Foundations of Christian Ethics: The Divine Character as Moral Foundation

Abstract

This paper examines the foundational principles of Christian ethics, particularly focusing on the relationship between God’s character and moral normativity. In response to contemporary atheistic moral philosophy, which argues for the possibility of ethics independent of divine grounding, this paper defends a theological essentialist position: that righteousness emanates from God’s essential nature rather than arbitrary divine commands. Drawing upon biblical foundations, philosophical theology, and responses to New Atheist critiques, this research demonstrates that Christian ethics rests upon the immutable character of God, from which moral law derives its authority and coherence. The paper explores the implications of divine command theory, addresses the Euthyphro dilemma, and articulates how God’s righteousness provides both the ontological foundation and epistemological framework for Christian moral reasoning.

Introduction

The foundations of Christian ethics have faced renewed scrutiny in the contemporary intellectual landscape, particularly from proponents of secular moral philosophy associated with the New Atheist movement. Writers such as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris have argued that morality neither requires nor benefits from theological grounding, asserting instead that ethical behavior can be adequately explained through evolutionary biology, social contract theory, or consequentialist reasoning (Hitchens, 2007; Harris, 2010). The central claim—”you can be good without God”—has gained considerable traction in popular discourse, presenting a significant challenge to traditional Christian ethical frameworks.

However, this secular moral confidence overlooks a fundamental philosophical question: not whether one can behave morally without belief in God, but rather what grounds moral truth itself (Craig, 2008). Christian ethics maintains that while atheists may indeed act morally, the very concepts of “good” and “right” require ontological grounding in the character of God. This paper defends a theological essentialist position, arguing that righteousness flows from God’s essential nature rather than arbitrary divine decree. As Psalm 36:6 declares, “Your righteousness is like the highest mountains” (New International Version), indicating that divine righteousness represents the supreme moral standard from which all derivative moral claims acquire meaning and authority.

The Contemporary Atheistic Challenge to Christian Ethics

New Atheist Moral Arguments

The New Atheist critique of religious ethics proceeds along multiple lines. First, these thinkers argue that evolutionary psychology adequately explains human moral intuitions without recourse to divine revelation (Dawkins, 2006). Cooperative behavior, altruism, and moral sentiments can be understood as adaptive traits that enhanced survival and reproductive success in ancestral environments. Second, they contend that religious moral systems have historically produced harmful outcomes, from religious violence to sexual repression, suggesting that secular ethics offers superior moral guidance (Hitchens, 2007). Third, they argue that moral reasoning can proceed from rational principles—such as the minimization of suffering or the maximization of wellbeing—without requiring theological premises (Harris, 2010).

These arguments possess intuitive appeal and have influenced contemporary moral discourse significantly. However, they conflate moral epistemology with moral ontology, addressing how humans come to know or practice morality while evading the deeper question of what makes something genuinely right or wrong (Copan, 2011). Describing the evolutionary origins of moral intuitions does not establish the normative force of those intuitions; explaining why humans feel compassion differs fundamentally from demonstrating why compassion is morally obligatory.

The Insufficiency of Secular Moral Foundations

Contemporary secular moral philosophy struggles to provide adequate grounding for objective moral truths. Subjective theories reduce morality to personal preference, thereby eliminating genuine moral disagreement and making moral progress unintelligible (Smith, 2014). Cultural relativism faces similar difficulties, unable to condemn practices such as slavery or genocide if they receive cultural endorsement. Consequentialist approaches require a standard for evaluating consequences (what makes outcomes “good”?), while deontological systems must explain the source of duty and obligation (Kreeft & Tacelli, 1994).

Moreover, naturalistic accounts face the is-ought problem identified by David Hume: one cannot derive prescriptive moral claims from purely descriptive facts about the natural world (Hume, 1739/1978). Even if evolution explains why humans possess certain moral intuitions, this provides no reason to believe those intuitions track moral truth rather than merely promoting genetic fitness. As C.S. Lewis observed, recognizing that moral reasoning might be explained naturalistically actually undermines confidence in moral reasoning itself, since it reduces ethical deliberation to the output of non-rational evolutionary processes (Lewis, 1947).

Divine Command Theory and Its Refinements

Classical Divine Command Theory

Classical divine command theory (DCT) posits that moral obligations arise from God’s commands: actions are right because God commands them, and wrong because God forbids them (Adams, 1999). This view emphasizes divine sovereignty and provides clear grounding for moral authority. If God, as creator and supreme authority, issues commands, humans possess genuine obligations to obey. This framework explains both the objectivity of morals (they are grounded in God’s will rather than human opinion) and their prescriptive force (we are accountable to the divine lawgiver).

