were not central to their case. Passing the Plate is a very worthwhile read, and I would recommend it to church leaders who feel inadequate when dealing with financial issues.

I’ve been a fan of the English Standard Version for many years. I currently own 7 print editions for various purposes, one of them being the Study Bible. Our regular readers know that I’m not typically a fan of doing innovative things with the Bible, such as producing “green” or “emerging” versions. However, taking the best study Bible ever produced and making it available on my cell phone- I’m all for that!

 

OliveTree Bible Software has done this. “The ESV Study Bible on your mobile device includes all text, features, notes, images, and supplemental materials of the print version, plus the easy interface of BibleReader and and the convenience and portability of handheld use.” I should make it clear that I’m reviewing the software for my Blackberry Curve. Every brand of phone is different and users will encounter different experiences depending on their phone. There are even some navigation features I don’t have because I’m on Blackberry.

 

Installation:

 

The process for installation isn’t simple, but it’s also not too challenging. First, the user is required to download the free BibleReader software that is phone-type specific. This software is essentially the browser through which the user can view the ESV Study Bible as well as other OliveTree products (some are free!). Then, the user must purchase and download three ESV files to the computer and transfer them to their Blackberry via USB. Once everything is in place, BibleReader should recognize the Study Bible as part of the library and make it available for use.

 

Functionality:

 

The three files are the ESV, ESV notes, and ESV Study Bible. When the user clicks on “Library,” each of the files or volumes appears. This can be a bit confusing, since in print form it’s all one book. By clicking on the ESV, the user is directed to the Bible. Annotations are present throughout the text and when clicked take the user to the notes volume. However, I haven’t found a way to access the Study Bible from within the basic ESV volume. The user must go back to the “Library” option and find the volume there. This lack of integration is a bit frustrating, but may be a limitation of the Blackberry OS. Maps and charts are available from the Study Bible’s Table of Contents, but they too are not integrated with the text. So if the user is reading about the Ark of the Covenant, they may have no idea that there is an illustration available.

 

The software has a thorough search feature that can be defined to the whole Bible or just one testament, and can search exact phrases or partial variations. There is an “Advanced search” option, but when I’ve clicked it a message tells me the option is not supported with this book. I don’t really mind, since the basic search options are more than satisfactory for a cell phone. There are also preference options available to change the fonts, colors, scrolling methods and QWERTY shortcuts.

 

Support:

 

Like most new software, there are bugs to be worked out. When I first installed the software, the search feature would not work. I had a couple different error messages that I reported on the OliveTree message boards. The staff there is quick to respond and very helpful- looking through a few of the posted issues will attest to this. I also noticed that after this problem occurred, all of my Blackberry actions slowed down. I uninstalled BibleReader and my Blackberry went back to normal. It took about a week for the problem to be resolved. An updated version of BibleReader was released. After I downloaded it, everything worked as it seems it should.

 

 

Overall, the ESV Study Bible software by OliveTree is very worthwhile. For those who have held the Study Bible, it’s a lot of weight to carry. To have all of that information in my pocket is extremely valuable. I expect that other cell phone platforms are better, such as the iPhone, but there really isn’t much more I could ask for on my Blackberry.

Themed Bibles are generally a bad idea.  For one thing, every part of God's Word is meant to speak to every Christian.  Themed Bibles tend to emphasize only the parts of the Bible that speak about the particular theme, leaving other potentially important aspects of Scripture under-emphasized or ignored (and here I'm thinking primarily within the context of "daily devotions"). 

Secondly, Scripture purposefully makes use of many different genres (and different themes!) to convey the Gospel message in the most comprehensive way possible.  A Bible that goes out of its way to draw attention to only a single theme can have the unfortunate side effect of obscuring the Gospel message itself. 

