The Sufficiency of Scripture & Child Discipline II

In S.T.S. 2.3, I briefly referenced a recent discussion I’d had with someone over Biblical methods of child-discipline (in particular, whether or not to spank your child), noting a popular but dangerous line of reasoning that was communicated to me. Since that time, I have decided that there is good merit to printing the majority of that dialogue, the first part of which was published in S.T.S. 2.4. My reason was simply this: there are too many lessons covered in that correspondence to merely deal with one portion of it. So, with that said, I’ll here paste the part two of that discussion. Since this dialogue happened in thread format (on a forum), you may see some repetition here and there. Because of this, I will seek to be extra-careful in how I lay out the dialogue.

-//-

My initial post that kicked off the discussion:

“I know someone that, as a matter of child-discipline, will bite her child if that child were to bite one of her playmates. Moreover, she will go so far as to desire to leave teeth marks. I am pro-corporal punishment and consistently use a wooden/plastic spoon in a first-time obedience manner with my son, but I'm not really sure how I feel about the biting (I lean away from it actually). One of my other friends (who is not a big fan of corporal punishment at all) asked: ‘How do you expect to teach against that which is wrong by doing what is wrong in itself?’ This sort of over-simplified thinking could work her into a pretzel in my opinion - if pressed a bit further. For example, I could see her arguing the same way against spanking. One popular line is: "I just can't see how violence is ever justified." Well, some would seek to show that corporal punishment is not a form of violence, per se. I don't know about that (i.e., self defense, cases of just war, capital punishment when appropriate, etc.). I would like to generate some discussion on these various concerns.” -Scott

-//-

For starters, let’s take 2 pieces from the above paragraph and address them.

1 - “How do you expect to teach against that which is wrong by doing what is
wrong in itself?” This sort of over-simplified thinking could work her into a
pretzel in my opinion - if pressed a bit further. For example, I could see her
arguing the same way against spanking.

2 - One popular line is: “I just can't see how violence is ever justified.”
Well, some would seek to show that corporal punishment is not violence, per se.
I don't know about that (i.e., self defense, cases of just war, capital
punishment when appropriate, etc.). I would like to generate some discussion on
these various concerns.

You see, someone could see a parent spanking a child and say . . . "You shouldn't teach your child about right/wrong by doing a wrong action" . . . well, I'm going to turn around and tell you that you are presupposing that spanking is a wrong action (for whatever reason one might think that it is). In other words, I would seek to reverse the burden of proof, making you lay out a solid case for spanking being wrong.

Furthermore, I would ask you to put your argument in the form of a syllogism so I could see whether or not you have a real argument or not to respond to. It would look like this with most opponents of corporal punishment (though not Peace2You, to be fair, as he is not necessarily against corporal punishment):

P1: Spanking is a form of violence;
P2: Violence is wrong;
C: Therefore, spanking is wrong.

This is a bit (a lot) sloppy when broken down and unpacked. First, we would have to go further back to see whether spanking constituted a legit form of violence (P1). For the sake of argumentation, I'll go ahead and concede that point, as I believe that premise 1 is a true premise. Second, we would then have to examine whether all forms of violence were inherently immoral and wrong (P2). If the answer given to that is "yes," then what do we do when someone breaks into our homes? When we may be in a position to help someone who is being beaten up? Capital punishment?

You could work yourself into a pretzel if not careful . . . really careful. Inconsistency and arbitrariness has a way of bubbling to the surface for exposure when we carefully analyze a thing according to strict logical construction. Failure to establish the given premises as true results not in an argument, but rather in an unjustified assertion which carries no weight at all.

Added to this, lets say that you didn't spank. Let's say that you gave a talking to, withheld privileges, or used timeout, etc. (not that these things should never be used). Does the non-physical nature of the chosen course of action give your child permission to put their teacher in time-out? Lecture grandmother? Withhold the sharing of toys from a playmate? By no means. In a similar way, good spanking doesn't teach your child that it's alright to hit someone else. I can do things as a parent that are off-limits to my children, much the same way that officers could over civilians -- teachers over students -- supervisors over employees, etc. There are differing roles, some of them carrying more weight, privileges, and responsibilities than others . . . yet none of them stating that the teacher is inherently more worthy or valuable than the student.

-//-

Many "biter-parents" may appeal to the "eye for eye/tooth for tooth" principle (lex talionis; also spelled lex taliones) as somewhat of a justification for doing such a thing. Unfortunately, they do a hatchet-job on that great governmental principle of the Bible in order to do so. This law of retaliation or retribution is a civil law to be carried out by appropriate governing authorities . . . not us. With that said, though, some things need to be noted:

(1) civilians like us don't equate to an ordained governing body; the state
is licensed to do many things that would be off-limits to your average civilian;

(2) lex talionis is about pure punishment or justice for a wrong committed;
in that sense, it is not about rehabilitation or education or moral instruction
whatsoever -- it's penal and punitive -- it's about justice, plain and simple;

(3) there is a major difference between justice and discipline in the
context of rearing a child; in the justice system, punishment may range from a
parking ticket to death, depending on what has taken place . . . justice is
penal or punitive in nature . . . disciplining your child has much more to do
with education or moral instruction . . . big difference;

(4) lex talionis doesn't mean what many think it does . . . the ultimate
point is that the punishment must fit the crime in some real sense, not that I
get to take your eye out if you take mine (especially when speaking of minors);
if somebody steals a loaf of bread, we don't whack their arm off;

(5) justice systems/penal institutions are sorely misunderstood in our day
. . . for example, many view them as places of rehabilitation -- this is totally
wrong; when rehab doesn't take place, many get their underwear worked into a
bowline knot and go to belly-aching about the failures of our justice system
(and there are problems to be sure); the problem here is that penal institutions
were never meant to instruct criminals first and foremost -- they have
historically existed to punish criminals; it's like folks who say that capital
punishment never works because it's not looking to be a strong deterrent (as if
they could actually know this in any sort of meaningful way) . . . my response
is that capital punishment works every single time -- every time it's used, the
prisoner dies; a deterrent factor may be a secondary positive factor, but it is
not an issue of priority;

-//-

All of the above is to basically say that justice is NOT what disciplining your children should be about. Biter-moms do greatly err here!