However, classical DCT faces the famous Euthyphro dilemma, derived from Plato’s dialogue: Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good? If the former, morality appears arbitrary—God could command cruelty and make it good. If the latter, goodness seems independent of God, existing as a standard to which even God conforms (Plato, trans. 1981). Both horns present difficulties for theological ethics, suggesting either that God’s will is capricious or that God is subject to external moral standards.

Modified Divine Command Theory and Theological Essentialism

Contemporary Christian ethicists have refined DCT to avoid the Euthyphro dilemma through theological essentialism, which grounds moral properties not in arbitrary divine commands but in God’s essential nature (Evans, 2013). On this view, God’s commands flow necessarily from His character attributes—holiness, justice, love, mercy, and righteousness. God cannot command cruelty because cruelty contradicts His essential nature; divine commands express rather than create moral truth (Baggett & Walls, 2011).

This essentialist approach resolves the Euthyphro dilemma by denying its assumption that divine will and moral goodness are separable. Righteousness is not an abstract standard external to God, nor is it a product of arbitrary divine fiat. Rather, righteousness is identical with God’s nature itself. As Frame argues, “God’s commands are not arbitrary, because they are expressions of his nature. Yet they are not subordinate to some law above God, because they proceed from who he is” (Frame, 2008, p. 97). God’s nature provides the ontological foundation for moral properties, while God’s commands provide the epistemological access through which humans apprehend moral truth.

The Character of God as Moral Foundation

Biblical Foundations of Divine Righteousness

Scripture consistently presents God’s character as the ultimate moral standard. Psalm 36:6 declares, “Your righteousness is like the highest mountains, your justice like the great deep” (NIV), employing imagery of immutable natural features to convey the unchanging nature of divine righteousness. The psalmist does not suggest that God arbitrarily establishes righteousness but rather that righteousness characterizes His being at the most fundamental level.

This theme pervades biblical revelation. Leviticus 19:2 commands, “Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy” (NIV), grounding human moral obligation in divine character rather than mere command. The prophetic literature repeatedly appeals to God’s righteousness and justice as standards by which human behavior is measured (Isaiah 5:16; Jeremiah 9:24). The New Testament continues this emphasis, with passages such as 1 John 1:5 declaring “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all” (NIV), presenting divine holiness as essential rather than accidental to God’s being (Marshall, 1978).

Significantly, Scripture presents God’s character attributes not as disparate qualities but as unified in divine simplicity. God’s justice does not conflict with His mercy, nor His holiness with His love, because these attributes represent different aspects of the unified divine essence (Dolezal, 2011). This unity ensures coherence in moral reasoning: divine commands cannot contradict each other because they flow from a perfectly integrated divine nature.

Righteousness as Divine Essence

The theological doctrine of divine simplicity holds that God’s attributes are identical with His essence—God does not merely possess righteousness but is righteousness itself (Aquinas, trans. 1920). This metaphysical claim carries profound implications for moral philosophy. If righteousness exists as an abstract principle independent of God, theism faces the problem of explaining the relationship between God and this principle. If righteousness is instead identical with God’s nature, the foundation of morality is personal rather than abstract, grounded in the supreme being rather than Platonic forms (Craig, 2008).

This personalist grounding preserves several important features of moral experience. Moral obligations feel personal rather than merely logical; we experience guilt before someone rather than merely recognizing inconsistency with abstract principles (Budziszewski, 2003). The identification of righteousness with God’s essence explains this phenomenology: moral obligations reflect our relationship with a personal God whose character establishes moral truth. Moreover, grounding morality in personal divine nature rather than abstract principles better explains how moral properties can possess genuine causal efficacy in motivating behavior (Moreland & Craig, 2003).

The Immutability and Eternality of Divine Righteousness

God’s righteousness possesses unique metaphysical properties that make it suitable as moral foundation. First, divine righteousness is immutable—it cannot change, since God’s essential nature is unchanging (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17). This immutability provides stability for moral truth, ensuring that moral principles hold across time and circumstance rather than shifting with cultural fashions or evolutionary contingencies (Plantinga, 2000). Moral reformers can appeal to transcendent standards precisely because divine righteousness remains constant even when human practices and intuitions vary.