Now, none of this is to say that themed Bibles are inherently sinful or that the dangers I've mentioned will necessarily result from using them (I actually own a Couples' Devotional Bible).  So naturally I didn't think much of the new Green Bible.  I assumed it was just another gimmick.  And on one level, it is that.  The paper used in The Green Bible is 100% recycled, the ink is soy-based, and the cover is made of cotton-linen.  At the beginning is a collection of essays about being a "green" Christian by such international figures as Desmund Tutu, N. T. Wright, and even Pope John Paul II.  But it's most prominent feature is that it is the first ever "green letter edition" of the Bible.  No, the words of Christ are not in green.  Rather, every verse that supposedly speaks to the subject of "Creation Care" is printed in green.  Like I said, it's gimmicky.  And if that's all it was, I wouldn't have a problem with it.   Heck, I'm a sucker for this kind of thing myself.  I want to be a good Steward of God's creation as much as the next Christian.  But then I started poking around the book's website.  As it turns out, the green bible may actually be teaching something dangerously close to idolatry.

Here are some sample questions from The Green Bible Quiz:

"2) Which verse praising creation is from the Psalms?"

The answer is Psalm 19:1, "The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork."  What's the problem?  This verse is NOT "praising creation."  It's doing the exact opposite, expressing how creation praises God.  To my mind, this is kind of a big deal (is anyone else thinking of Romans 1:25?).

"4) Where did Jesus go to commune with nature?"

(It's been said before, but it bears repeating here:  Jesus was not a hippy).  The answer to this question is apparently found in Matthew 14:23 (the quiz has the answer as Matthew 4:23, but I assume this is simply a typo), "And after he had dismissed the crowds, he went up the mountain by himself to pray."  Seriously, are the people responsible for the green "bible" actually reading it?  Jesus didn't go up the mountain to commune with nature!  He went up to pray (literally, to commune with God!).  Stretching the meaning of a verse to make a point is one thing.  Butchering a verse and literally replacing God with nature...that's a whole new ballgame. 

Now, maybe this quiz is just a poorly conceived promotional tool that doesn't refelct the actual content of the green bible.  That's certainly possible.  But if the excerpt they provide from one of the opening essays is any indication, the content is no better than what we've seen so far.  In her essay, "The Dominion of Love", Barbara Brown Taylor says of the sixth day of creation:

The "new information" she is referring to is that land animals were also created on day six.  Apparently Ms. Taylor was under the impression that the only thing that made human beings special was that we had a whole day all to ourselves.  She also mentions our being given dominion over the earth, and the fact that God pronounces all of His creation to be good, not just man, but all of this is merely peripheral to the real issue.  If she had consulted even the most elementary level Bible scholarship, instead of simply assuming what I can only imagine are her culturally-inherited misconceptions about traditional Christian teaching, she would have seen very quickly that mankind's special place in creation is founded upon our unique status as image bearers of God.  As it stands, the main point of her essay ends up missing the point entirely. 

I would like to invite comments and feedback from anyone who might be willing to defend the green bible.  It's still possible that I've made egregious leaps and  assumed things based on these short previews that aren't really true of the bible itself.  So if anyone owns a copy and would like to defend it, I'm open to hearing your arguments. 

Like I said, I have no problem becoming "green."  I will probably never buy an SUV (as if that's all it means to be green!).  I really do want to be a good steward of God's creation.  But if the only way to join the "green team" is to accept poor theology and pseudo biblical scholarship that effectively butchers the Word of God...we evangelicals will have to work on starting our own team.  I have no doubt that "God is green" (in a sense, at least), but if He is, He ought to have said so.  We shouldn't have to twist His words to make them say something they're not really saying. 

Dr. Michael Horton's new book, Christless Christianity, is now available (with a DVD set soon to follow).  I just got my copy and I'll be reviewing it in the near future.  For now, here's a short preview of the DVD:




You can order the book and DVD together for a special discounted price (or just order one at the regular price) from the Westminster Seminary California Bookstore. 

Well, for those of you who've decided that it's OK to lust after appreciate high quality Bibles, Mark Bertrand over at BibleDesignBlog.com has posted his extensive review of Cambridge's new Pitt Minion ESV.  Here's an excerpt:

Read the rest of Mark's review here.