-//-

A sloppy or a good anthropology will make a big difference here. It all depends on your worldview. Is man's (more specifically, a criminal's) primary problem one of a pathological nature, needing therapy? Or is is moral, requiring justice/punishment? I am getting way off here, so let me bring it back and close it out.

Ultimately, I would ask you (anybody really) what authoritative standard you are appealing to in order to make your case:

*Is that standard transcendent, universal, abstract, invariant, and
absolute (given/revealed to us by One who transcends our physical existence, One
Who is all-knowing, and One Who has created us and has the very hairs of our
heads numbered)?

**Or is that standard local and private (an invention or popular convention
of man that is agreed upon by consensus)?

***If the former, then what is it and how do you know? Why is it
authoritative?

****If the latter, then I have no reason or obligation to comply and can
simply invent my own philosophies . . . and so could Hitler, etc.

-//-

Examples of appealing to local and private "standards" would be:

[a] Feelings - but if your feeling one way makes it right, then what
happens when I appeal to a conflicting feeling?

[b] Intuition - "

[c] Experiences - "

[d] Testimony of "Experts" - But who are the experts? Where did they get
their stuff? What worldview are they proceeding from and can it stand? Who
designated them as such and why did they do so? What about other "experts" that
would take issue with the previous experts? Who wins and why?? Your book says
this, but mine says the opposite, etc.

The next response I received from Peace2You follows (you’ll notice that he addresses some items published in Part 1 of this series). In Part 3 (S.T.S. 2.6), I will include my response to this and close out this series. Hang in there!

I'm familiar with all the scriptures on the rod. Sorry if I interpet scripture a
bit less literally than you and don't take an actual rod to be necessary. In at
least two of those passages, I think this is entirely justified "rod of
discipline" and "rod of correction" seem to invite metaphorical interpretation
like "breastplate of righteousness" does. I think discipline and correction will
save your child's life. But I don't think it is necessary that the rod be a part
of that. As I said, I don't look down on anyone who does think that way, though.
It is entirely justified by scripture. I just don't think it is required.
Proving this is quite easy. All we need do is observe that many people raise
their children with strong discipline but without corporal punishment, and if
their children turn out to be God-following, God-fearing adults, then the method
succeeded. I know several such people. Their children are not foolish or dead,
and they never felt prompting from the spirit that they were not following God's
ways by not spanking their children, though they honestly sought God's wisdom on
the matter. –Peace2You

-//-

To be continued . . .

--

[Scratching the Surface 2.5]

A Not So Great Quote

"Nothing is more dangerous than religion in politics and government when it becomes divisive . . . . . . I'll give you examples: Iraq. Northern Ireland. Palestine." -John C. ("Jack") Danforth [Republican Episcopal Priest]

-//-

Let's turn that around in order to expose some things:

"Nothing is more dangerous than no religion in politics and government. Here are some examples: The evolutionary philosophy of Nazism that led to the direct deaths of millions and started a world war; atheistic Communism where 25 million were killed in Russia during the Bolshevik and Stalinist eras; 75 million in China under Mao Tse-Tung; 2 million in Cambodia; millions more in Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America; and the deaths of tens of millions of pre-born babies by those who don't want religion and politics to mix."

-//-

If we could withstand the sophistry and empty rhetoric tossed in our direction long enough to think rationally about things, we would do much better! At the end of the day, you cannot separate and divorce politics from the more foundational worldview that gives birth to those political leanings. After all, why isn’t everybody liberal? Why isn’t everybody conservative? You see, there are *reasons* for these things. Secularism is ultimately a variant ideology or philosophy and not some neutral position disconnected from “religion”. Remember that one who is skeptical of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs. Neutrality is mythical!!

The Sufficiency of Scripture & Child Discipline I

In the last issue of S.T.S., I briefly referenced a recent discussion I’d had with someone over Biblical methods of child-discipline (in particular, whether or not to spank your child), noting a popular but dangerous line of reasoning that was communicated to me. Since that time, I have decided that there is good merit to printing the majority of that dialogue. My reason is simply this: there are too many lessons covered in that correspondence to merely deal with one portion of it (that is, in the last issue). So, with that said, I’ll here paste the “post” that started it all. Since this dialogue happened in thread format (on a forum), you may see some repetition here and there. Because of this, I will seek to be extra-careful in how I lay out the dialogue.

