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

Canonicity

On the topic of “canonicity,” Christians say that God sovereignly (or providentially) oversaw a process of men recognizing the books and letters that He had literally “breathed-out” and collecting them into one Book – the Holy Bible. This collection of 66 books is called the Biblical Canon (canon is an “establishment,” a “rule,” a “measurement,” a “basis for judgment,” or a “standard”/“criterion”).

1. Old Testament Canon:
Christ, Himself, gave His stamp of approval on the 39 books of the Old Testament. In Luke 24:44, He referred to all the things that must be fulfilled “which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms (Writings) concerning Me.” These 3 sections make up the entire Old Testament. Please see 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as well.

2. New Testament Canon:
In A.D. 397, the final collection of books and letters that make up the Protestant New Testament was officially recognized at the Council of Carthage. This council of early church leaders did not simply and arbitrarily declare a book or letter to be inspired; it merely recognized the inspiration and authority that was already there. Additionally, I would again cite 2 Timothy 3:16-17 here as having direct bearing on the “inspired” nature of the New Testament as well as the Old. For a good and brief article on this, I highly encourage you all to read the “Sufficient & Profitable” series by Vincent Cheung (especially parts 5-6). This was recommended to me by a good friend just a few days ago and I thoroughly benefited from the reading of it.

To get to that, just simply click on the following link: http://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/10/14/sufficient-and-profitable-5/ .

I offer the following verses in support of using the 2 Timothy passage as having relevancy to the Divine inspiration of all 66 books of the Bible: John 16:13, 2 Peter 3:15-16, 1 Corinthians 2:13, 1 Corinthians 14:37, & 1 Timothy 5:18 (where Paul prefaces both Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 with the expression, “the Scripture says”).

-//-

In trying to determine if a book or letter was inspired by God, the church used a number of criteria:

[a] it had to be written by an Apostle or one close to an Apostle (such as an apprentice or disciple of the Apostle); [see John 16:13]
[b] its content had to be consistent with other recognized Scripture;
[c] it had to have been recognized and accepted by the early church;
[d] it had to conform to the high standards set by other Scripture;
[e] people’s lives had to have been changed by it . . .

I hope this helps.

Ethics & Ethical Decision-Making

In closing, I’d like to provide you with a nice summary of the Biblical approach to ethics and ethical decision-making. The following words have been taken from a small pamphlet titled: What Is Christian Philosophy? (by John Robbins of The Trinity Foundation). Part of what is said below may come as a surprise or shock to you, but we must remember to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. There is no sphere or facet of our lives (as Believers) that is neutral or is to be left untouched by the comprehensive worldview set forth in the Scriptures. The Bible is authoritative on everything it touches; moreover (whether explicitly or implicitly), the Bible touches everything. All that I have written in the main article pertaining to the Christian’s stance on E.S.C.R. is to be interpreted in light of what comes below.

-//-

Biblical Approach to 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 [lack] of conformity unto 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.

But What About Human Rights??
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."

[try to begin mastering this way of thinking – ideas have consequences]

Bio-Ethics: Embyonic Stem-Cell Research Unmasked

“Understanding the Embryonic Stem-Cell Research Debate”

I. Scriptural Foundations for Proceeding:

A. Before we begin, I actually want you to read through the last section of this newsletter(“Closing Comments” -- included above if you're on the blog-site). This will appropriately set the stage for understanding the Biblical approach to ethics. Embryonic stem-cell research entails a serious moral wrong because it involves a form of killing that the Scriptures do not provide for, that being basic murder (“the unlawful killing of a human being by another”).
B. Do the Scriptures touch on the issue of embryonic stem-cell research? The Bible does not explicitly address the hot-button topic of embryonic stem-cell research; in fact, you’ll not find those words (“E.S.C.R.” or “embryo”) throughout the pages of Scripture. On a related note, you’ll not find the word “Trinity,” although God, as a Triune Being, is a valid Biblical concept.
C. The Bible has plenty to say, however, about human beings; furthermore, if we can show that the embryo is an example of a human being, then we have the appropriate connection.
D. Go ahead and read Genesis 1:26-27; Exodus 20:13; James 3:1ff. [notice in this passage the reasoning as to why we should not “curse” our brothers, and its connection to Genesis 1:26-27]

-//-

II. Important Definitions for You to Understand:

EMBRYO -- the human organism during the 1st 8 weeks of gestation (i.e., from
conception until approx. the 8th week); after week 8, it is called the fetus (or is
considered to be in the fetal stage of the pregnancy);

EMBRYONIC STEM-CELLS -- stem-cells are just the "root" cells that are believed to produce tissue and major organs (your heart & lungs, for example, are said to have come from a group of stem-cells);

-//-

III. Landscape/Background:

A. There are nearly 500,000 embryos in storage in the U.S. that were produced during in-vitro fertilization procedures.
(1) The parents had the I.V.F. (in-vitro fertilization) cycles done and so get enough embryos for them [in light of their infertility problems]; those that are left over are then referred to as "embryos in excess of clinical need";
(2) What should we do with the “extras?” Should we give them up for adoption? Should we donate them to research?? How about putting them down the sink??? Is that a valid option, considering that the embryo is roughly the size of a pinhead? It’s too small to be valuable, right?
(3) Thousands of people suffer from debilitating diseases such as Parkinson’s, diabetes, or Alzheimer’s (like Michael J. Fox & Mary Tyler Moore). It is claimed that the furtherance of embryonic stem-cell research (which we will now refer to as E.S.C.R.) could hold lots of promise for these types of patients;
(4) We now have the means to get the ball rolling with this E.S.C.R. thing . . . so . . . what’s the big deal???