For those of you who don't know yet, Cambridge Bibles (pretty much the best Bible maker in the world!) is about to release their very first edition of the ESV.  The edition is a familiar one in other translations:  the Pitt Minion.  It's a small, hand-sized Bible with a center reference column.  The type size is large and clear for such a small Bible.  But the best part:  it comes bound in beautiful, supple goatskin leather (of course, you'll have to pay a bit more for that!).  The goatskin will be available in both black and brown, as well as a burgundy French Morocco leather and a two-tone imitation leather (see all 4 side-by-side in the image below).  The nice thing about goatskin (besides the way it feels) is that it's extremely pliable and durable.  So if you decide to spend the extra cash, it's well worth it, as you're likely to be keeping the Bible around for many more years to come. 

I used to be your average Bible consumer.  All of my Bibles were bonded leather.  My first ESV was "tru-tone" (basically just imitation leather).  Then I found this site.  Ever since I first read the insightful aesthetic comments of J. Mark Bertand, I have been a "Bible snob."  Unfortunately I am also a "poor graduate student", so that means I'm still using bonded leather bibles.  However, when I learned of Cambridge's plan to release an ESV, I decided to save up and spring for my first really nice Bible.  Mark will be reviewing all four editions of the Cambridge Pitt Minion ESV some time next week, so make sure to check back for that (in the mean time, browse his blog.  He's probably written something witty and interesting about your Bible!).

Now that I've admitted to buying one of these expensive things, I have a question for you (and I'm a philosopher who probably overthinks things, so you can take this or leave it).  I've found there to be something of a paradoxical conundrum to the "nice Bible."  On the one hand, I can see how it would be far more worthy to spend $80 on a Bible than on useless junk I don't need.  And further, buying a Bible that has obviously taken great skill and care to make seems to say something about how important God's Word is to you.  But is there something all too modern and Western about the "Cambridge goatskin Bible" market?  After all, the words are the words.  I can be spiritually fed just as well by a paperback Bible, and give the other $70 to my church, or to a homeless shelter.  Then again, is there something about that very sentiment that is equally "modern" and "Western"?  Can anything be said for a Bible that is, in itself, a work of art?

So what do you think?   Am I still a good Christian?  :P


 

Teacher and youth pastor, Michael Ferber, has written a book that attempts to interact with current philosophical trends in Christianity and address them from a Biblical perspective, using Paul's first letter to Timothy as his guide.  Part commentary, part theological guidebook, with a little philosophy thrown in, Pomo Timmy is sure to capture much interest and attention among Christians seeking a Biblical perspective on postmodernism (and modernism, for that matter).  While I don't fully agree with all of Mr. Ferber's theological conclusions (he comes down on the egalitarian side of the gender debate, for example), I can heartily recommend this book!

I recently asked Mr. Ferber a few probing questions to help introduce us to the purpose and subject of his book:

1.  "Pomo Timmy" isn't exactly like a typical Bible commentary.  Briefly, what IS this book, and what do you hope to accomplish with it?

 Pomo Timmy is essentially a Biblical commentary with a strong philosophical bend.  My hope in writing the book was to mine I Timothy to craft a response to some of the philosophical challenges present today, particularly the contrast between the relativism of postmodernity and the fundamentalism of approaches to faith rooted in more modern paradigms (modern in a philosophical sense).   

 2.  You've worked in youth ministry for a number of years.  Is "Pomo Timmy" geared more towards a youth audience, or do you hope to reach all ages?

 Pomo Timothy is definitely NOT geared to a youth audience.  Some of the later chapters are concrete enough to keep their attention, but most youth get bogged down in the introduction.  However, it is appropriate for youth leaders and pastors who are trying to help youth and young adults navigate the various meanings of “truth” in our society. 

 3. Many Christian leaders believe that the church needs to adopt postmodernism wholesale or it will die.  Others simply dismiss postmodernism as an irrelevant fad.  Why do you believe that postmodern thought poses a real threat to the church, and how serious do you think the threat is?

 I believe the “wholesale” acceptance of the relativism of postmodernism does indeed pose a threat to the church.  However, I find it ridiculous to argue that much of life is not relative.  The distinction I try to draw in Pomo Timmy is that there is some truth that is as real as real can be, while other aspects of “reality” are undeniably socially constructed.  I Timothy is a helpful tool to work through this complexity.  The church does need to embrace and study postmodernism, but it needs to chew the meat and spit out the bones, so to speak.  I believe postmodernism is a threat only to the degree that we allow the absolute truths of the faith to be replaced by absolute relativity. 