-//-

My initial post that kicked off the discussion:

“I know someone that, as a matter of child-discipline, will bite her child if that child were to bite one of her playmates. Moreover, she will go so far as to desire to leave teeth marks. I am pro-corporal punishment and consistently use a wooden/plastic spoon in a first-time obedience manner with my son, but I'm not really sure how I feel about the biting (I lean away from it actually). One of my other friends (who is not a big fan of corporal punishment at all) asked: ‘How do you expect to teach against that which is wrong by doing what is wrong in itself?’ This sort of over-simplified thinking could work her into a pretzel in my opinion - if pressed a bit further. For example, I could see her arguing the same way against spanking. One popular line is: "I just can't see how violence is ever justified." Well, some would seek to show that corporal punishment is not a form of violence, per se. I don't know about that (i.e., self defense, cases of just war, capital punishment when appropriate, etc.). I would like to generate some discussion on these various concerns.” -Scott


Response:

“The biting thing seems ludicrous. There doesn't need to be a connection between the bad behavior and the punishment chosen to correct it. If my child lies to me, should I teach him a lesson by lying to him? That's just dumb and misses the whole point of discipline, which is to assert parental authority and help children understand that some behaviors are not acceptable.” “Personally I don't think spanking is a necessary form of punishment, though I don't have any real moral objections to it. But I do think that spanking radically underestimates how much children are capable of understanding about their actions and consequences. It adopts the assumption that the only consequence to bad behavior that children can understand is physical pain. Children are capable of understanding much more than that, even at a very young age, and other forms of punishment such as the famous 'time out' seem to work fine. The main thing is that consequences are explicitly made known and enacted on a consistent basis and that parents explain to children why they are being punished in a calm, clear way. Anger has no place in child discipline; spanking seems to me to invite anger, though I know people who spank and are very careful not to let it in.” –Peace2You

-//-

My Reply to That [please note that I respond with “in-line” comments depending on what all I feel needs addressing; thus, I will re-post a sentence or two of his, with my comments directly below, and so on and so forth]:

The biting thing seems ludicrous. There doesn't need to be a connection between
the bad behavior and the punishment chosen to correct it. If my child lies to
me, should I teach him a lesson by lying to him? That's just dumb and misses the
whole point of discipline, which is to assert parental authority and help
children understand that some behaviors are not acceptable. –Peace2You

I would echo you here. –Scott

Personally I don't think spanking is a necessary form of punishment. –Peace2You

Okay. You may not think this, but the same God who created us and
perfectly knows our capabilities also exhaled the following truths through the
vehicle of a man: Proverbs 13:24 -He who spares the rod hates his son, but he
who loves him is careful to discipline him. Proverbs 22:15 -Folly is bound up in
the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him.
Proverbs 23:13-14 -Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him
with the rod, he will not die. Punish him with the rod and save his soul from
death. Proverbs 29:15 -The rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child left to
himself disgraces his mother. As far as a "shebet" (or, rod/stick) is concerned,
the use of one in that culture would be analogous to a sharp, quick sting
generated from something like a wooden spoon or switch today. There is no
wiggle-room allowing for a symbolic-only usage of the rod here, one that would
render this passage in such a way as to say something like: He who fails to
administer a discipline of his choosing hates his son, but he who loves him is
careful to discipline him.
We would also do well to keep the following verse
in mind:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 -All Scripture is breathed out by God
and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in
righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good
work. -Scott

though I don't have any real moral objections to it. –Peace2You

From what standard or authority would moral objections to corporal punishment come? It's a good that you don't have any moral objections to spanking Peace2You. The Scripture is clear on corporal punishment. Moral objections stemming from anything other than the revealed commands/precepts of God (located in His Word) are found to be without a foundation and are baseless. You would construct a house on a foundation of sand by doing such a thing. Again, from what foundation would you proceed and how do you justify it as a Christian? –Scott

But I do think that spanking radically underestimates how much children are
capable of understanding about their actions and consequences. –Peace2You

Did God not know this when He moved the persons above to say what they did? In all seriousness, though . . . do you know better than God? I do ask this genuinely, appreciating your participation here. Have we come to a place where we have progressed in such a way as to render the maxims in Proverbs obsolete in some sense? –Scott

It adopts the assumption that the only consequence to bad behavior that children
can understand is physical pain. –Peace2You

How so? This is for you to justify. –Scott

Children are capable of understanding much more than that, even at a very young
age, and other forms of punishment such as the famous 'time out' seem to work
fine. –Peace2You

Okay. –Scott

The main thing is that consequences are explicitly made known and enacted on a
consistent basis and that parents explain to children why they are being
punished in a calm, clear way. –Peace2You

I hesitate to prematurely join myself with you in stating that this is the "main thing" (as if the method of discipline were a relative issue), although you get at a very valid point here. There are 2 opposite, yet equally destructive, extremes that I see many parents falling into (ones that I have to constantly guard against myself). [1] Not clearly communicating a standard but holding your child to it (i.e., an unspoken norm, etc.) . . . or, on a related note, holding the child to a standard that you think you have communicated but one that he or she hasn't really grasped in a functional way; & [2] Communicating boundaries to your child, knowing that he or she has grasped them, yet failing to hold them accountable in a consistent fashion to them. You are correct. We should be able to discipline our children in a calm, cool, and collected manner -- we should be in control throughout the entire disciplinary process. Moreover, if we have fallen into a trap of some sort of an early warning system (i.e., counting to 3, raising my voice above the normal level, or constantly repeating a command), then we are failing. We need to come out of that and to come out quickly for the sake of our children (and the society that has to eventually put up with them). Their very life could one day depend on this . . . what if I were to one day see a coiled rattler 5 ft. behind my unknowing son? I would need to be able to command him, "Son, stand still and don't move," and to then have him immediately comply w/o hesitation. Well, what if I had to say, "Son, if you don't stand still while I count to 3 . . .," etc. You can see the problems there and the point I am getting at. My child will not likely respond to me the first time in a crisis situation if he hasn't been trained to do so in a normal circumstance. –Scott