Second, God’s righteousness is eternal, existing necessarily rather than contingently (Psalm 90:2). This eternality addresses a fundamental problem for naturalistic ethics: if the universe and conscious moral agents are contingent, arising through evolutionary processes that might have proceeded differently, moral truths seem similarly contingent (Wielenberg, 2014). By contrast, if moral properties are grounded in God’s necessary existence, they possess the requisite modal force to serve as objective standards. God’s righteousness does not depend on cosmic accidents but exists as a necessary feature of ultimate reality.

Third, divine righteousness is transcendent—it exceeds human comprehension while remaining accessible through revelation. Psalm 36:6 employs the metaphor of mountains to convey this transcendence: “Your righteousness is like the highest mountains” (NIV). Just as mountains tower above the surrounding landscape, God’s righteousness surpasses human moral understanding, providing an objective standard independent of human judgment while remaining knowable through divine self-disclosure (Bartholomew & Goheen, 2012).

From Divine Character to Moral Law

The Derivation of Divine Commands

If righteousness is identical with God’s nature, divine commands represent the application of God’s character to specific circumstances and contexts (Adams, 1999). The Decalogue, for instance, does not introduce arbitrary restrictions but rather expresses how beings created in God’s image should live to reflect divine character. The command against murder flows from God’s nature as the author and sustainer of life; prohibitions against adultery reflect God’s faithfulness and covenant-keeping character; commands to honor parents mirror the honor due to God Himself (Brueggemann, 2002).

This relationship between divine nature and specific commands explains both the continuity and development within biblical ethics. Core moral principles remain constant because they reflect unchanging divine attributes, while their application may develop as God progressively reveals His character and will through salvation history (Wells, 2010). The movement from Old Testament ceremonial law to New Testament fulfillment in Christ demonstrates not moral relativism but the unfolding of God’s redemptive plan, consistently grounded in divine character even as specific expressions evolve.

Moreover, understanding commands as expressions of divine nature resolves apparent tensions within Scripture. When God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22), this does not represent capricious cruelty but rather a complex revelation about divine provision and the supremacy of trust in God’s character above even the most precious human goods (Kierkegaard, 1843/1985). Difficult passages become intelligible when interpreted through the lens of God’s self-consistent character revealed throughout Scripture.

Natural Law and General Revelation

Christian ethics maintains that God’s moral character is partially accessible through natural law—moral knowledge available through human reason reflecting on created nature (Romans 2:14-15). Because humans are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), they possess inherent moral capacities that reflect divine character, enabling recognition of basic moral principles even apart from special revelation (Budziszewski, 2003). Natural law theory holds that examining human nature, understood as designed by God for particular ends, reveals genuine moral truths about human flourishing.

This natural law tradition, developed extensively by Thomas Aquinas, understands moral precepts as rational participation in God’s eternal law (Aquinas, trans. 1920). Human reason, though damaged by sin, retains sufficient capacity to apprehend basic moral principles—the obligation to preserve life, seek truth, live in community, and worship God. These principles are not arbitrary conventions but rather expressions of how creatures designed in God’s image ought to function. Natural law thus bridges special and general revelation, showing how God’s righteous character is disclosed through both Scripture and creation (Hittinger, 2003).

However, Christian ethics recognizes that sin distorts human moral perception, rendering unaided reason insufficient for complete moral knowledge (Horton, 2011). While natural law provides genuine moral knowledge, full understanding of God’s righteous character and its implications requires special revelation through Scripture and supremely through the incarnation of Christ. Jesus embodies divine righteousness perfectly, providing both the ultimate revelation of God’s character and the exemplar for human moral life (Hauerwas, 1983).

Responding to Objections

The Problem of Divine Commands That Seem Immoral

Critics frequently cite biblical passages describing divine commands that appear morally problematic—Canaanite genocide, slavery regulations, or subordination of women—as evidence against grounding ethics in God’s character (Copan, 2011). These “hard texts” require careful interpretation. First, many problematic passages reflect divine accommodation to human sinfulness within particular historical contexts rather than ideal moral standards (Wright, 2004). Slavery regulations in Deuteronomy, for instance, significantly limited and humanized practices common in the ancient Near East, pointing toward eventual abolition rather than endorsing permanent slavery.

Second, some difficult commands served specific redemptive-historical purposes within God’s progressive revelation. The conquest narratives, understood within ancient Near Eastern context and theology, relate to establishing a covenant community through which universal blessing would eventually come (Longman & Reid, 2010). These narratives require theological interpretation through the lens of God’s overarching redemptive plan rather than extraction as timeless moral principles.

