	by	Glenn	Peoples,	and	from	the	work	of	C.	Stephen	Evans. It	is	the	leading	response	in	the	current	literature.	I'll	consider	both	the Adams/Peoples'	version	and	the	Evans	version	separately	since,	although	they are	quite	similar	in	their	overall	thrust,	there	are	some	subtle	and	important differences	between	them. Let's	start	with	the	Adams/Peoples'	version.	As	mentioned	earlier,	Adams	is one	of	the	proponents	of	DCT	who	concedes	the	link	between	ontology	and epistemology.	He	thinks	that	the	DCTist	owes	some	account	of	how	it	is	that people	come	to	know	what	is	commanded	of	them.	To	do	this,	Adams	offers	an account	of	what	it	would	take	for	God	to	successfully	issue	a	moral	command. This	results	in	something	I	shall	call	'Adams's	Communicative	Standard'.	It	has three	elements	to	it: Adams's	Communicative	Standard:	'In	my	opinion,	a	satisfactory	account of	these	matters	will	have	three	main	points.	(1)	A	divine	command	will always	involve	a	sign,	as	we	may	call	it,	that	is	intentionally	caused	by	God. (2)	In	causing	the	sign	God	must	intend	to	issue	a	command,	and	what	is commanded	is	what	God	intends	to	command	thereby.	(3)	The	sign	must	be such	that	the	intended	audience	could	understand	it	as	conveying	the intended	command.'	(Adams	1999,	265) The	first	two	conditions
by 	 Glenn 	 Peoples, 	 and 	 from 	 the 	 work 	 of 	 C. 	 Stephen 	 Evans. It 	 is 	 the 	 leading 	 response 	 in 	 the 	 current 	 literature. 	 I'll 	 consider 	 both 	 the Adams / Peoples' 	 interpretation 	 and 	 the 	 Evans 	 interpretation 	 separately 	 since, 	 although 	 they are 	 quite 	 similar 	 in 	 their 	 overall 	 thrust, 	 there 	 are 	 some 	 insidious 	 and 	 important differences 	 between 	 them. permit's 	 start 	 with 	 the 	 Adams / Peoples' 	 version. 	 As 	 mention 	 earlier, 	 Adams 	 is one 	 of 	 the 	 advocate 	 of 	 DCT 	 who 	 concedes 	 the 	 link 	 between 	 ontology 	 and epistemology. 	 He 	 thinks 	 that 	 the 	 DCTist 	 owes 	 some 	 score 	 of 	 how 	 it 	 is 	 that people 	 hail 	 to 	 know 	 what 	 is 	 commanded 	 of 	 them. 	 To 	 make 	 this, 	 Adams 	 offers 	 an account 	 of 	 what 	 it 	 would 	 claim 	 for 	 God 	 to 	 successfully 	 issue 	 a 	 moral 	 command. This 	 results 	 in 	 something 	 I 	 shall 	 call 	' Adams's 	 Communicative 	 Standard'. 	 It 	 have three 	 elements 	 to 	 it: Adams's 	 Communicative 	 Standard: 	' In 	 my 	 opinion, 	 a 	 satisfactory 	 account of 	 these 	 matters 	 will 	 have 	 three 	 chief 	 points. 	 (1) 	 A 	 divine 	 command 	 will always 	 involve 	 a 	 sign, 	 as 	 we 	 may 	 call 	 it, 	 that 	 is 	 intentionally 	 caused 	 by 	 God. (2) 	 In 	 causing 	 the 	 sign 	 God 	 must 	 intend 	 to 	 issue 	 a 	 command, 	 and 	 what 	 is commanded 	 is 	 what 	 God 	 intends 	 to 	 command 	 thereby. 	 (3) 	 The 	 sign 	 must 	 be such 	 that 	 the 	 intend 	 audience 	 could 	 understand 	 it 	 as 	 bring 	 the intended 	 command.' 	 (Adams 	 1999, 	 265) The 	 first 	 two 	 conditions