B. Questions:
(1) “What stance should we take on this issue?”
(2) “Should the Church even take a stand here; if so, how?”
(3) “Does Scripture address the issue of E.S.C.R. or the status/nature of the embryo?”

*This issue is vitally important . . . you’ll see why below!!*

IV. The BIG Question . . .

!!To be quite honest, all the complexities of this issue can be boiled down to just ONE QUESTION. I will illustrate this below!!

Mommy, Can I Pleeeaaassseee Kill This???

Imagine this scene:

You’re in the kitchen washing dishes and gazing at two feeding hummingbirds through the window in front of you . . . suddenly, you hear the door (behind you) open and the voice of your 6 yr.-old son asks: “Mommy (or Daddy) – can I kill this?” Now without turning around, what is the 1st thing you’re going to say? Do you ask, “Will it solve your crisis?” Do you ask, “Will it make you happy?” Do you possibly ask, “What is it? What is that ‘thing’ that you desire to kill?” You would ask the latter question, would you not? Any rational person would have to ask the question “what is it?” before daring to utter a premature “yes” or “no” to a question involving death. What if your son says that he wants to kill a roach? What if he asks to kill Morris, your neighbor’s cat? What if you turn around to see your 3 yr.-old daughter in a headlock? You see, you can’t answer the question “can I kill this?” until you answer a logically prior question . . . that being “what is it?”! When you add to this the fact that E.S.C.R. entails the death of embryos, we need to ask ourselves what the embryo actually is before we mumble a mere “yes” or “no” in determining whether or not we can kill it for the sake of research.

What can we learn from this illustration?

[1] E.S.C.R. is not wrong . . . IF it doesn’t entail taking the life of a human being (without Biblical justification); but if it DOES entail taking the life of a human being in a way not provided for in the Bible, then no so-called “justification” (no matter how emotionally compelling it may seem) can be valid.

[2] E.S.C.R. may indeed help an Alzheimer’s patient or a 5 yr.-old suffering from juvenile diabetes, but alleviating the painful suffering of these people does not justify killing human beings in order to deal with that predicament. The Church should care about helping to alleviate the painful suffering of these folks (no question), but not at the expense of ending human life in order to do so.

[3] The end doesn’t justify the means guys! That’s the lie of pragmatism that we’re drowning in whereas modern-day America is concerned. Let me illustrate a pitfall of “pragmatism” another way:

I have bills to pay, and paying those bills on time is a very good thing. At the same time, I cannot rob a bank in order to get the $$$ to pay those bills. Why??? Simply put, the act of robbing a bank is a moral wrong itself. If the end justifies the means, then let’s go ahead and allow E.S.C.R. to continue . . . just don’t complain when you see my name in the Sheriff’s report next Thursday for robbing a bank!! If you do complain upon seeing my name in that report, you become inconsistent and arbitrary in your thinking. That’s not a good thing! :~}

-//-


V. The Process Described & the Problem Defined:
A. Question – “What, exactly, does the embryonic stem-cell research process entail?”

B. Answer –
1. The embryonic stem-cell research process entails removing the embryo’s stem-cells (remember – these stem-cells are the root cells which are said to produce tissue and major organs such as a heart and a pair of lungs) from the embryo (an embryo, if you’ll recall, is the human organism in the 1st eight weeks of gestation, prior to the fetal stage) for the purpose of scientific experimentation and medical research. It is said that the findings of E.S.C.R. could very well hold potential benefits for certain people who suffer from various debilitating diseases.
2. The stem-cells are removed from the embryo, and then “manipulated” in a sense, causing them to reproduce in what is known as a stem-cell line. These stem-cell lines are then taken and injected into the brain tissue of a Parkinson’s patient (this is merely one example), with hopes of stimulating/regenerating new tissue growth in that Parkinson’s patient.

3. Many patients, however, have experienced rejection problems; this is due to the D.N.A. in the stem-cells differing from their own D.N.A.. At this point, “cloning” enters the whole E.S.C.R. debate. To avoid host rejection problems, talk has begun of cloning oneself for “therapeutic purposes.” You may not hear the word “cloning,” but you will hear of “somatic cell nuclear transfer,” which equates to cloning at the end of the day. If the term “cloning” was used by folks like Ron Reagan there would be more of an outcry from the general public. In this case, a “somatic” cell (let’s say a skin cell) can be taken from your hand and your D.N.A. extracted from that skin cell. That D.N.A. is then injected into an enucleated egg, which is basically an ovum with the D.N.A. taken out (i.e., the pre-existing D.N.A. is taken out of the egg, after which your D.N.A. is inserted in its place). After this, some chemicals are added to the newly nucleated egg, then it is zapped with energy; subsequently, it starts to divide. Low & behold, we now have an embryo. At this point, the stem-cells can be removed for research purposes.
4. In both cases, however, the problem lies here: when you remove the stem-cells from the embryo, the embryo no longer has any stem-cells of its own to develop its own body. So, in EVERY case of E.S.C.R., an embryo dies. When the death of something is in question, what has to be our primary question?? [note the “Mommy, Can I Kill This?” illustration] When we’re dealing with the death of a living organism, we would do well to figure out what that living organism actually is, right? Right!! So . . . what is the embryo???