Third, Christian ethics distinguishes between God’s revealed moral will (what He commands humans to do) and His sovereign will (what He permits or accomplishes through historical events). That God used imperfect human agents and morally complex situations to accomplish redemptive purposes does not imply that all their actions reflected God’s moral ideal (Feinberg, 2010). Careful biblical interpretation, informed by hermeneutical principles and awareness of genre, historical context, and theological development, resolves many apparent tensions.

The Autonomy Objection

Secularists argue that grounding ethics in God’s character undermines human moral autonomy, reducing ethics to heteronomy—subjection to external authority (Kant, 1785/1993). This objection misunderstands the relationship between divine character and human moral agency. Christian ethics holds that humans are created in God’s image precisely to reflect divine righteousness through free, rational moral agency (Kilner, 2015). Moral autonomy properly understood means self-governance according to reason, not independence from all moral truth. Since God’s character represents the ultimate standard of rationality and goodness, conforming to divine righteousness actualizes rather than undermines authentic human autonomy (Wolterstorff, 2008).

Moreover, the autonomy objection assumes that moral obligations must be self-imposed to be genuine. However, this assumption is questionable. Moral obligations can be objective features of reality that human reason discovers rather than creates, just as mathematical truths are discovered rather than invented (Shafer-Landau, 2003). Recognition that moral truth is grounded in God’s character need not compromise moral agency any more than recognizing that mathematical truth exists independently of human thought compromises intellectual freedom.

Implications for Christian Moral Reasoning

Virtue Ethics and Character Formation

Understanding righteousness as grounded in God’s essential nature aligns Christian ethics with virtue theory, which emphasizes character formation over mere rule-following (Kotva, 1996). If morality flows from who God is, moral maturity involves becoming like God—cultivating virtues that reflect divine character. The biblical command to “be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy” (Leviticus 19:2, NIV) calls believers not merely to external compliance with rules but to internal transformation into Christ-likeness (Romans 8:29).

This virtue approach addresses limitations of pure rule-based ethics, which can become legalistic and fail to capture the fullness of moral life. Virtues such as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23) represent character qualities reflecting God’s nature, cultivated through spiritual formation and divine grace rather than mere willpower (Willard, 1998). Christian ethics thus integrates divine command elements (God’s revealed will) with virtue ethics (character conformity to divine nature) and natural law (rational discernment of human telos).

The Role of Christ and the Holy Spirit

Christian ethics culminates in Christology and pneumatology. Jesus Christ, as the incarnate Son of God, perfectly embodies divine righteousness in human life, providing both the ultimate revelation of God’s character and the exemplar for moral living (Philippians 2:5-11). Christ’s life, teachings, death, and resurrection demonstrate what righteousness looks like when actualized in human form (Stassen & Gushee, 2003). The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) presents not merely moral ideals but a description of life in God’s kingdom, grounded in divine character and enabled by divine grace.

The Holy Spirit empowers moral transformation, enabling believers to embody divine righteousness through sanctification (2 Corinthians 3:18). Christian ethics thus transcends both legalism (attempting righteousness through human effort alone) and antinomianism (rejecting moral law entirely). The Spirit works to conform believers to Christ’s image, producing fruit that reflects God’s character (Horton, 2011). Moral transformation becomes participatory, as humans cooperate with divine grace to manifest righteousness that flows ultimately from God’s nature rather than human achievement.

Conclusion

This examination of Christian ethical foundations demonstrates that righteousness is necessarily grounded in God’s essential character rather than arbitrary divine commands or human conventions. Contemporary atheistic moral philosophy, while correctly noting that non-believers can act morally, fails to provide adequate ontological grounding for objective moral truth. The concepts of “good” and “right” require foundation in a transcendent, personal, immutable source—precisely what God’s righteous nature provides.

Theological essentialism, which identifies righteousness with God’s essence, resolves the Euthyphro dilemma while preserving both divine sovereignty and moral objectivity. God’s commands express rather than create moral truth, flowing necessarily from His character attributes. This grounding explains morality’s objectivity (rooted in God’s nature), prescriptivity (reflecting personal divine will), immutability (grounded in unchanging essence), and knowability (accessible through revelation).

The implications of this foundation extend throughout Christian moral reasoning, integrating divine command elements with virtue ethics and natural law theory. Christ’s incarnation provides the supreme revelation of divine righteousness in human form, while the Holy Spirit enables participatory transformation into Christ-likeness. Christian ethics thus offers a comprehensive framework that addresses both theoretical questions about moral foundations and practical questions about moral living.