Anger has no place in child discipline; spanking seems to me to invite anger,
-Peace2You

I could possibly see this as a potentiality were spanking to be abused or improperly administered; however, we are commanded to exercise corporal punishment. It doesn't seem to me that spanking would automatically invite anger. We must be careful of what seems to be the case in anything really. This gets close to arguing from intuition, which lands us in a world of trouble logically. I can attest to many things/thoughts that seemed correct at the time that were clearly not in conformity with the revealed precepts of Scripture. Still, I'm sure I have plenty more blind-spots that need to be taken captive to the obedience of Christ. –Scott

though I know people who spank and are very careful not to let it in. –Peace2You

Right. Thanks, Peace. I will end this one with an excerpt from Dr. James Dobson (emphasis mine) and then with a brief response to my initial post at the top, which will serve to transition us to the next issue of S.T.S.: “. . . children who have experienced corporal punishment from loving parents do not have trouble understanding its meaning. I recall my good friends Art and Ginger Shingler, who had four beautiful children whom I loved. One of them went through a testy period where he was just "asking for it." The conflict came to a head in a restaurant, when the boy continued doing everything he could to be bratty. Finally, Art took him to the parking lot for an overdue spanking. A woman passerby observed the event and became irate. She chided the father for "abusing" his son and said she intended to call the police. With that, the child stopped crying and said to his father, "What's wrong with that woman, Dad?" He understood the discipline even if his rescuer did not. A boy or girl who knows that love abounds at home will not resent a well-deserved spanking. One who is unloved or ignored will hate any form of discipline!” [Dobson]

-//-

As for biting as a punishment, the Bible says to use the "rod" for discipline, and not to necessarily do to the child the same thing that he has done wrong. That is what I'm seeing. I'll deal more with lex talionis, or the law of retaliation/retribution (an eye for an eye), in part 2 (next issue).

It IS exactly right that we cannot teach against what is wrong by doing what is wrong. But the question still remains -- WHAT is wrong? What's wrong is a violation of God's laws. What’s right is obedience to His revealed commands and precepts. The child was wrong in biting another not because violence is itself wrong, but because it is a violation of Biblical precepts; however, corporal punishment IS itself a Biblical precept. So, we follow the same principle when we forbid biting AND administer corporal punishment. That is to say, it is wrong to teach against biting (what is wrong) by NOT exercising corporal punishment. At the same time, how can we teach what is right (not biting) by NOT doing what is right (administering corporal punishment)? This is merely a God-centered approach to ethical decision-making, utilizing His revealed laws as a reference point.

If violence ITSELF is wrong no matter what, then corporal punishment (by deduction) would be wrong by sheer necessity. But how would one go about justifying the assumption that violence is wrong no matter what?? Would they exempt themselves for the things that they want to permit themselves to do, such as cutting carrots into hundreds of pieces? What about killing thousands of bacteria with every breath that they take? From this perspective, the “no-violence at all” crowd becomes mass murderers. We come full circle. This is the difference between a God-centered approach to ethical decision-making (with a reference point to the revealed precepts of the Bible) and a man-centered approach to that same undertaking (with a reference-point of subjective intuition, feelings, and/or experiences). If the reference-point is man-centered, then it will ultimately produce implications or conclusions that the adherent of that man-centered approach would not likely live with at the end of the day. This would expose inconsistencies and arbitrariness. For example, in the case of no violence at all because all violence (in any form) is wrong, consider locking someone up against his will (as in kidnapping or some other situation of a related nature). If this is IN ITSELF wrong, then the adherent of the man-centered approach could not logically support the prison system . . . that is, unless the criminal WANTS to go to prison. That's not going to happen though. -Scott

-//-

To be continued . . .

--

[Scratching the Surface 2.4]

The Mistake of Arguing from Silence

Jesus never condemned homosexuality, nor did He even mention it. Does it follow that homosexuality is okay?

-//-

Have you heard this one before (or something similar)? There are a number of issues at play here, one of them being a faulty view of the uniformity and cohesiveness of the Scriptures (i.e., for instance, are the words of Paul in his epistle to the Romans authoritative also, seeing as how they’re in the canon too?). However, instead of firstly dealing with that issue, my initial response/angle would be this: “So what! Where are you seeking to go with that premise? Finish the thought.”

What the person means to communicate is that since Christ did not condemn or explicitly mention homosexuality, it should then follow that He either approved of it, didn’t have a problem with it one way or the other, or didn’t see it as a huge deal. However, this conclusion doesn’t follow from the given premise (the person has engaged in a non-sequitur logical fallacy, a fallacy whereby the conclusion to one’s argument does not necessarily or validly flow from the prior premises given). Did Christ specifically condemn rape? Since He did not, does it logically follow that He was okay with that crime?

Jesus upheld the validity of the Old Testament and its condemnation of rape, incest, and homosexuality. Do we seek to put legislation on the table that would seek to decriminalize rape and incest simply because Jesus did not explicitly condemn these behaviors? I think you can see the terrible argument at play here; however, it has been used before. Jesus and the New Testament writers worked within (and from) a framework/backdrop of the Old Testament law, thus, there was no need to repeat what was already accepted to be authoritative.

--

[Scratching the Surface 2.4]

Judicial Tyranny? . . . You Bet!!

