“Those people who don’t know about God’s Law will still be punished for what they do wrong. And the Law will be used to judge everyone who knows what it says” (Romans 2:12 CEV).
The axiological argument for God’s existence seeks to demonstrate God’s existence by highlighting the presence of universal moral absolutes. If we can demonstrate the existence of transcendent moral absolutes that are universally acknowledged, then such laws must naturally derive from a transcendent source as well.
One such example is this: it is wrong to end the life of another human being arbitrarily and without cause. This universal moral principle asserts that it is always wrong to take a life indiscriminately without justification or reason. While every culture may debate the precise definition of a justifiable homicide, all cultures share the mutual understanding that it is wrong to kill another human being without any reason.
Another transcendent moral law states, it is wrong to be unjust. While injustice may take different forms, there is cross-cultural agreement on this general principle. In fact, we can find an ancient expression of this idea in the Biblical book of Proverbs: “The Lord detests the use of dishonest scales, but he delights in accurate weights” (Proverbs 11:1 NLT).
We can find another example in the following principle: it is wrong to be unfair. For instance, anyone who has ever said, “It’s not fair…” is someone who accepts the reality of this objective moral law. Even small children recognize this law, as any parent of a small child will undoubtedly attest. To underscore this idea, let’s return to another quotation from the author and apologist C. S. Lewis…
“Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining ‘It’s not fair…'” (1)
Of course, many reject the idea that transcendent moral values exist. But a person who does not believe in the existence of these absolute moral standards still adheres to at least one absolute moral standard. That absolute moral standard is this: there are no absolute moral standards.
So, if transcendent moral absolutes exist for every culture, tribe, and society, then there must be a transcendent source from which those absolute moral laws derive. This helps explain why “…people who don’t know about God’s Law will still be punished for what they do wrong” as we read here in Romans 2:12.
(1) Lewis, C. (1960). Mere Christianity. Macmillan Paperbacks Edition [pg. 5]
Image Attribution: Unfair, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

This approach argues for the existence of universal moral statutes that transcend time and culture. It also asserts that all laws have authors who create them. In order to prescribe those transcendent moral absolutes, our law source must also transcend time and culture as well. If we can document the existence of transcendent moral laws that every culture, tribe, and society recognizes and accepts, then it means that such laws must also derive from a transcendent source as well.
This approach builds on the cosmological argument for God’s existence in an important way. It states that the things that have been made serve to reveal the existence of a designer. Several analogies have been developed to illustrate this concept over the years. For example…
The field of archaeology offers another example. An archaeologist on a dig is not surprised to uncover a natural stone from an earlier era, for it is nothing more than a feature of the surrounding landscape. However, when that archaeologist uncovers a natural stone from an earlier era that has been fashioned into a tool, he or she knows that an intelligent entity modified that stone for a reason. The archaeologist thus finds a level of complexity in that discovery that natural processes cannot explain.
Romans 2:12 marks the first of seventy-eight appearances of the word “law” in the New King James Version of this epistle. An excerpt from the following commentary will serve as our introduction to this important concept…
Next, God’s judgment will be rooted in truth according to Romans 2:2. In other words, God will assess our thoughts and behaviors on the basis of reality and not appearance. While human beings are occasionally shocked to discover that others are not what they seem, God is never surprised by such revelations, and He will judge accordingly.
Another commentary likens God’s wrath to a large repository…
Paul then followed with a rhetorical question that assumes a negative response: “Do you really think God won’t punish you, when you behave exactly like the people you accuse?” (CEV). When faced with that uncomfortable reality, some may attempt to shift the blame for their shortcomings to someone or something else. While that approach may work with other human beings, it is wholly ineffective with the God who knows all.
The main point is this: the very act of creating this internal courtroom validates the practice of judging others. The problem comes when we fail to apply our personal judicial standards to our own thoughts, acts, and behaviors. It is often easy to exempt ourselves from the standards we apply to others, but in doing so, we establish two sets of rules: one for ourselves and one for others.
Do Scriptures such as Romans 2:1 and James 4:12 prohibit us from judging others? Do these passages forbid us from judging ideas and opinions that are evil, unfair, or unjust? Do they mean we should never speak the truth to others because doing so might involve “judging” them? We can answer such questions with an unqualified “no.”
J.B. Phillips offers an descriptive translation of this text from James 4:11: “Never pull each other to pieces, my brothers.” This restriction prohibits things like ridicule, slander, and other forms of verbal abuse directed towards others. It also encompasses similar behaviors such as gossip, rumor-mongering, or unsubstantiated speculation regarding the trials and difficulties that others may experience.
Jesus’ famous counsel from The Sermon On The Mount is instructive in this regard…
Yokoyama’s origin story for his new creation took place in the waning stages of World War II. In that fictional history, the Japanese government commissioned a group of scientists led by Dr. Shōtarō Kaneda and his assistant, Professor Shikishima, to create a secret weapon for use against the Allied forces. After twenty-seven failed attempts, Kaneda’s team successfully created Tetsujin 28 (“Iron Man 28”), a hulking robot that stood 18 meters (sixty feet) tall. However, Dr. Kaneda perished and the war ended before his creation could be pressed into service as a military weapon.
One common illustration of the truth behind that statement occurs whenever someone employs Jesus’ name as a profanity or an expletive. Another example occurs whenever we casually refer to God in a thoughtless, flippant, irreverent, or condescending manner. Some examples might include the term “ohmigod,” “OMG,” or other similar expressions.
This reference to strife is then followed by another ungodly attribute: deceit. “Deceit” involves an effort to manipulate or fool others in a dishonest manner. The type of deceit mentioned here refers to “a bait or contrivance for entrapping.” (2) Other descriptive terms that characterize this idea include guile, treachery, and cunning (in a bad way).
With these things in mind, we can say murder is a crime that violates the