C. At this point, someone is bound to say: “But no one knows when life begins!” First, how would this person “know” that statement? To this, we can reply with the following simple argument:

1. If the embryo is growing, it must be alive . . .
[a] living things exhibit 3 characteristics:
{1} cellular reproduction (they grow);
{2} conversion of food to energy;
{3} reaction to stimuli;
[b] these 3 characteristics are present even in the embryo;
[c] embryologists, therefore, don’t question whether or not the embryo is
living;

2. If it has human parents (which it does), then it must be human; after all, living things reproduce after their own kinds, right? Two human beings have never produced a reptile, have they? You see my point!
[a] the embryo also has it’s own D.N.A. structure (a “human” D.N.A.
structure at that), thereby showing it to be a “whole,” not just “part” of
a larger organism; in fact, the embryo is on its own trajectory of
development . . . that is, it wants to eventually “get out” of its mother’s
body;

3. Human beings are not to be killed unjustly (i.e., for reasons not provided for in the Bible), are they?

***This is a fast, simple case for the “humanity” of the unborn. The embryo is clearly part of the human family!***

VI. The S-L-E-D Test . . . [most objections to your position will fall into one of the 4 following categories]

Abraham Lincoln, during the days when slavery was being debated, warned of the dangers of “grounding” human value (an imputed value, not even an intrinsic one, according to Scripture) in a characteristic or acquired trait within a human being. When people do this, said Lincoln, it’s going to be a loser every time as that brand of thinking is bound for failure. He illustrated this in his writing by creating an “imaginary” debate opponent for the sake of making his point.

He said:

“You [the opponent] say that ‘A’ is white and ‘B’ is black . . . it is color then . . . the lighter having the right to enslave the darker . . . but take care, for by this standard you may become a slave to someone who has a fairer skin than your own! It is not a question of color then, you say, but rather one of intellect . . . but take care again, for by this standard you may become a slave to another who has an intellect that is superior to your own. No, you say – it is not a question of intellect, but one of interest . . . take care once more, though, for if you can make it your interest to enslave another, then one can make it his interest to enslave you.”

Lincoln was no idiot, and so took some of the more popular arguments of his day (against the abolition of slavery) to their logical conclusions. When you ground human value in a certain characteristic or acquired trait (such as form [skin color or appearance] or function [matters of development or intellect]), you have jumped into dark waters. That is to say, when you say “these human beings who have such & such . . . they’re valuable . . . but the ones who don’t have it . . . too bad, they’re not so valuable and they don’t count,” you cross a barrier that was never meant to be crossed!! “Woe to those,” Isaiah the prophet of God said, “who call right wrong and wrong right . . . who call sweet bitter and bitter sweet . . . who call light darkness and darkness light . . . woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.” “WOE” means watch-out, danger right ahead for those who disregard this truth!

If you take issues like form, function, size, and intellect and then look at mankind, you’ll see very quickly that not every human being possesses these things equally (i.e., some are larger, some are less developed, etc.). Let’s take the “S.L.E.D. Test” below to put the whole E.S.C.R. debate into even better perspective:

-//-

[S]ize – they will claim that the embryo is too small to be valuable . . .
* But should size determine our value??
* Remember that the fetus is bigger than the embryo – the newborn is bigger than the

fetus – the toddler is bigger than the newborn – the adolescent is bigger than the toddler

– etc. This is a dangerous position to take, when you follow it through to its logical

conclusion.
* Men are generally bigger than women; should they have more rights?
* This argument means that those who are the “biggest” should have the most rights, which

is complete and utter nonsense.

[L]evel of Development – many argue that the embryo isn’t developed enough to be considered “worthy” . . .
* But does our level of development determine our worth/value??
* One Senator has said that “the embryo thinks nothing, feels nothing, cannot suffer, and is

not aware of its own existence.”
* The problem with that type of careless thinking is that we not only disqualify embryos . . .

we, by default, disqualify anyone who’s asleep [awareness issue] . . . those under general

anesthetic having a surgery done [awareness/feeling issue] . . . people in an irreversible

coma [awareness/feeling issue], or, better yet, my son (Josiah) who cannot yet think on

my level [thinks at an inferior capacity]. For instance, I could (hypothetically) take the life

of someone under heavy anesthetic without them ever feeling anything . . . does that make

it alright? In the same sense, just because the embryo “couldn’t/wouldn’t feel a thing”

doesn’t give us free reign to do as we please with it. Again, we must go back to the basics .

. . that being “what is it?”
* We must answer the moral question before the practical one, just as we do with any other

issue that may not be a hot-button topic at the moment. When it comes to hot-button,

politically correct/incorrect issues, we tend to have blind spots that ironically cloud our

thinking. This was evidenced by the whole pragmatism scenario with me robbing a bank –

that was a no brainer, right?? But when the same clear-headed thinking is applied to

E.S.C.R., somehow many want to apply different rules. This is, again, a bit inconsistent.

[E]nvironment – some will say that its “environment” is all wrong . . .
* But does “where” we are have any bearing on “who” we are??
* I am the same person (with the same worth) whether I’m here, in my car, in my bed,

under the water, or in another country. If I hide behind this closed door, would you feel

comfortable throwing a grenade in my direction? You can’t see me, so what would it

hurt?? You see my point, don’t you?
* In a similar sense, the embryo is in a Petri dish (or implanted in the uterus by artificial or

natural reproductive means). This doesn’t change it’s worth, does it? Again, we

must come back to our fundamental question, that being “what is it?”