 4. In the introduction to "Pomo Timmy" you distinguish between knowledge and actual reality, and you suggest that both modernism and postmodernism simply collapse these two into each other.  If my knowledge of reality is not the same as reality as it actually is, what is left of objective truth?  How can I, as a Christian, claim to know anything as being actually true?  

 I would argue that the frameworks with which we view the world and reality are constantly changing and that “reality” or “truth” can be viewed from many situated perspectives, which therefore generate many different kinds of descriptions of the same reality.  Yet, changes in perspective do not negate the reality of the observed object.  To argue that I am finite, limited, and situated in a specific context at a particular time is to make an argument about me – not the reality I am observing.  If enough people, situated in many different times in many different contexts, also describe what I am observing eventually there will be enough understanding to move toward objectivity – this is what critical realists would call aletheic truth.  I personally believe that God has revealed Himself to enough people consistently over enough time that we can trust the Biblical account.

To purchase a copy of Pomo Timmy, or find out more information, simply click the amazon.com link above.

Michael Ferber has served as pastor, youth pastor, Christian school administrator, college professor, and development director at organizations including World Vision, Regent University, and West Virginia University. He is a Ph.D. candidate studying geography of religion at West Virginia University. He holds a Master of Arts in Education from West Virginia University and a Master of Divinity from Asbury Theological Seminary. Michael lives with his wife, Christina, and their children, Leah and Brendan, in Clarksburg, West Virginia.

    In response to Wielenberg's first argument, it seems perfectly reasonable for the Theist to assert two propositions.  The first being that it is impossible for God’s character to be different than it is, and the second being that it is impossible to actually change the nature of moral perfection, as the evil contestant does in Wielenberg’s story.  The second claim rests on the first.  God’s character simply is the definition of moral perfection, and if His character cannot change, than neither can moral perfection.  But to the first proposition Wielenberg might ask why God’s character cannot change.  The response is simple, because if it did, then He would cease to be morally perfect, and thus cease to be God.  At this point, Wielenberg might accuse the Theist of a contradiction.  If God’s character cannot change without ceasing to be morally perfect, then isn’t there some outside standard to which we are holding God’s character?  To this the Theist may reply that God’s character is indeed the only standard of perfection, and that all things are either good or bad based on their relation to Him alone, but that His character, being what it is, cannot be otherwise.  It is simply a brute fact of the universe.  For God is the ground of all being, the source and foundation for all reality.  He simply is.  And he could not be otherwise.  If Wielenberg still wishes to object to this claim, then the Theist can quickly remind him that this is precisely what he wishes his reader to believe about the brute moral facts of the universe.  Indeed, this is the thesis of his book!  Moral facts such as “it is wrong to torture babies for fun” are, according to Wielenberg, real moral entities that exist and simply cannot be otherwise.  But as far I can tell, there is no reason to believe that brute moral facts cannot change and not believe that God’s character cannot change.  Thus, for Wielenberg to reject the Dependency Thesis for this reason would also be for him to reject his own moral theory.

    For the second argument, I believe that two possible responses are open to the Theist.  First, it can be argued that since a thing’s nature is given to it by God, it is still possible for something to be either good or evil by virtue of its nature, even though God indirectly made it so.  Taking the example of falling in love, a Theist might say that falling in love is most certainly an instance of intrinsic good, its very nature is simply and completely good, but that because its nature was given to it by God, it is ultimately God that has, in a sense, “declared” it to be what it is.  It sounds to me as though Wielenberg’s argument is actually saying, “nothing can be good in virtue of its nature because God gave it its nature.”  But of course that doesn’t follow.  What Wielenberg is really attacking is the notion that falling in love is not good for its own sake, but that it is good because God told us so.  What he overlooks is the simple solution that God “told us so” by giving it a nature that was either good or evil. 
   