As Psalm 36:6 affirms, God’s righteousness towers above all created reality like the highest mountains, providing an immovable foundation for moral truth. This divine righteousness, existing eternally and necessarily in God’s nature, grounds the very possibility of objective morality and gives content to human moral obligations. Contemporary challenges to Christian ethics ultimately fail not because they lack moral seriousness but because they cannot provide the ontological foundations that moral objectivity requires. Only in the character of God—righteous in His essential being—does ethics find its ultimate foundation.

References

Adams, R. M. (1999). Finite and infinite goods: A framework for ethics. Oxford University Press.

Aquinas, T. (1920). Summa theologica (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.). Burns, Oates & Washbourne. (Original work published 1265-1274)

Baggett, D., & Walls, J. L. (2011). Good God: The theistic foundations of morality. Oxford University Press.

Bartholomew, C. G., & Goheen, M. W. (2012). The drama of Scripture: Finding our place in the biblical story (2nd ed.). Baker Academic.

Brueggemann, W. (2002). Reverberations of faith: A theological handbook of Old Testament themes. Westminster John Knox Press.

Budziszewski, J. (2003). What we can’t not know: A guide. Spence Publishing.

Copan, P. (2011). Is God a moral monster? Making sense of the Old Testament God. Baker Books.

Craig, W. L. (2008). Reasonable faith: Christian truth and apologetics (3rd ed.). Crossway Books.

Dawkins, R. (2006). The God delusion. Houghton Mifflin.

Dolezal, J. E. (2011). God without parts: Divine simplicity and the metaphysics of God’s absoluteness. Pickwick Publications.

Evans, C. S. (2013). God and moral obligation. Oxford University Press.

Feinberg, J. S. (2010). No one like him: The doctrine of God. Crossway Books.

Frame, J. M. (2008). The doctrine of the Christian life. P & R Publishing.

Harris, S. (2010). The moral landscape: How science can determine human values. Free Press.

Hauerwas, S. (1983). The peaceable kingdom: A primer in Christian ethics. University of Notre Dame Press.

Hitchens, C. (2007). God is not great: How religion poisons everything. Twelve Books.

Hittinger, R. (2003). The first grace: Rediscovering the natural law in a post-Christian world. ISI Books.

Horton, M. (2011). The Christian faith: A systematic theology for pilgrims on the way. Zondervan.

Hume, D. (1978). A treatise of human nature (L. A. Selby-Bigge, Ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1739)

Kant, I. (1993). Grounding for the metaphysics of morals (J. W. Ellington, Trans.; 3rd ed.). Hackett Publishing. (Original work published 1785)

Kierkegaard, S. (1985). Fear and trembling (A. Hannay, Trans.). Penguin Books. (Original work published 1843)

Kilner, J. F. (2015). Dignity and destiny: Humanity in the image of God. Eerdmans.

Kotva, J. J. (1996). The Christian case for virtue ethics. Georgetown University Press.

Kreeft, P., & Tacelli, R. K. (1994). Handbook of Christian apologetics. InterVarsity Press.

Lewis, C. S. (1947). Miracles: A preliminary study. Geoffrey Bles.

Longman, T., & Reid, D. G. (2010). God is a warrior. Zondervan.

Marshall, I. H. (1978). The Epistles of John. Eerdmans.

Moreland, J. P., & Craig, W. L. (2003). Philosophical foundations for a Christian worldview. InterVarsity Press.

Plantinga, A. (2000). Warranted Christian belief. Oxford University Press.

Plato. (1981). Euthyphro. In Five dialogues (G. M. A. Grube, Trans.). Hackett Publishing. (Original work written ca. 399 B.C.E.)

Shafer-Landau, R. (2003). Moral realism: A defence. Oxford University Press.

Smith, C. (2014). The sacred project of American sociology. Oxford University Press.

Stassen, G. H., & Gushee, D. P. (2003). Kingdom ethics: Following Jesus in contemporary context. InterVarsity Press.

Wells, S. (2010). Improvisation: The drama of Christian ethics. Brazos Press.

Wielenberg, E. J. (2014). Robust ethics: The metaphysics and epistemology of godless normative realism. Oxford University Press.

Willard, D. (1998). The divine conspiracy: Rediscovering our hidden life in God. HarperCollins.

Wolterstorff, N. (2008). Justice: Rights and wrongs. Princeton University Press.

Wright, C. J. H. (2004). Old Testament ethics for the people of God. InterVarsity Press.