[D]egree of Dependency – others will try to make a case for the embryo being too dependent to be considered a human being . . .
* But should dependency have any bearing on our worth??
* What about a diabetic who depends on insulin?
* What of those who have heart pace-makers?
* What about folks like John Glenn, Buzz Aldron, or Neil Armstrong who depended on their

space suits to sustain their lives???
* What about the physically and mentally handicapped, even those on feeding tubes. What

if nobody wants to care for these people? Are they, then, less valuable than you or I?
* Shouldn’t it make more sense for us to take MORE care for our fellow human beings who

are MORE dependent than you & I? In America, we discard them . . . & may God have

mercy on us.

-//-

When our society begins to designate a person as worthy or valuable based on a certain trait or characteristic (which none of us, by the way, possess equally), we make a “bell curve” out of “rights”. Think of the basic sloped shape of the Liberty Bell . . . got it? . . . when “rights” become married to acquired traits (that we can gain and/or lose), we will step into a steaming pile of dog dung. That is, we have no rights at the beginning of our lives . . . we grow in rights . . . and at 40 (at our intellectual peak or so), we’re at the top of the bell curve . . . then we begin to lose our rights and ultimately, we could become a disposable nursing home patient or a disabled person (like Terri Schiavo). By this rule, pre-born babies aren’t the only ones in danger are they? Think about yourselves as senior citizens one day . . . this could very well be you.

***Did you know that there are only 4 differences between you and an embryo? The S-L-E-D test covers these 4 distinctions.***

VII. Conclusion: [note the logical syllogism below; a syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning consisting of a true major premise [“A”], a true minor premise [“B”], and then a conclusion validly derived from both; for example, if “A” – and “B” – then “C”; if the premises are valid, then the conclusion must necessarily follow]

“A” – Killing a human being without Biblical justification is a serious moral wrong.
“B” – Embryonic stem-cell research involves the Biblically unjustified taking of human life.
“C” – Therefore, embryonic stem-cell research involves a serious moral wrong.

Remember . . . even if E.S.C.R. held a legit glimmer of hope for suffering patients, this is not adequate justification for taking human life in order to do so.

*Are there any alternatives? Actually, there is one huge alternative, and it is called Adult Stem-Cell Research (A.S.C.R.). A.S.C.R. doesn’t involve the death of any human life (so we’re okay morally-speaking), and looks to hold even more promise for those suffering from various debilitating diseases. Adult stem-cells are usually taken from umbilical cords and bone marrow.
* With E.S.C.R., there have been cases of tumors and certain types of cancer (down-stream cancer) that have developed in the “guinea pigs.” With A.S.C.R., this hasn’t been the case.
ü Here’s you a riddle to solve. In the private sector (where there are no restrictions whatsoever on the process of E.S.C.R.), the bulk of their $$$ is funneled into Adult Stem-Cell Research. Why do you think this is . . . think about this guys!

*What should we do?
-We should engage in regular prayer (intercessory prayer) on behalf of those who have no voice but us as a defense.
-We should actively engage others in conversation whereas this vital topic is concerned. We should not run from the strategic opportunities that we are given by God to make an impact.
-We should vote with things of this nature in mind when that time comes! On a related note, we should contact our two Senators and one Representative (our elected officials) to let them know where we stand as constituents.

A Must-Hear Sermon!

This sermon comes from a missionary, Paul Washer, who passionately uncovers a deadly error common among those who call themselves Christians. Laura & I were in attendance in this meeting with our students from Malvern Baptist Church in the summer of 2002. "Scortched Ground" is all I can say folks. Please check out the link below (to my accountability partner's website) to see what I'm talking about.

Sermon by Paul Washer
Director, Heart Cry Missionary Society
July 26-27, 2002
Youth Evangelism Conference
Montgomery, AL

http://thefellowshipclan.com/wordpress/?p=22

"Seeker" Sensitivity & Centeredness

I highly recommend the following link to a good article related to the topic of "seeker" sensitivity. We are called to be "Seeker" sensitive; however, we must also remember that there is but 1 Seeker -- His name is God! Here is that link:


http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/misc_topics/seekerce.htm

A Concise Summary of the Sovereignty of God in Salvation

Please click on the following link to access a very helpful piece on the "Sovereignty" and "Providence" of God in salvation. The papers that the link will bring you to are used by permission of Desiring God Ministries.








http://www.desiringgod.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/summary.html

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/tulip.html

S.T.S. 1.6 [Featured Resource]

The Baptist Catechism Set to Music
[by Jim Scott Orrick]

http://www.founders.org/fpress/orrick.html

Synopsis: Throughout history, God’s people have used music as a means to memorize and meditate upon truth. Jim Orrick has provided a most helpful resource by setting the Baptist catechism to song. In this 2-CD collection are content-rich lyrics that will benefit both children and adults.