    However, there is another response that seems perfectly reasonable to me, namely that the Theist simply accepts that nothing actually is intrinsically good or evil apart from God.  Why is suffering evil?  Because God doesn’t want his creatures to suffer.  Why is falling in love good?  Because God wants us to be happy, and in part because it facilitates the creation of families, children, and society.  Wielenberg is relying on the unshakable intuition that pain is evil in and of itself.  It is better to keep this obvious truth than to accept a theory that rejects it.  But isn’t it just as likely that the unshakable intuition in question is merely that pain is evil, leaving entirely open the question of why or how it is evil?  This seems more plausible to me.

   In Chapter Two of Value And Virtue In A Godless Universe, Erik Wielenberg introduces two theses that he believes implicitly support Divine Command Theory.  The first is the Control Thesis which states that “every logically consistent ethical claim, E, is such that God could make E true.”   The second is the Dependency Thesis which states that “every true ethical claim is true in virtue of some act of will on the part of God.”  Essentially, the great difference between these two is that in the former God creates ethics (by divine fiat we might say), while in the later ethics is based upon and originates from God’s nature or character.  From this, Wielenberg distinguishes between two forms of Divine Command Theory.  The first or “strong” form accepts both the Control and Dependency Thesis, while the “weak” form accepts only the Dependency Thesis.

    It is important to consider Wielenberg’s objection to the strong form of Divine Command Theory first (which is essentially an objection to the Control Thesis), since it will play a role in his objection to the weak form.  He objects to the strong form by way of an illustration.   He asks us to imagine a competition in which the prize is omnipotence.  One contestant is a very good person, while the other is very evil.  Suppose, he says, that the evil person wins the contest and gains omnipotence.  According to the Control Thesis, the evil contestant can now make it such that all of the evil acts he intends to perform (mass slaughter of innocents, torture, etc.) are actually very good.  Moreover, he can make it such he is now a morally perfect being, not by changing himself, but by changing the nature of moral perfection.  Thus, in the end, evil becomes good and the killing and torture of innocent people is morally commendable.  Wielenberg relies primarily on intuition to argue that “there is simply no amount of power that would enable a being to make that true.”   He further argues that “This story seems to get things backwards by making morality subject to power.”  Fair enough.  Our moral intuitions certainly do seem to suggest to us that no amount of power could make such atrocities good.  We want to argue, especially as Christians, that morality is somehow objective and fixed, and that it could not be otherwise.  At least on the surface, Wielenberg’s argument seems to offer convincing reasons to reject the Control Thesis on just such grounds.  And so, for the sake of argument, we will grant him his conclusion.

    Now Wielenberg turns his philosophical gun on the weak form of Divine Command Theory, specifically on the Dependency Thesis, which he states as follows, “It is still divine willing that determines which ethical claims are true, but the scope of divine willing is limited by the divine character.”   In other words, God still retains the prerogative to say what things humans can and cannot do in certain times and places, but contra the Control Thesis He cannot command simply anything, but can only command those things which are in accordance with His own character, which sets the standard of moral goodness.  Wielenberg proposes three objections to this thesis.  First, he suggests that “implicit in the proposal is the notion that God has the power to make any logically consistent ethical claim true.”  In the weak claim, God’s character prevents Him from making evil things good, but Wielenberg seems to be suggesting that the Control Thesis still manages to slip in the back door, and that we are left with the same problem, just moved back a step.  If it were the case that God’s character turned out to be like the evil contestant in Wielenberg’s imaginary story, then even on the Dependency Thesis alone it would still be conceivable that God could make the slaughter of innocents a morally good thing.  But Wielenberg has already refuted such a notion. 

    Wielenberg’s second objection to the Dependency Thesis is even stronger.  He argues that an implication of the Dependency Thesis is that nothing is intrinsically good or evil.  He says, “If an act of will on the part of God bestows value on something distinct from God, that value cannot be intrinsic.”   By intrinsic value he means that a thing is valuable only in virtue of its nature.  As an example of an intrinsic evil, he suggests pain.  Pain is just bad, in and of itself, without reference to anything else.  Conversely, falling in love is intrinsically good; it is simply good for its own sake.  Following Chisholm, who argues that any theory of epistemology that doesn’t allow for obvious instances of knowledge should be rejected, Wielenberg suggests that any theory of morality that rejects something as obvious as the fact that some things are intrinsically good or evil should also be rejected. 

    What might the Christian say in response to these arguments?  Tune in tomorrow!