I don’t see these as ethical categories so much as existential or, if we want to get fancy, ontological categories. We only achieve holiness and righteousness by participating in the goodness of God Himself, for He alone is good.

Thus Peter says: “Whereby are given to us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.”

Consider also Paul in II Corinthians:

“But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the Spirit.”

Paul is talking about fundamental changes here, about the transfiguration. The “new man” that we put on is not a change of behavior. It goes way deeper than that.

The simplification of Christianity to a moral code is dangerous, and sells short the transformational message of the Gospel, which gives us the good news of our adoption — our inheritance of the kingdom.

Father Stephen Freeman, an Orthodox priest, writes often on the necessity of “existential” rather than “legalistic” Christianity. He is worth checking out. http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/

This is the weakness of nominalist Protestantism. Everything is reduced to behavior. What about the deeper realities of our relationship with one another and our communion with God? Through the sacred mysteries, Scripture reading, and prayer, the grace of God infuses our being with grace, redeeming us, changing us to the core.

“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” Galatians 2:20

“If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” John 14:23

Bombardment with a buffet of rooted things? I like the complexity of your metaphor.

Our society, however, has bombarded everyone with a buffet of moral choices, each rooted in a particular view of reality.

If this is within the scope of your series, it would be helpful to examine and comment upon the historical origins of our cultural moment you aptly describe as a buffet of choices; by this I mean the origins of both individual “items” of the buffet and the “buffet” as a paradigm in itself.

The reason this is helpful is because it shows where ideas came from, and therefore how they might come to an end. At minimum, it tends to open minds closed by familiarity with the “default” cultural norms.

Hear hear. Too often we forget this, and I’m glad you put it in.

I like Van Til’s presuppositional method (I’m a big fan of Bahnsen as well), but I definitely don’t find myself in the Reformed camp. Either way, this is some great stuff and I’m looking forward to the rest!