S.T.S. 1.6 [Main Article]

“Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth: a Primer on Biblical Interpretation”

In this edition of Scratching the Surface you will be hearing from my dear brother in the Lord and accountability partner, Daniel Copeland. Allow me to briefly introduce you all to Daniel. When I served at FBC – Perry, FL, Daniel was the worship leader who lead and guided the student worship band in PowerSource, our Wednesday night service. In fact, Daniel serves in that capacity to this very day. Daniel will recall that I referred to him quite often as the “James Taylor” of worship leaders. I would say that “the world has James Taylor . . . but PowerSource has Daniel Copeland.” I kid you not, Daniel sounds like James Taylor. In any event, Daniel is my “iron” who sharpens me on a regular basis from the Word and unto the glory of God. He tells me things that are uncomfortable but that are needed . . . oh, that all of you would have such a friend. Daniel is also one of the most sound and sharp theologians and Christian philosophers that I’ve come across in my days (including all of my professors at B.C.F.). I thank God for him. In all of this, however, Daniel would tell you that truth didn’t originate with him, and that it won’t die with him either. Daniel is merely a vessel of honor through whom the Lord moves for His good purposes and pleasure. He is a man of the Word, a wonderful husband to his wife, and a strong father to his two precious daughters. He is indeed a man after God’s own heart. With that said, I pray that you’d here him prayerfully.

___________________________________________________________________

[the following is an edited e-mail correspondence]



Greetings Jane and All,

I thought it good to move on in this e-mail to discuss some principles of interpretation. I do this in preparation for dealing with the scriptures which Jane has previously mentioned and which seem to indicate truths contrary to what I have already discussed. This won't be a full exploration of the topic of Biblical interpretation (hermeneutics), but it should certainly help us in dealing with the texts that are in question.

-The Economy of Scripture-

Imagine if you had to be exactly specific about everything you wished to communicate in conversation so that it would be impossible to misunderstand what you were saying - even if the statements were taken out of context. Try it for a while, and you will see that the communication becomes so tedious and cumbersome, that you might rather say nothing at all. This is the way language is. We use words like "this, all, none, those..." to refer to concepts we have previously referred to in the conversation in order to minimize having to repeat ourselves over and over again. We depend heavily on context to enable the person we are communicating with to know the full meaning of the words we are speaking. For example, I have purposefully used the greeting: "Jane and All" in preparation for this point! Do you see that you must lean on context to understand what I mean by the unqualified word "all"? All what?

All people in the world?

All who read this email?

All to whom this email was addressed initially?

All elephants and fuzzy bunnies?

Thus, without context, the statement by itself is meaningless. Now, there IS a definite way to communicate truth more precisely, and that is in the form of propositions. A proposition is a truth statement which either affirms or denies something and which is either true or false. Here’s one example: “All men are mortal.” This proposition states a definite relationship between a subject and a predicate. For a proposition to be meaningful, however, all of its terms must be precisely defined. Let’s carry our example further to stress and illustrate what I have been saying thus far. I’ll put my greeting in propositional form....


Proposition #1: All initial recipients of this email are addressed and greeted by Daniel Copeland, son of Roy Copeland.

Proposition #2: In particular, Jane Doe, daughter of John Doe, is addressed and greeted by Daniel Copeland, son of Roy Copeland.

___________________________________________________________________

Definitions:

To Address - To indicate one as the object of communication.

To Greet - To offer an expression of good will.

E-mail - A form of electronic communication

In Particular - To single out or stress.

Daughter - A female, direct descendant of.

Son - A male, direct descendant of.

Initial - First. Not second hand.

___________________________________________________________________

At this point, you might be growing nauseated, so I will leave it at that. I hope you can begin to see how wise it was for God not to communicate to us in this way. Though it would have eliminated a lot of potential confusion, we would not be able to bring our Bibles to church or perhaps afford them or perhaps even fit them into our houses. Rather, in wisdom, God has been very economical in His use of words so that He can communicate a lot of truth to us in a compact form . . . and we thank Him for this!

-Interpretation-

So then, God has provided us a whole lot of information in a compact form....but we must do the work of unpacking this information into a more propositional form so that we can clearly understand it. This is the work of interpretation. Interpretation is not the act of deciding what we would most like for a passage to mean. Interpretation is not imposing meaning onto a passage that cannot yield its own precise meaning. Rather, interpretation is the process of conclusively determining by context, cross-reference, and other valid interpretive methods, precisely what God intends to communicate by the passage so that you could put its meaning into propositional form should you need to. The following are some relevant scriptures:

"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth" -2 Timothy 2:16

"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation"
-2 Peter 1:20

"See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.
-Deuteronomy 12:32

So, here we see Scriptural justification for my points above. First, the Scriptures require accurate handling (careful unpacking). To do this we must be diligent and work hard. Second, the Scriptures are not meant to be used to express one's own personal interpretation of what they mean. We shouldn't pass scriptures around in Sunday School and let everyone tell each other what that Scripture means to them. If we can't provide adequate reason to interpret a passage a certain way, we should NOT just invent our own personal, preferred meaning. Otherwise, we might be doing what the third scripture above prohibits . . . we might be imposing a meaning and thereby "adding to it" or "taking away from it". God does NOT take lightly to such carelessness.

Now, with a better understanding of what true interpretation is, I would like to address something Jane said in her initial e-mail.


Jane: "I'm not at all angry or mad at you for you not seeing things my way. It's all a matter of interpretation."