“Parents have a right to inform their children when and as they wish on the subject of sex; they have no constitutional right, however, to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so. Neither Meyer nor Pierce [two earlier Supreme Court rulings] provides support for the view that parents have a right to prevent a school from providing any kind of information—sexual or otherwise—to its students.… Perhaps the Sixth Circuit said it best when it explained, ‘While parents may have a fundamental right to decide whether to send their child to a public school, they do not have a fundamental right generally to direct how a public school teaches their child.’”

-//-

If you’d like to read the whole article (approx. 2 pages in length), then I encourage you to click on the provided link right now:

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/11-09-05.asp

Don’t even think about not reading the linked article! To whet your appetite a bit more, check out another quote included in the article:

“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of ‘love thy neighbor’ will be finally achieved.”

--

By the way, that last quote was penned 20 years ago! Check the article out!

--

[Scratching the Surface 2.4]

The Biblical Approach to Ethics

I thought it might be helpful to acquaint you to what I believe is the Biblical position on ethics and ethical decision-making concerns.

-//-

Ethics: We Ought to Obey God Rather Than Men

As to the field of ethics, we ought to obey God rather than men. The Bible teaches that the distinction between right and wrong depends entirely upon the commands of God. There is no natural law that makes actions right or wrong, and matters of right and wrong certainly cannot be decided by majority vote. In the words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, “sin is any want of conformity to or transgression of the law of God.” Were there no law of God, there would be no right or wrong.

This may be seen very clearly in God’s command to Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Only the command of God made eating the fruit sin. It may also be seen in God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. God’s command alone made the sacrifice right, and Abraham hastened to obey. Strange as it may sound to modern ears used to hearing so much about the right to life, the right to health, and the right to choose, the Bible says that natural rights and wrongs do not exist: Only God’s commands make some things right and other things wrong. In the Old Testament, it was a sin for the Jews to eat pork. Today, we can all enjoy bacon and eggs for breakfast. What makes killing a human being and eating pork right or wrong is not some quality inherent in men and pigs, but merely the divine command itself.

If we had rights because we are men--if our rights were natural and inalienable--then God himself would have to respect them. But God is sovereign. He is free to do with his creatures as he sees fit. So we do not have natural rights. That is good, for natural and inalienable rights are logically incompatible with punishment of any sort. Fines, for example, violate the inalienable right to property. Imprisonment violates the inalienable right to liberty. Execution violates the inalienable right to life. The natural right theory is logically incoherent at its foundation. Natural rights are logically incompatible with justice. The Biblical idea is not natural rights, but imputed rights. Only imputed rights, not intrinsic rights--natural and inalienable rights--are compatible with liberty and justice. And those rights are imputed by God.

All attempts to base ethics on some foundation other than the Bible fail. Natural law is a failure, because “oughts” cannot be derived from “ises.” In more formal language, the conclusion of an argument can contain no terms that are not found in its premises. Natural lawyers, who begin their arguments with statements about man and the universe, statements in the indicative mood, cannot end their arguments with statements in the imperative mood.

The major ethical theory competing with natural law theory today is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism tells us that the moral action is one that results in the greatest good for the greatest number. It furnishes an elaborate method for calculating the effects of choices. Unfortunately, utilitarianism is also a failure, for it not only commits the naturalistic fallacy of the natural lawyers, it requires a calculation that cannot be executed as well. We cannot know what is the greatest good for the greatest number.

The only logical basis for ethics is the revealed commands of God. They furnish us not only with the basic distinction between right and wrong, but with detailed instructions and practical examples of right and wrong. They actually assist us in living our daily lives. Secular attempts to provide an ethical system fail on both counts.

–written by John W. Robbins, The Trinity Foundation (from the very helpful pamphlet titled, “What Is Christian Philosophy?”)

-//-

That pamphlet can be accessed for free at:

http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=28&products_id=48

I highly recommend you read the pamphlet, as it shows how the Scriptures speak to knowledge, logic, salvation, science, ethics, human rights, politics, etc. It’s not too long of a read, either. Within its 66 books, the Bible contains a complete system of thought. Paul tells us that “All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Christ Jesus.” “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” The Bible tells us how we may know truth, what reality is like, how we should think and act, and even what governments should do. Philosophers usually call these studies (1) epistemology: the theory of knowing; (2) metaphysics: the theory of reality; (3) ethics: the theory of conduct; and (4) politics: the theory of government. The first of these, epistemology, is the most important, for it is the most basic.

--

[Scratching the Surface 2.4]

2 Recommended Ministries

1. Reformation Ministries International & Vincent Cheung (Theology - Philosophy - Apologetics):

www.rmiweb.org

www.vincentcheung.com

-//-

From the home page:

"Welcome to Reformation Ministries International. RMI exists to promote and defend Christianity as it is revealed in Scripture, and as it is systematically expressed in various statements of Reformation theology such as The Westminster Confession, The Belgic Confession, The Heidelberg Catechism, and The Canons of Dordt. Although some areas of this ministry are still at their early stages, RMI is already recognized by some as a strong and decisive voice in Christian theology and apologetics.

Vincent Cheung is the president of Reformation Ministries International. He is the author of more than twenty books and several hundred lectures on a wide range of topics in theology, philosophy, apologetics, and spirituality. Through his books and lectures, he is training Christians to understand, proclaim, defend, and practice the biblical worldview as a comprehensive and coherent system of thought revealed by God in Scripture. He and his wife, Denise, reside in Boston, Massachusetts.