	by	Gpenn	Peoples,	and	from	the	wory	of	C.	Stephen	Evans. It	is	tie	leadihg	responre	in	the	current	literature.	I'll	clnwider	voth	the Adams/Peoples'	vefsion	and	tje	Evans	vwrsiib	separatelb	aince,	albkough	fmey axe	wuite	similar	in	jheir	overall	dhrust,	there	are	vooe	dubtle	and	important differences	betweqn	them. Keh's	start	with	the	Wdamx/[eopmvs'	yersion.	As	mentioned	earlier,	Adams	is one	of	tie	proponents	of	DVT	who	concedes	the	link	betweej	ontllogy	and epistemollgy.	He	thinks	jgat	eye	DCTist	owes	rome	accounu	oy	how	it	is	thaj people	come	to	know	what	is	commandea	of	thzm.	To	do	this,	Aeans	ovxers	an acconnt	of	wrat	it	would	take	for	God	do	succexsfully	issue	a	mpran	conmand. This	results	in	sokething	I	shall	call	'Aqams's	Commgnncative	Standard'.	It	has rheee	elgmentv	to	ig: Adxms'a	Cpmjunicahivx	Standard:	'In	jy	opinion,	a	sqtisfactory	account pf	eyese	matters	wiml	have	ehwee	main	points.	(1)	A	divine	command	will always	itvomve	a	sign,	as	we	may	call	it,	thqt	is	intentionally	causgd	by	God. (2)	In	sausing	the	sign	God	must	intend	to	issue	a	command,	and	what	hs cojoanbcq	kw	wjat	God	intends	to	command	thereby.	(3)	The	sign	must	be susg	tnan	the	intended	audiekce	could	understand	ot	ws	vjnveying	the ivtendeb	dojmand.'	(Adams	1999,	265) The	firsh	two	conqitiobs
by Glenn Peoples, and from the work Stephen It is leading response in both Adams/Peoples' version and Evans version separately although they are quite similar in overall thrust, there are some subtle and important differences between them. Let's start the Adams/Peoples' version. As mentioned earlier, Adams is one of the proponents of who the between and epistemology. He thinks that the DCTist owes some account of how it is that people to know what is commanded of them. To this, Adams offers an of what it would take God successfully issue moral This in something I call 'Adams's Communicative Standard'. It has three elements to it: Adams's Communicative Standard: 'In my opinion, a account of will have main (1) divine command will a sign, as we may call intentionally caused by God. (2) In causing the God must to issue a command, and what commanded is what God intends to command thereby. The sign must be such that the intended audience could understand it as conveying the (Adams 1999, 265) The two conditions
	by	Glenn	Peoples,	and	from	the	wOrk	of	C.	StepHen	EvAns. it	iS	tHe	leAdinG	response	in	the	CUrreNt	literature.	I'll	consideR	both	ThE adamS/peOples'	Version	ANd	THE	EvAnS	vErsIoN	SeParatEly	Since,	alThough	they Are	QuIte	similar	in	THeIr	overall	tHruSt,	there	are	soMe	sUbtle	aNd	ImpORtant DifFerenCes	betWEen	theM. Let's	starT	wITh	the	ADAms/PeopLES'	vErsiOn.	As	mentioned	earlIEr,	aDams	is one	of	the	ProponEnTS	oF	dcT	wHo	cOncedes	the	LiNk	betWEen	ontoLOgY	AND epIStemology.	He	thInks	that	the	dcTiSt	owes	SoMe	aCCount	oF	how	iT	iS	ThaT people	come	To	knOw	what	is	cOmmandED	of	them.	tO	do	this,	adams	oFfeRs	aN accOUnT	oF	whAt	IT	woULd	TakE	For	god	to	sucCeSsFully	IssuE	A	MORal	cOmmAnd. THis	reSults	in	somethIng	i	shaLL	caLl	'AdaMs's	CoMmunIcAtive	standaRd'.	It	hAs Three	elements	to	It: AdAms's	CommuNicAtIve	stAndarD:	'in	my	opIniOn,	a	SatisfaCtory	acCOunT oF	THEsE	matters	will	have	thReE	MAiN	points.	(1)	A	Divine	COmMaND	will alwAyS	inVolvE	A	Sign,	aS	we	mAY	cAll	it,	thaT	is	intENtIoNally	caUsEd	by	GoD. (2)	IN	caUsiNg	the	SIgn	GOd	must	Intend	to	Issue	A	Command,	and	what	IS commanded	is	wHAt	gOD	iNTendS	to	Command	therEby.	(3)	THE	sigN	musT	Be SucH	That	tHe	intEnDEd	AUdience	could	understAnD	it	as	cOnveyIng	the intendeD	command.'	(AdAMS	1999,	265) the	first	Two	cONdITions