It's not completely clear to me what Jane meant by the latter statement; however, I want to be sure to address something that she could have meant - an idea that is all too common among modern believers. She could have meant to say that there is no way to be sure of what the right answer is on this issue, so it's just a matter of deciding what each of us wants to believe. That idea is what I want to warn us all not to adopt. Rather, I would encourage us to strive toward "sound doctrine". On the average, believers are way too sloppy with their beliefs so that they are easily persuaded by and tolerant to divergent viewpoints. This is the very opposite of how we should be Beloved. Consider the following verses:

"As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine"
-Ephesians 4:14

"Holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict."
-Titus 1:9

"I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints."
-Jude 1:3

"In all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine."
-Titus 2:7

According to the above scriptures, we are to be pure in doctrine, able to withstand strong winds of false teaching, and ready to refute and contend with those [especially in the church] who espouse false teachings. It should be our aim to become fully convinced of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith.

You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of."
-2 Timothy 3:14

This is not to say that there are not non-essential, questionable matters that can arise. At the same time, however, doctrines concerning the nature and attributes of God and men, how salvation is activated and accomplished, and how God relates to the world He has created are all important and essential matters that the Scriptures have numerous teachings on. Therefore, we must labor diligently to understand, weigh, and accurately handle the matters these emails are concerning . . . "until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God" [Eph 4:13]. With this in mind, let us proceed not with the idea that it's all just a matter of interpretation, but rather with the idea that it is a matter of pure doctrine. Though we may not fully attain in this, brothers and sisters, let us keep pressing on.

-Context, Cross-Referencing, and the Unbroken Scriptures-

Resolved to do our diligence to accurately handle the Scriptures, let us look now to three principles which will help to guide us in this.

1. The Scripture Cannot Be Broken:

Jesus answered them,

"Has it not been written in your Law, `I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, `You are blaspheming,' because I said, `I am the Son of God'?”
-John 10:34-36

In the above passage, the Pharisees were taking up stones to stone Jesus for indicating that He was the Son of God. The Pharisees believed such a statement was blasphemy according to Scripture. Jesus rebuked their misunderstanding of Scripture by highlighting a verse which would contradict their faulty understanding, and by insisting that "the Scripture cannot be broken".

This is a critical principle in interpretation. As we strive to unpack the Scripture, we must never unpack it in such a way as to create a contradiction which would "break" the Scripture. Therefore, if a certain possible understanding of a scripture contradicts some other truth of Scripture, then we are safe and required to dismiss that possible understanding - even if at first glance it seems to be the most intuitive understanding of the passage. Let's look at another example to illustrate this principle. In Matthew 5, we find the following instruction.

"Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you."
-Matthew 5:42

At first glance, the meaning of this verse seems a bit absolute. It seems to say that under no exception are you to turn away someone who asks something of you or wishes to borrow something from you. However, if we understand that the Scripture also commands . . .

"If anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat either."
-2 Thessalonians 3:10

"But refuse to put younger widows on the list [to receive financial support]."
-1 Timothy 5:11

. . . then we know that there are exceptions to when we are required to give to those who ask us. Therefore, we cannot understand the Matthew 5:42 passage to say there are no exceptions, and we can safely throw out the "no exceptions" interpretation since failing to do so would result in a contradiction.


2. Context:

There is so much that could be said about context. As we have already discussed, language can be imprecise at times. Often, in common language, we use the same word to mean different things in different contexts. For example: “Gee . . . that was a gay affair indeed!” What am I saying??

Often we do not fully qualify the statements we make by listing the exceptions, or who the intended audience is, etc. Rather, these details are assumed to be understood from the context. As a result, a single statement, when isolated from its context, can become very ambiguous or can completely lose its meaning.

Let's consider an example of this very thing. Imagine receiving a nice card in the mail for your birthday and on it was this scripture verse . . .

"I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, . . . and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed."
-Genesis 26:4

Sound kind of strange? I think so!! However, why would the average believer not think it strange to find this verse instead?

"'For I know the plans that I have for you,' declares the LORD, 'plans for welfare and not for calamity; to give you a future and a hope."
-Jeremiah 29:11

Just as the first verse was contextually addressed to Abraham, the second verse was contextually addressed to “all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon" [Jer. 29:4]. Just seven verses above that famous feel-good passage, the intended audience is plainly given. Why then do most believers have no problem taking it out of context, and even, at times, go so far as to quote it to an unbeliever as a proof text that God means to do them good? Taking things like this out of context is very dangerous.

Let's look at what happens when we apply this verse to everyone. First, by applying this verse to everyone, we are saying that God has plans "for welfare and not calamity" for every human being. However, since we know that every human being doesn't end up well off, and many, in fact, will reap the ultimate calamity, we make it sound like God is not able to accomplish what He plans. This verse was meant to bring overwhelming comfort to the exiles in the face of great distress. It was meant to give them assurance, but we just took that assurance away from them. Second, what do you suppose an unbeliever thinks when he is shopping for a card and sees that verse, and then goes home and watches the news? He probably justifies himself in believing that "religion is a crutch" used to just make people feel better. He probably doesn't think we worship a faithful and promise-keeping God. Third, by applying this verse to everyone, we imply something about God. We imply that there are things God plans or wishes that He doesn't accomplish. We imply that God's plans are dependent on us for them to happen. How is such a concept supposed to be comforting? If we really think about it, when this verse is misapplied to everyone, it means "Don't mess up the plans I have for you!”

Thankfully, we have other scriptures on hand to help us destroy this threatening heresy.