For our main text on biblical doctrines, please consult our Systematic Theology. Our text on Christian philosophy is Ultimate Questions. Although these two books already include some of our teachings on apologetics, Presuppositional Confrontations is dedicated to further detailing our approach and its biblical basis. Related to apologetics, our answer to the so-called "problem of evil" appears in The Author of Sin, and Apologetics in Conversation introduces several important principles for doing apologetics in informal debates. For our introductory exposition of biblical law and ethics, please see The Sermon on the Mount. Then, Prayer and Revelation is an introduction to biblical spirituality and prayer, and The Ministry of the Word states our position on homiletical and educational theories.

Besides these and other texts, our publications include biblical commentaries, topical studies, and basic lessons in logic and argumentation. Our goal is to construct a library of works covering the whole spectrum of Christian thinking and living."

-//-

All of Vincent Cheung's books and articles can be downloaded for free (in PDF format if you have an Adobe Acrobat Reader) from www.rmiweb.org. Besides this, I strongly encourage you to read the daily posts at www.vincentcheung.com.

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

2. Family Ministries & Reb Bradley (Marriage - Family - Schooling - Etc.):

http://www.familyministries.com/index.htm

-//-

From the website:

"Reb Bradley, father of 6, is a pastor who ministers to the Body of Christ at large. Reb has been a radio counselor and talkshow host, and as a writer and national conference speaker he works diligently to strengthen the modern Christian family. He conducts seminars and teaches extensively on issues related to marriage, fatherhood, child training, and single Christian living. Reb is most noted for his book Child Training Tips: What I wish I knew when my children were young. Reb and his wife, Beverly, have taught all six of their children at home, with three now married and three still at home.

Beverly, Reb's wife and mother of 6, devotes herself to raising her children, and allows time to disciple wives and mothers according to Titus 2:4-5. She is a powerful communicator, and a popular keynote speaker at women's gatherings. Committed to teaching the Word of God without compromise, she speaks with sensitivity, humor, and biblical wisdom in addressing issues related to motherhood, marriage, and home schooling. Her frank, transparent style leaves her listeners challenged, yet hopeful in their walks with Christ. Many, in fact, have described Bev's ministry as absolutely life-changing.

As an outgrowth of his speaking ministry, in 1993 Reb founded FAMILY MINISTRIES, an organization which distributes family-strengthening tapes and books, and coordinates his conference ministry. It is a non-profit ministry supported by donations and proceeds from product sales."

Mishandlings of Scripture

But God Gave Me This Verse . . .

In a recent discussion I had with someone over Biblical methods of child-discipline (in particular, whether or not to spank your child), I was given this line of reasoning:

“. . . as I said, I don't look down on anyone who does think that way, though. It is entirely justified by scripture. I just don't think it is required. Proving this is quite easy. All we need do is observe that many people raise their children with strong discipline but without corporal punishment, and if their children turn out to be God-following, God-fearing adults, then the method succeeded. I know several such people. Their children are not foolish or dead, and they never felt prompting from the spirit that they were not following God's ways by not spanking their children, though they honestly sought God's wisdom on the matter.”

-//-

Now while there are a number of problems in the short paragraph above that warrant addressing, I’d like to zero-in on one issue in particular, that being the mindset espoused in the latter half of the last sentence (emphasis mine). I want to address an extremely dangerous trend in the modern church. I’ll first post a familiar passage of Scripture from the apostle Paul’s very last epistle, one which is extremely relevant to my concern:

All Scripture is breathed-out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. -2 Timothy 3:16-17

-//-

With that stated up front, here is a description of two actual incidents involving popular hermeneutics [the art & science of Biblical interpretation]. Let me try to paint those pictures for you now . . .

SCENARIO #1:
1. we have a church-going lady;
2. she is going through marital difficulties;
3. she is already seeing another man;
4. she prays and asks God what she should do (yes - seriously);
5. she then goes to & thumbs through the Bible, searching for the verse that God has for her to remedy her predicament;
6. guess which one that "God" gave her??? . . . . "and put on the NEW man!!!" (and she did put him on . . .)

No kidding -- what's wrong with that picture???

-//-

SCENARIO #2:
1. we have a church-going fellow;
2. he has somewhat of an infatuation for a lady on the praise team;
3. he prays and asks the Lord who specifically he should marry/pursue;
4. he then goes to & thumbs through the Word (because nowhere does the Bible tell him who he should specifically marry), looking for "his Scripture to claim," as God "speaks" to him regarding this incident;
5. guess which one that God “gave” to him??? . . . . "and GRACE be to you!!!" (you guessed it - the woman's name was Grace)

Now what's wrong with this one???

-//-

Well . . . for one thing - I can look at "Scripture X" and Sue can look at "Scripture X" and Bud can look at "Scripture X" . . . and we all three could come to separate conclusions as to the meaning of “Scripture X,” all-the-while claiming that the "Spirit" legitimately lead us all to those variant conclusions. There's a word for this . . . baptized relativism (and the church is absolutely full of this) . . . true for you/not for me stuff.

Remember this: just because someone baptizes their belief or claim in Holy Spirit language doesn't mean that those things are Divine in nature. Attaching God’s name to a claim does not make it so.

I truly believe that many of us unknowingly (and with seemingly good intentions) violate the third commandment (Ex. 20:7) by using God’s name “in vain” to give authority to an unsubstantiated assertion. This probably happens a lot more than we’d like to admit. This is why we guidelines folks; we need a solid standard/measure that is consistent each & every time.