	by	Glenn	Peoples,	and	fro m	the	work 	of	C .	S tep he n	Ev ans.  It	is	the	lea d ingresponse	in	the	curren t	lit er a ture . 	I 'll	c onsider bo t h 	th eAd ams /P e op les'ver sion	an d	the	Evan s	v er sion	separat e ly 	since,	al tho ugh	they are 	qu ite	si mi lar in	th eir 	over all	th r ust,	t here	areso m e	subt l e	and	i m p or tant  differences	betw e en them. Let's	st art	wi th th e Ada ms/ Peoples'	v er sion. As	ment i on e d ear l ier,	Adams	is  one	of	the pro ponent sofD CT	who 	conc ed e s	t he	link	bet ween 	ontology 	and e p istemol o gy.	Hethinks 	th attheD CT is t	o we s 	so m eacc o unt 	of	howit 	i s	tha t pe o p l e 	com e	t o	kn ow	wh at	is	command edof	t h em. 	To	d o	thi s,	A da ms	of fers	a n acc ou nt	of	what	it	w ould 	take	for 	Go dtosu ccess f ully	i ssu e	a 	moralcommand .  Th is r e su lts	in	something	I 	s h a ll 	call	'A dams's Co mm u nicative 	S tan dard ' . 	It	h as t h re e	elemen ts	toi t:  A dams'sCo mmunic at ive 	St andar d :	'I n	my	o pinion,a	sat i sfactory	accou n t of	these	ma t te r s 	w i ll	h ave 	three	main 	poi n ts.(1)A 	d ivi n e	com mandwi l la lways	involve	a	sig n, 	as	we 	maycall	it,	that 	is	intent i o n ally	cau sedb yG od. (2)	In	cau singthe	sign	G o d	must	i ntend 	to	issu e	a	comma n d ,	and	wh atiscom man d e dis	what	God	i n t ends 	t o	comma ndthereby .	( 3)The 	si gn 	must	besuch	tha tth ein ten ded	a u dience	c ou ldun der stand it	asconve ying 	t he int ended	c o mm a n d.'(A da ms	1 999 ,265)Thef irs t	two	c onditions 
	by	Glenn	Peoples,	and	from	the	work	of	C.	Stephen	Evans. It	is	the	leading	response	in	the	current	literature.	I'll	consider	both	the_Adams/Peoples'	version	and	the	Evans	version	separately	since,	although	they are	quite	similar	in	their	overall	thrust,	there	are	some	subtle	and	important_differences	between	them. Let's	start	with	the	Adams/Peoples'	version.	As	mentioned	earlier,	Adams	is one	of	the	proponents	of	DCT	who	concedes	the	link	between	ontology	and epistemology.	He	thinks	that	the	DCTist	owes	some	account	of	how	it	is	that_people	come	to	know	what	is	commanded	of	them.	To	do	this,	Adams	offers	an account	of	what	it	would	take	for	God	to	successfully	issue	a	moral	command._This	results	in	something	I	shall	call	'Adams's	Communicative	Standard'.	It	has_three	elements	to	it: Adams's	Communicative	Standard:	'In	my	opinion,	a	satisfactory	account_of	these	matters	will	have	three	main	points.	(1)	A	divine	command	will_always	involve	a	sign,	as	we	may	call	it,	that	is	intentionally	caused	by	God. (2)	In	causing	the	sign	God	must	intend	to	issue	a	command,	and	what	is commanded	is	what	God	intends	to	command	thereby.	(3)	The	sign	must	be_such	that	the	intended	audience	could	understand	it	as	conveying	the intended	command.'	(Adams	1999,	265) The	first	two	conditions