“To man belong the plans of the heart, but from the Lord comes the reply of the tongue.”
-Proverbs 16:1

“The Lord works out everything for His own ends – even the wicked for a day of disaster.”
-Proverbs 16:4

“In his heart a man plans his course, but the Lord determines his steps.”
-Proverbs 16:9

“The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.”
-Proverbs 16:33

"Many plans are in a man's heart, but the counsel/purpose of the LORD will stand."
-Proverbs 19:21

“The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord; He directs it like a watercourse wherever He pleases.”
-Proverbs 21:1

“The horse is made ready for the day of battle, but victory rests with the Lord.”
-Proverbs 21:31

"The LORD of hosts has sworn saying, 'Surely, just as I have intended so it has happened, and just as I have planned so it will stand."
-Isaiah 14:24

"For the LORD of hosts has planned, and who can frustrate {it?} And as for His stretched-out hand, who can turn it back?"
-Isaiah 14:27

“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”
-Isaiah 45:7

So then, the next time someone quotes that verse out of context, let it serve to remind you how dangerous being so careless can be. By one simple movement, you could nullify a promise, cause unbelievers to blaspheme, and generate a heretical contradiction. Oh Lord, please teach us to fear.

"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment."
-James 3:1

3. Cross-Referencing:

We have already seen this principle in action, so let me just say a few words about it. Often the meaning of a certain part of a text is seemingly ambiguous or uncertain. It is in these moments that we need to look elsewhere in Scripture to see if we can eliminate some of the ambiguity. We did this in the above examples, as we used other scriptures found elsewhere in the Scripture to defeat certain possible understandings of the scripture in question.

You will find that often God repeats Himself in various parts of the Scripture and in various ways of speaking so that we can be sure to get the point. As we put all of the relevant references together, the ambiguity disappears. Therefore, being familiar with the whole of Scripture is one of your best defenses against error. In much the same way, many bank tellers are trained on how to spot a counterfeit simply by meticulously studying the real thing.

It's relevant to point out that every scripture is written in the context of the entire Bible, thus the meaning of each scripture is potentially influenced by every other scripture. Sometimes a New Testament passage helps us understand an Old Testament passage, and visa versa. That is part of the awesome beauty of the Scripture. It speaks with one voice when properly heard and interpreted.

-The Primacy of Theological Study-

I'd like to briefly step up onto a soapbox to address something that concerns the entire body of Christ. The kinds of mishandling of Scripture we have been discussing are quite common in Christendom - even among those who like to think of themselves as people who revere Scripture. It is all too common for Scripture to be mishandled and misapplied - not only by laypersons, but also by the leadership. The confusion that results from such casual handling of God's Word leads to intellectual despondency in believers.

Paul warned that . . .

"The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires."
-2 Timothy 4:3

Although the day Paul speaks of may not yet have fully dawned, I believe a similar situation is upon us. Many believers today will not endure sound doctrine, because they do not think it exists. It is easy to see why this is so when so many voices quoting the Scripture say unorganized, over-generalized, and often contradictory things. Believers rarely learn for themselves how to carefully and accurately handle the Word, and soon get the subtle notion that the truth is beyond their ability to grasp with certainty and something which only God or "scholars" can know. As an anti-intellectual mindset grows in them, it is little wonder that they would "accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires." That is, if you can't be taught with authority, you might as well pick the teacher whose message you like the most. This lack of understanding in the people of God is lamentable. In Hosea, God rebukes the priests of Israel saying . . .

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children."
-Hosea 4:6

I would not be surprised if this is still our Lord's lament today. Notice in the following relevant passages how our Lord responds with contempt towards dullness to Scripture and the things of God.

"Jesus answered and said to him, 'Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?'"
-John 3:10

"Have you not even read this Scripture: `THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER STONE?"
-Mark 12:10

"You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God . . . but regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God . . ."
-Matthew 22:29,31

"Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him?"
-Mark 7:18

"How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?"
-Matthew 16:11

My fellow heirs in Christ, look around you. Opinion abounds, but truth is obscured. What good does our zeal do us, if we lack the knowledge to guide it? What good is our worship if we don't have an intimate knowledge of the attributes, purposes and ways of our object of worship? In fact, true knowledge (and I am not talking about warm, fuzzy feelings, but real intellectual
knowledge) logically precedes true worship . . .

"For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings."
-Hosea 6:6

". . . the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth."
-John 4:23

If the above is truly the case, then our priorities in the church are way out of whack, because we obviously fail to educate our members beyond the "elementary" things. We indirectly send the message to our congregations that "higher" levels of learning and thinking about the things of God are for the few gifted ones. In fact, we have to send our members to special colleges to gain such knowledge. Many today unquestionably speak about balance in our emphasis between worship, discipleship, evangelism, ministry, and fellowship. Perhaps they mean to say that we should not neglect any of these areas which is true; however, what I am saying is that it is not Scriptural at all to attempt to equally balance these areas emphatically. Rather, it is Scriptural to make discipleship primary. Read Luke 10:39-42:

"She had a sister called Mary, who was seated at the Lord's feet, listening to His word. But Martha was distracted with all her preparations; and she came up to Him and said, "Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to do all the serving alone? Then tell her to help me." But the Lord answered and said to her, "Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things; but only one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her."
-Luke 10:39-42

Here you find Jesus sets straight where the priority lies . . .

It's not in service (ministry) -- otherwise Martha would have chosen the good part.

It's not in fellowship -- otherwise the priority would have been for Jesus and Mary to both help Martha so they could all sit down and enjoy each other's company.