-//-

Should these 2 scenarios be given to different crowds, you're likely to get an interesting reaction each time (this would be a great experiment):

1. On #1, you'll get plenty of groans, moans, comments, and even chuckles along the lines of "you've got to be kidding me," or "c'mon, give me a break." Why? Obviously, these reactions were due to the outcome of her "process" being in direct violation of an already-inspired Biblical command/principle . . . .

2. Now for #2, the reaction is surprisingly different. That is, in response to that second scenario, many folks will say, "You know, now who's to say that God didn't give the brother that promise?", or "We must be careful not to interfere with God's 'leading' in this guy's life. Maybe God did indeed reveal His plans for that guy in that manner this time."

*******Do you see what just happened??*******

In case #1, the folks were upset with the "APPLICATION" only & not (I repeat -- NOT) the "METHODOLOGY" involved and utilized in both cases!!

This is a huge problem that permeates our churches. They are thick with this stuff . . . privatized messages, so-to-speak, that have nothing to do with the original context. To get to the point, where is the Biblical justification for this practice/methodology of interpretation (is it taught in the Bible?)?

We must remember that "all 'Scripture' is inspired by God” . . .

2 Timothy 3:16-17: All Scripture is breathed-out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

The word for Scripture there is "graphe" = writings. It's the writings that are inspired, not the privatized messages that we think are coming from the Spirit as we move from a circumstance to hunting and pecking throughout the pages of Scripture. These writings were "breathed-out" by God through the agency (& uniqueness) of the Biblical writers at a particular point in history -- to specific persons -- for definite reasons.

-//-

CONTEXT - CONTEXT - CONTEXT is the key here. In other words . . . NEVER READ A BIBLE VERSE - read at least a paragraph above & below the verse in question.

-//-

Here's the fall-out or consequence from dealing trivially and sloppily with the Bible . . . it actually encourages a profound Biblical illiteracy. We no longer take the time & energy required to study a passage in order to discover its rich meaning (exegesis/interpretation) so that we can put it into daily practice (application). Show me someone who is "application-oriented" to the exclusion of proper hermeneutics, and I'll show you theological trouble. Quite honestly, you can see this work itself out on a weekly basis in our modern-day Sunday School classes (conduits for the post-modernistic mindset). I.e., "Well, I think . . . ", "But I was thinking . . .”, "I feel like . . .", etc., etc. There is no serious textual work happening whatsoever. It’s much more fun to assert what we "feel" to be the case with any particular passage. This is so highly subjective, unfounded, and dangerous, as I know (hope) you would agree.

I can almost hear somebody saying right now, "THEOLOGY, that 7-lettered dirty word . . . it creates too much division." Precisely - it divides truth from error, which is a vital kind of division that we must be making as individuals and as a corporate body of Believers. Walter Martin so clearly stated that "Controversy for the sake of controversy is sin; controversy for the sake of truth is a Divine command!" No - we'd just rather hunt & peck and blame God for it; this is much easier by the way . . . just pick up the Bible when we need a quick answer. Please see this as a sincere reproof and/or corrective warning to all of us Believers, myself included.

Feelings, impressions, & experiences MAY have their peripheral or secondary place, to be sure, but they are not to be primary, not one bit. Furthermore, they must be regulated and guided by the revealed precepts of the Bible. What is popular and common doesn’t necessarily equate to what is Biblical and historical. As one of my former professors put it, it doesn't really matter what we "think." What matters is what IS, & we can come to the knowledge of that through careful contextual study & exegesis. Eisegesis (reading into the text that which really isn't inherent to the text) is not good.

-//-

As somewhat of an appendix to this article, I would say that the reason as to why ambiguous or initially unclear passages are utilized in this manner (i.e., "God gave me this verse") is that with clear statements, like the 10 Commandments, the meaning is totally clear. That is, the usage of certain verses as privatized messages from God is testimony itself that the person is unclear of the contextual meaning to begin with. I mean, why wasn't this seen before? But of course, it wasn't until now that the Spirit gave me the meaning, right? Could you imagine someone saying: "Thou shalt not murder . . . God gave me that verse yesterday."? No, it was their verse to begin with when you think it through.

S.T.S. 2.3 [A Helpful Definition - Part 2]

Docetists:
These were early sects who denied the true humanity of Christ and taught that His corporeal (or, physical) body was only an “appearance” or disguise. They denied the reality of the human flesh of Jesus.

-//-

Ignatius, an Early Church Father, repeatedly called out and condemned the Docetists as heretics in his letters. These letters were written in the first quarter of the 2nd Century. Furthermore, and over against this condemning of the Docetists, Ignatius held to and stressed the true Deity of Jesus the Son. He referred to Jesus as theos approximately 12 times in his epistles. This is in keeping with clear Biblical teaching, as the Bible presents Christ as Theanthropos: the God-man. Christians say that Christ, although one Person, possesses two Natures: 100% God & 100% man.

[The Deity of Christ was far from a political invention or agenda-driven proposal of the 4th Century A.D. Nicene Council, as we have beautiful bridges connecting the 1st Century A.D. to the 4th Century A.D. This is merely one small example of this. The Roman Emperor Constantine did not upgrade the status of a mortal Jesus to Deity, and His followers did not view Him as a mere mortal man or great moral instructor. Jesus Christ the Lord of Glory was viewed as God the Son and was worshipped as such long before the A.D. 325 Council of Nicaea and long before Constantine’s parents ever thought of conceiving him.]

The "Ad Hominem" Logical Fallacy

Name:

the Ad Hominem fallacy

Definition:
Ad Hominem literally means “attack on the man,” and refers to a situation where a person seeks to discredit the validity of an argument or claim by attacking the person offering the argument or claim in question.What's wrong with this?: The problem here is that a personal attack doesn’t speak to the issue of the truth or falsity of the claim in question. Maybe the content of the personal attack is truthful (then again, maybe not). Even so, however, this has no bearing on the status of the claim in question as either true or false. To seek to discredit the argument of your opponent by attacking his or her person is irrational and is a diversion tactic of sorts. Two plus two still equals four, even if that equation comes from the mouth of an idiot.

Examples:
(1) Look who’s talking, folks. I would take what he says with a grain of salt.
(2) You’re so stupid that you couldn’t possibly get it right!

Poisoning the Well

A Logical Fallacy Named & Explained - Part 1

Name: the Poisoning the Well fallacy

Definition: Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to attempt to discredit the person's argument.

-//-

What's wrong with this?:

The problem here is that the truth or falsity of a particular argument is not contingent, in any way, on the moral character of the one making that argument. Two plus two still equals four, even if that equation comes from the mouth of a perverted rapist. With that said, however, it is prudentially advisable that one not give an occasion for bad thinking or unnecessary stereo-typing, especially the Biblical Christian. Once again, though, bad thinking is inexcusable, for the one committing it has intellectual responsibilities as well.

-//-

Examples:

(1) Daniel is pompous, arrogant, and thinks he knows everything. So, let's hear what ol' Danny boy has to say about the subject.

(2) Don't listen to Todd because he is a loser professor, and we know how they are.

(3) Matt is a womanizer and he has the nerve to speak on issues of theology . . . some theology that must be.

What is "Subordinationism?"

Subordinationism:

Subordinationism is a Christological perspective viewing Jesus as subordinate to the Father.

-//-

Over the years, this term has been used of an estimation of the Son as either "subject" to the Father (especially in His redemptive role) or as essentially (or, in very essence) "inferior" to the Father. Theologians thus differentiate between a functional subordination and an ontological subordination.

-//-

*functional subordination -- having to do with office, role, duty, position;

*ontological subordination -- having to do with nature, essence, being, oneself;

-//-

I do not believe that the Bible supports the position of ontological subordination. I do support the functional subordination viewpoint. I believe that I am Biblically justified in claiming that we could take this a step further into the doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Pneumatology), saying that the Holy Spirit is functionally subordinate to Jesus the Son who is then functionally subordinate to the Father.

Scientism? Not So Much!

Scientism: A Concise Critique

Here I'll offer a definition of the worldview[i] of "scientism," after which I will proceed to expose its most fundamental logical error.

-//-

Scientism = the idea that "science" is the only reliable form of knowledge; or, better yet, that scientific experimentation via induction and empirical observation is the only reliable means of obtaining reliable knowledge . . .

-//-

One who operates from this mindset or worldview is likely to say the following: . . . but science is "fact-based” (that is, based on what I perceive through one or more of the five senses) while religion is "faith-based” . . .


The Problem:
Since such a one has exalted “science” (or empirical observation) as the ONLY reliable source of knowledge, only accepting that which can be empirically “proved,” we need to point out a huge and rather embarrassing error in his or her thinking; namely, that there is absolutely no way for the proponent of Scientism to "prove" that “science” deserves this status in the first place.

Allow me to illustrate this (pay close attention):

Can a person who makes such a simplistic claim about knowledge, science, and religion make an empirical-based argument that science, or empirical observation, is the only objective source of knowledge? That is, since his claim is that scientific endeavors are the only reliable ways to obtain truth on an issue, then how does he go about proving that statement or claim itself? The statement, or claim, fails to meet its own requirements. It therefore commits ideological suicide.

If he tries, he will either dissolve into circular logic (a.k.a. begging the question, circular reasoning), saying that one sensory experience verifies another sensory experience, or he will try to make some sort of philosophical argument for the supremacy of science. Yet if science's authority rests upon a philosophical argument, then philosophy (not science) must then be supreme.

Do you see the problem? If not, read and re-read until you do. Try to master the thinking of those last two paragraphs.

I say that "scientism" is a self-refuting system/position and is therefore untenable (incapable of being maintained in an argument). It is easily discredited. In fact, it’s a rather embarrassing position to hold to, even though it is very popular in our day.

-//-

I’ll end there this time. This may be short, but I risk too much by going further. It is better to learn all of a little rather than none of a lot! I am learning that day by day! I encourage you all to spend some time with the short lesson above.

___________________________________________________________________

[i] By worldview, I have in mind a comprehensive view, or philosophy, of the world (reality). More specifically, everyone has a worldview and always works from that basic foundation (whether they have a name for it or not, and whether they are conscious of it or not is irrelevant). A worldview consists of a network of interrelated propositions the sum of which forms a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world. A given worldview may be called a “religion” or a “philosophy” because of its specific content, but it is nevertheless a worldview. Thus by worldview, I am referring to any religion, philosophy, or system of thought. [Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions; Boston, Massachusetts: Reformation Ministries International, 2004; pp. 17-18.]

Interested in Joining a New Theological Discussion Forum??

If so, then go to www.c2r.us/forums. From there, click on "Forums," follow the instructions for registering as a new member, and jump in as you can. I, along with my friend Daniel and two other good friends (Todd Bohlander & Matt Guernsey), am a moderator on that forum, and am warmly extending an invitation to all interested persons. I promise that you will be blessed, challenged, taught, frustrated, you name it, etc., etc. (as I have). In any event, come on over and join in the fun as you can.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Scott