It's not in evangelism -- we often neglect to mention that the Great Commission is not to make converts, but to make disciples and to teach them.

It is not in worship either, as we have already shown.


What Mary chose and what Jesus said was necessary was "listening to His word.” Jesus was teaching Mary. He was educating her in the things of God. May we abandon the spirit of practicality that indoctrinates our culture with the philosophy, "You learn by doing". May we deny the notion that theological study is important only in so far as it is practical. Look at the apostolic letters. Do they begin with practical application or theology? Are they dominated by practical application or theological substance. You will find that it is the latter. In Romans, in fact, you don't get to the practical teaching until chapter 12, and even then Paul starts the chapter by pointing out that the transformation of behavior occurs by the renewing of your mind!

The church has lost a sense of what it means to "set your mind on things above". It doesn't mean constantly trying to image what Jesus is doing in heaven, or some illusive, mind-numbing state of consciousness. It means being a nerd for God!!! It means working at thinking about the attributes, purposes, precepts, commands and teachings of God so that we come to the place that we can "prove what the will of God is" [Romans 12:2].

Finally, to complete this encouragement let me simply quote the apostle Paul:

"Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature."
-1 Corinthians 14:2

So then, with all that said, I would like to thank you all for being willing to entertain this discussion. I believe the more we know with confidence about the character and nature of God, the better off we will be. Also, I would like to encourage discussion in these things. Let me make clear that the floor is open for questions or comments. If you are reading this and would like a question answered, or something clarified, or a stronger defense of one of my points (or for an obvious implication of said points), please send your question on to the following e-mail address: dcopeland@syntech-fuelmaster.com.



Regards and Love to All,


Daniel

S.T.S. 1.6 [Point to Ponder]

Here’s one question that frequently stops Christians in their tracks: "If the Gospel alone saves (and it does), then what about the heathen in Africa who never heard? What about that native in some remote, unreached people-group? Can God justly convict a man who hasn't heard about Jesus? Some people hear the Gospel and reject it, but most never hear it. How can God condemn them?”

Christians are ill-equipped to respond because they don't really understand something vital about sin, grace, and mercy. Sin brings guilt. Grace and mercy are gifts. Anyone who is a sinner receives punishment he deserves. Anyone who is saved receives mercy he does not deserve and which is not owed him.

Think of this question: How could the sheriff send anyone to jail if he didn't offer him a pardon first? The answer is simple. If he's guilty, the sheriff is justified in throwing him in jail. There is no obligation to offer a pardon to a guilty man.

The same is true of God. He can justly convict a man who has broken His law even though the sinner has heard nothing about God's pardon in Jesus. God owes no one salvation. He can offer it to whomever He wishes. That's why it's called grace.

Why don’t you just stop what you’re doing right this moment and sing (or pray) the words to that old hymn, “Amazing Grace?” These sobering thoughts should cause you to realize just how blessed you truly are. Thank You, Father, for your undeserved grace and mercy. How could I ever be the same again? I bless Your Name, oh Lord my God.

S.T.S. 1.6 [Closing Comments]

Ahhh . . . THEOLOGY . . . that dirty, 4-lettered “T” word in evangelical circles . . . you know, the one that tends to make folks a bit uncomfortable . . . the one that causes division. After all, it’s not that conducive to the current trend towards seeker-sensitivity. You’re right in one sense – theology can be divisive in nature in that it divides truth from error. That, brothers and sisters, is an extremely vital division that we must be making as modern Believers in the 21st Century. Don’t ever forget, your doctrine is at the most basic level of who you are (although not necessarily your “claimed” beliefs/doctrine). Your conduct naturally flows from your beliefs. I have included an excerpt from a piece dating back to 1978 that fleshes this point out a bit more, and which compliments Daniel’s exhortation to the Body of Christ. Please check it out below:

“Theory without practice is dead, and practice without theory is blind. The trouble with the professing Church is not primarily in its practice, but in its theory. Christians do not know, and many do not care to know, the doctrines of Scripture. Doctrine is intellectual, and Christians are generally anti-intellectual. Doctrine is ivory tower philosophy, and they scorn ivory towers. The ivory tower, however, is the control tower of a civilization. It is a fundamental, theoretical mistake of the practical men to think that they can be merely practical, for practice is always the practice of some theory. The relationship between theory and practice is the relationship between cause and effect . . . if a person truly believes correct theory, then his practice will tend to be correct. The practice of contemporary Christians is immoral because it is the practice of erroneous theory . . .
It is a major theoretical mistake of the practical men to think that they can ignore the ivory towers of the philosophers and theologians as irrelevant to their lives. Every action that the practical men take is governed by the thinking that has occurred in some ivory tower – whether that tower be the British Museum, the Academy, a home in Basel, Switzerland, or a tent in Israel. It is, therefore, the first duty of the Christian to understand correct theory – correct doctrine – and thereby implement correct practice. This order – first theory, then practice – is both logical and Biblical. It is, for example, exhibited in Paul’s epistle to the Romans, in which he spends the first eleven chapters expounding theory and the last five discussing practice. The virtually complete failure of the fathers in the home and the teachers of the professing church to instruct their families and/or congregations in correct doctrine is the cause of the misconduct and cultural impotence of Christians. Twentieth-century (now 21st) American Christians are children carried about with every wind of doctrine, not knowing what they believe, or even if they believe anything for certain. May it come to an end!”

- John W. Robbins, The Trinity Manifesto, October 1978 -